Cycling across the Eastlink

magicbastarder

andrew montague has been very approachable on the one or two issues i've raised with him. a pity there's not more like him.

07Lapierre

wotswattage wrote: »

I'm just as insistent that it's my funeral when I'm on the bike. Hence my caution / fear of aggressive or inattentive drivers.

You should take some comfort from the OP's original post..

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

Seaswimmer

jimd2 wrote: »

So you ignore the point about quoting the official's name (and add more here) but conveniently take out your own name from the postings.

Do you not see something wrong with this?

I have removed the officials name now.

Both Owen Keegan and Andrew Montague are easily contactable through the councils website and as pointed out are public figures.

I didn't realise it was a prerequisite of boards.ie that people used their own names.

Atlantic Dawn

Could someone from DCC explain how a cyclist can get from south to north legally and safely heading towards Dublin Port main entrance, I'd love to know?

tomasrojo

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could someone from DCC explain how a cyclist can get from south to north legally and safely heading towards Dublin Port main entrance, I'd love to know?

Walk, I suppose.

MediaMan

wotswattage wrote: »

Unreasonable as that perspective may be, there are a lot of angry drivers who hate cyclists.

I'm curious as to why all these drivers are so angry. In what way are cyclists materially diminishing their quality of life? And I think it's fair to say that enlightened societies nowadays take a pretty dim view of those who hate specific groupings of people, especially if they start externalising those feelings into abusive talk and actions.

So if this conjecture is really true then this is an area where the RSA, local authorities and ultimately the Garda need to be focusing some attention.

tomasrojo

I think people's more casual prejudicial impulses are being channelled towards red-haired people and cyclists now. You're "allowed" to dislike and mock them.

average_runner

Mercian Pro wrote: »

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.

Its based on the fact that I am down there very often going across the bridge, whats your experience with the bridge?

beauf

That whole area is really windy. But I dont think thats why there are signs. We are all just guessing.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

andrew montague has been very approachable on the one or two issues i've raised with him. a pity there's not more like him.

Yes, he's very likeable.

beauf

Why not a sign cyclists stay centre lane. Drivers no overtaking cyclists.

tomasrojo

As Montague said, it's one of the main North-South transport connections in Dublin. Cyclists have to have provision on it. Those are DCC's commitments.

As for safety being the reason, it's possible that someone way back (as the No Cycling sign has been there for some years) thought it wasn't safe. Equally, someone might just have though that cyclists would slow motorised vehicles down, and safety is always a handy fallback to forbid cyclists from doing something. Royal Mail decided to phase out delivery bicycles in the UK, and gave as their reason safety concerns. The employees, who liked the delivery bicycles, asked for the data this concern was based on, and Royal Mail changed the reason. They didn't have any data suggesting delivery bicycles were dangerous.

beauf

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could someone from DCC explain how a cyclist can get from south to north legally and safely heading towards Dublin Port main entrance, I'd love to know?

Use the next bridge?

I think it would be better to ask for accident stats.

I think its an unpleasant route to cycle. I rarely use it though. I usually out for a walk when I use that bridge.

average_runner

beauf wrote: »

Use the next bridge?

I think it would be better to ask for accident stats.

I think its an unpleasant route to cycle. I rarely use it though. I usually out for a walk when I use that bridge.

Stats can be use for and against things, they are easy to read into too much.

The only thing each individual got to consider, is it worth crossing that bridge on a very windy day. Once your happy with that choice, you can have no complaints if you get knocked off your bike by the wind or get blown off the footpath when out for a run.

tomasrojo

They can always change the sign to say something like "Cyclists, do not use bridge when there are strong crosswinds"

Is there a "windsock" sign there? If not, the council aren't that concerned about crosswinds.

jimd2

Seaswimmer wrote: »

I have removed the officials name now.

Both Owen Keegan and Andrew Montague are easily contactable through the councils website and as pointed out are public figures.

I didn't realise it was a prerequisite of boards.ie that people used their own names.

No it's not a prerequisite, I was just pointing out that we are all cognnisant of not using our own names in certain threads etc.

I agree ref Owen & Andrew, their names are generally in the public domain.

tomasrojo

average_runner wrote: »

Stats can be use for and against things, they are easy to read into too much.

As someone trained in statistics, I have to disagree!

However, there are strong caveats around all road-safety stats (or epidemiological stats in general). A big one is that a road can have low Killed/Serious Injury stats either because it is very safe (vulnerable people use it without incurring serious risk) or because it is very dangerous (vulnerable people complete eschew the road, because it is so risky).

I don't think the latter applies to this road, but it's not the most attractive road either.

Mercian Pro

average_runner wrote: »

Its based on the fact that I am down there very often going across the bridge, whats your experience with the bridge?

As a cyclist I would use it about twice a month, as a pedestrian a bit less often and as a motorist once or twice a year.

If the long promised S2S (Sutton to Sandycove) Cycleway is ever completed, I would expect to use it a lot more often.

mr spuckler

average_runner wrote: »

Its based on the fact that I am down there very often going across the bridge, whats your experience with the bridge?

and i cycle it twice a day everyday in all weather conditions and have already described how i don't find it particularly dangerous to cycle. if we're goning to ban cyclists from every badly surfaced and designed road in dublin then we might as well all hang up our steeds

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

Why not a sign cyclists stay centre lane. Drivers no overtaking cyclists.

[impractical suggestion]why not have a 'cyclist crossing' light similar to a pedestrian light - one that when triggered by a cyclist, triggers a red (for motorists) for 10 seconds, to give them a head start over the motorised traffic?[/impractial suggestion]

Mercian Pro

Why are we wasting space talking about the wind? There is no evidence anywhere ASAIK that this was a factor in DCC's decision to put up the signs.

Maybe they will blow away and we can close this thread:)

Orion

wotswattage wrote: »

which they would if they saw the no cycling signs and formed the opinion that the bike shouldn't even be there.

So remove the signs and that problem's solved.

68 lost souls

beauf wrote: »

Use the next bridge?

I may be wrong but I believe the next bridge has no right turn travelin south to north and no left turn traveling north to south to ensure people must use the east link?

beauf

68 lost souls wrote: »

I may be wrong but I believe the next bridge has no right turn travelin south to north and no left turn traveling north to south to ensure people must use the east link?

Nothing to stop you dismounting. crossing to the cycle lane then remounting.

We all know none of these routes. On road or cycle lanes, have easy transitions for cyclists. Whom ever designed then never used a bike on them.

I'm not saying cyclists shouldn't use the bridge, just that's the answer you'll get. Also cars also have to drive bizarre routes around that part of Dublin all to force traffic to use the toll. Or just stay away from the area entirely. It's a car park at peak anyway.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

[impractical suggestion]why not have a 'cyclist crossing' light similar to a pedestrian light - one that when triggered by a cyclist, triggers a red (for motorists) for 10 seconds, to give them a head start over the motorised traffic?[/impractial suggestion]

Are you saying you need a head start.....

beauf

They routed the Dublin city cycle over that bridge one year. Thought it was a poor route for that.

Seaswimmer

A bit of good news maybe???

Owen

It appears that when the signs were being made bi lingual the original wording of "cyclists are requested " became "cyclists are required " which is completely incorrect.

I have instructed they be removed and we will look to put some signage for Traffic to warn them to be cautious of cyclists or words to that effect.

tomasrojo

Where did that come from? Owen Keegan?

Seaswimmer

tomasrojo wrote: »

Where did that come from? Owen Keegan?

looks like it.. in a roundabout way.




Dear Mr xxx,



At the request of the Chief Executive, I enclose herewith an update from the City Council’s Head of Technical Services with respect to the issues you raised in your email.



Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require additional information.



Kind Regards,





On Behalf of Owen Keegan.

tomasrojo

Well, that's great news. Now we just need the Department of Transport and Sport to overrule DCC, and Shane Ross to promise to liaise with the Gardaí and the RSA to put back the wording "required".