Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycling across the Eastlink

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Crocked
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Crocked


    Utdfan20titles wrote: »
    Cyclists don't pay the toll to use the road bridge like other vehicles

    Do motorbikes?


  • Options
    #63
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


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



    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.


    Do we need an accident to happen due to cross wind before we address it?


  • Options
    #64
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,395 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    why can't we all just get along?


  • Options
    #65
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    average_runner wrote: »
    Do we need an accident to happen due to cross wind before we address it?

    How Old is the Bridge?
    How Many "Wind Issues" have there been so far?
    Is it possible we're discussing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?


  • Options
    #66
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Mercian Pro wrote: »
    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.
    or is it risk/litigation aversion - the fact that an attempt was made to address the safety of cyclists (regardless of how effective that attempt is) means they're able to point to something in case a cyclist was killed or seriously injured?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Mercian Pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭Mercian Pro


    average_runner wrote: »
    Do we need an accident to happen due to cross wind before we address it?

    And your considered assessment of the risk is based on what exactly?

    If it is all that exposed there, I would expect the bridge to be closed to high-sided vehicles (trucks) once the wind speed exceeded a certain limit.


  • Options
    #68
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    How Old is the Bridge?
    How Many "Wind Issues" have there been so far?
    Is it possible we're discussing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?


    I hope you are right, that no accident ever happens.

    But from what I have experienced on it, when running across it twice/three times a week, its only a matter of time before someone gets hurts. God knows what it is like for a cyclists.


  • Options
    #69
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,296 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Utdfan20titles wrote: »
    Cyclists don't pay the toll to use the road bridge like other vehicles
    Motorcycles don't have to pay either.
    07Lapierre wrote: »
    How Old is the Bridge?
    How Many "Wind Issues" have there been so far?
    Is it possible we're discussing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?
    You could also say "why do we have to wait for someone to get killed in order to do something about it?"


  • Options
    #70
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    average_runner wrote: »
    God knows what it is like for a cyclists.

    Dont ask God...Ask a cyclist. :P


  • Options
    #71
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,113 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    average_runner wrote: »
    I hope you are right, that no accident ever happens.

    But from what I have experienced on it, when running across it twice/three times a week, its only a matter of time before someone gets hurts. God knows what it is like for a cyclists.

    i cycle over this bridge both directions every day and can say that the greatest risk to & from cyclists relates to those who cycle on the footpaths. i take a position going north to south that prevents the moving traffic from passing me and i clearly signal i'm turning right at the end of the bridge (into ringsend). i never get any hassle from drivers, either with beeping or people trying to dangerously overtake.

    in my opinion there are far worse roads for cycling in the city and they don't have signs banning cyclists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Mercian Pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭Mercian Pro


    average_runner wrote: »
    But from what I have experienced on it, when running across it twice/three times a week, its only a matter of time before someone gets hurts.

    Are you sure that's safe?;)


  • Options
    #73
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Cienciano wrote: »
    Motorcycles don't have to pay either.


    You could also say "why do we have to wait for someone to get killed in order to do something about it?"

    OK...can we also get a few Lightening rods installed on the bridge?

    I have a few other suggestions too:

    1. The Road surface..can we change it to that soft padded stuff they use in Kids playgrounds.
    2. The railings, can we cover them in bubblewrap?
    3. Can we have a Paramedic on duty 24hours a day?
    4. Can we have a defibrillator installed in case a jogger has a heart attack?


  • Options
    #74
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    What's the alternative bridge, by the way, the Beckett? It looks a bit fiddly to get to, coming from the south. (The bridge with the red teardrop is Tom Clarke/Eastlink, the one to the west of that on the main river is the Sam Beckett.)

    395077.png


  • Options
    #75
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Mercian Pro wrote: »
    Are you sure that's safe?;)


    At times I have stop running and just put my hand on the hand rail and walked across.
    Its just very open there


  • Options
    #76
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    average_runner wrote: »
    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!

    Do they need to deviate from the road? If yes then its off the route. Whether you think that is a big deviation is not the point.

    Why would me staying on the road lead to my death? Is there something about that particular part of the route that stipulates that motor vehicles can park their responsibility to look out for other road users? Its this very thinking that causes the problem. Cyclists have their own route so I can do whatever I like and if someones gets in my way then its their fault.


  • Options
    #77
    Kev_2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Kev_2012


    Just get off the bike?

    There are bad crosswinds across the bridges on the Liffey and it's a narrow bridge.

    But you cyclists would just ignore the damn signs anyway like ye do on the Sean O'Casey bridge!! :mad:


  • Options
    #78
    jimd2
    Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭jimd2


    Seaswimmer wrote: »
    Having witnessed a guard stopping a cyclist crossing the Eastlink and requesting them to dismount I recently received the below reply from DCC following a number of emails back and forth.

    Personally I continue to cycle across both ways twice a day without incident.


    You mightnt have noticed it but I note that you blanked out your own name while leaving the name of the official that responded to you in the original post. Is that not a little unfair or against the forum charter etc?

    I think you should edit the post and take his name out, I am sure you wouldn't like your own name copied and pasted across the web if you had an interaction with someone through your work.

    On the subject I wouldn't have thought that cycling on the Eastlink is a big issue but what will the consequential effect of the ban be if there is an accident on the bridge involving a cyclist considering that they had been informed not to cycle on the bridge?


  • Options
    #79
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,079 ✭✭✭buffalo


    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.

    All the more reason to cycle assertively on the road - you're clearly visible to other road users, and they can anticipate your actions.

    Being on the path puts you outside the 'road' to most road users. Hopping down off a high kerb to rejoin traffic at a random point (last time I crossed it I didn't notice a designated ramp) is unpredictable behaviour, and therefore more risky.


  • Options
    #80
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    But you cyclists would just ignore the damn… :mad:

    Way to generalise, Kevster!


  • Options
    #81
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    Just get off the bike?

    There are bad crosswinds across the bridges on the Liffey and it's a narrow bridge.

    But you cyclists would just ignore the damn signs anyway like ye do on the Sean O'Casey bridge!! :mad:

    Why should we get off the bike? No reason for it has been give. Crosswinds has been put out as a possible, but then it begs the question about letting people walk across, or motorbikes, or high-sided vehicles, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

    If the bridge is unsafe, (and not being an engineer I have not empirical evidence, but I do not know of any statistics to point to this particular bridge being a major outlier in terms of accidents) then corrective action should be taken to bring the road into safe situation.

    IMO, all the evidence seems to point to this simply being a way to get cyclists out of the way of the motor vehicles so they don't have to slow down. If they really want to achieve this then build an alternative bridge in line with this one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    IMO, all the evidence seems to point to this simply being a way to get cyclists out of the way of the motor vehicles so they don't have to slow down. If they really want to achieve this then build an alternative bridge in line with this one.

    …or add an outside boardwalk-style cycle track off the side of the bridge.


  • Options
    #83
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Do they need to deviate from the road? If yes then its off the route. Whether you think that is a big deviation is not the point.

    Why would me staying on the road lead to my death? Is there something about that particular part of the route that stipulates that motor vehicles can park their responsibility to look out for other road users? Its this very thinking that causes the problem. Cyclists have their own route so I can do whatever I like and if someones gets in my way then its their fault.


    Where the cars come off the m50 at liffey valley and the traffic all merges, its pretty bad there. Now if you decide you want to cycle there and take an unneeded risk, you go ahead, it doesn't matter if your in the right or wrong, if you end up in an zombie state or dead.


  • Options
    #84
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Whaaaaat?

    395080.jpg


  • Options
    #85
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    But you cyclists would just ignore the damn signs anyway like ye do on the Sean O'Casey bridge!!
    what signs are on the sean o'casey bridge?


  • Options
    #86
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    I've only been across it twice on a bike & I dismounted and walked across both ways. The roadway is very narrow and I wouldn't feel comfortable cycling across it with a line of vehicles behind me looking to pass. It takes one impatient driver who sees the no bikes sign and tries to force an overtake because they think (rightly in one sense) that you shouldn't be there to cause a serious accident.

    I see more and more evidence of double standard on this forum. If a car happened to go into a bike there is general uproar, but here are cyclists trying to justify (for a myriad of sully reasons) cycling across a bridge with 'no cycling' signs on it.

    You can't have it both ways.


  • Options
    #87
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    IMO, all the evidence seems to point to this simply being a way to get cyclists out of the way of the motor vehicles so they don't have to slow down. If they really want to achieve this then build an alternative bridge in line with this one.


    Or maybe the answer is to remove the footpaths and replace them with a cycle lane? it would be easier to modify the bridge with a metal walkway on either side for pedestrians.


  • Options
    #88
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    wotswattage wrote: »
    I've only been across it twice on a bike & I dismounted and walked across both ways. The roadway is very narrow and I wouldn't feel comfortable cycling across it with a line of vehicles behind me looking to pass.

    If your not comfortable ...that's fine..take an alternate route, but a lot of cyclists are quite capable of cycling over that bridge without being a hindrance to other road users. Making it illegal for ALL cyclists is overkill and totally unnecessary.


  • Options
    #89
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    wotswattage wrote: »
    I see more and more evidence of double standard on this forum. If a car happened to go into a bike there is general uproar, but here are cyclists trying to justify (for a myriad of sully reasons) cycling across a bridge with 'no cycling' signs on it.
    do you not see the underlying reason, though?
    denying a car access to a cycle lane in no way impedes the progress of a car (except for parking, if you want to allow that); cars are not exactly faced with a lot of access restrictions on the road network.
    trying to draw a parallel with a situation where cyclists are actually prevented from cycling doesn't work.


  • Options
    #90
    wotswattage
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭wotswattage


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    If your not comfortable ...that's fine..take an alternate route, but a lot of cyclists are quite capable of cycling over that bridge without being a hindrance to other road users. Making it illegal for ALL cyclists is overkill and totally unnecessary.

    I couldn't care less about being a hindrance to a motorist I'm concerned about someone knocking me off the bike if they tried to pass me, which they would if they saw the no cycling signs and formed the opinion that the bike shouldn't even be there. Its like a red rag to a bull. Self preservation goes a long way on a bike.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Kev_2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Kev_2012


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Way to generalise, Kevster!

    Well as someone who walks home every day I witness it every day. I probably see 4-5 cyclists each time I cross the Sean O Casey bridge and probably 1 every 3-4 days (1 out of 16-20 cyclists) will actually dismount, so it's not really generalisation it's simply stating what I see every day.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why should we get off the bike? No reason for it has been give. Crosswinds has been put out as a possible, but then it begs the question about letting people walk across, or motorbikes, or high-sided vehicles, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

    If the bridge is unsafe, (and not being an engineer I have not empirical evidence, but I do not know of any statistics to point to this particular bridge being a major outlier in terms of accidents) then corrective action should be taken to bring the road into safe situation.

    IMO, all the evidence seems to point to this simply being a way to get cyclists out of the way of the motor vehicles so they don't have to slow down. If they really want to achieve this then build an alternative bridge in line with this one.

    Well the bridge is built, it's there a while now and it's not built for cyclists, so just get off the bike.
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    what signs are on the sean o'casey bridge?

    There are many signs on the bollards as you get on the bridge.


Advertisement