Cycling across the Eastlink

Seaswimmer

tomasrojo wrote: »

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".

:):):):):):)

Chuchote

It would be nice if we could have a small oval sign on every traffic light that says "A pause to reflect", to calm everyone down!

tomasrojo

Perhaps with a peal of distant bells, Angelus-style.

Seaswimmer

tomasrojo wrote: »

Perhaps with a peal of distant bells, Angelus-style.

well if you are ever stuck at the Merrion Gates around 18:00 the convent across the road does a lovely rendition of "The Bells of the Angelus"

2RockMountain

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.

You can't have it both ways.

Owen Keegan seems to think differently.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

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.

Oh dear, that sounds very scary. There must be one or two people being killed each evening by those scary cyclists, and few more injured - is that what we're seeing in the injury stats?

wotswattage wrote: »

You would imagine so wouldn't you, but we know how angry drivers get with cyclists disobeying the rules. One angry driver teaching a militant cyclist a lesson by overtaking dangerously and it's curtains for the cyclist.

Or to be clearer, we know how angry, speeding, phoning/texting, red-light-jumping drivers get with cyclists disobeying rules.

Chuchote wrote: »

I can't understand why drivers are in such a hurry. They're sitting there comfortably in an armchair, and their only exercise will be the walk from front door to car at either end. Relax!

I can't understand why they're in such a hurry to the back of the next queue of cars at the next red light.

Seaswimmer wrote: »

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.

Seaswimmer wrote: »

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.

Brilliant, thanks for following up - that's a great result.

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

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

well, OF COURSE i meant for the less confident cyclist...

Chuchote

Let's hope Owen Keegan will now go for a mile of protected cycle lane to & from every school, to solve so many problems from carbon overload to child obesity.

bazermc

So what's the story, can I cycle across the bridge or what?

Orion

bazermc wrote: »

So what's the story, can I cycle across the bridge or what?

Depends. Do you have a bike? :pac:

bazermc

Orion wrote: »

Depends. Do you have a bike? :pac:

Is a bike necessary when one desires a a cycle ?

magicbastarder

A bike is not necessary to desire a cycle, no.

OldBean

This may have been already said, but imagine a world where the sign said "Cyclists, take primary position" and a sign showing a cyclist in the middle of the road.

In its current form, I reluctantly agree with the sign, I've had some bad experiences a while ago before realising the sign requesting a dismount was on the wrong side of the road from fellow traffic - Even though I'm travelling at the same pace. And there isn't enough room for emergency manoeuvres because of impatience/road rage. Luckily I don't have to use it anymore, but I don't think asking cyclists to dismount just before a bottleneck is a safe decision either, and I think I have far more control of my bike in the wind while riding on top of it, rather than pushing it across a narrow footpath.

Seaswimmer

Well the signs are gone. That was quick. Now to wait for the replacements!!

Mercian Pro

Seaswimmer wrote: »

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.

Well done Seaswimmer. As a matter of interest, did you write directly to the City Manager or did you raise the issue on the DCC website. Whatever you did, it was very effective.

I do wonder though, if the new signs impacted on motorists rather than cyclists, would the wording have checked more thoroughly.

Seaswimmer

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Well done Seaswimmer. As a matter of interest, did you write directly to the City Manager or did you raise the issue on the DCC website. Whatever you did, it was very effective.

I do wonder though, if the new signs impacted on motorists rather than cyclists, would the wording have checked more thoroughly.

I emailed the traffic section of DCC a couple of years ago to find out if the signs were legal as the Eastlink was then privately owned. Nothing happened for a long time despite me sending regular emails about my initial query. Recently I got an email from the area engineer saying he had examined the signs and they were perfectly legal as the "no cycling" sign was in the manual. As the road had now become an R road I accepted this.

Around this time the new signs went up with the Irish wording and the "requested" changed to "required". This time I emailed Owen Keegan directly and copied in Andrew Montague pointing out that a major north/south route for cycling had been effectively closed off and also highlighting some of the other issues with dismounting pointed out by posters here

The response was almost immediate so fair play to DCC I suppose.

Probably helps that Owen Keegan cycles a fair bit.

Mercian Pro

I had limited success on a cycling related issue a few years ago and I followed a broadly similar path. Persistence sometimes pays off but getting the top person to consider it certainly helps. Unfortunately, my experience of contacting the Cycling Officers (past and present) rarely produced anything other than a standard acknowledgement.

mr spuckler

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Well the signs are gone. That was quick. Now to wait for the replacements!!

that was very quick! i was wondering was i seeing things this morning when i looked out for them!

bazermc

So what will happen, are they going to put up new signs saying cyclists are recommended not to cycle across the bridge and of course the same in Irish!!!

I also think they need to say - do not cycle on the footpath across the bridge. Of course people ignore signs so either way it is a waste of money

Seaswimmer

bazermc wrote: »

So what will happen, are they going to put up new signs saying cyclists are recommended not to cycle across the bridge and of course the same in Irish!!!

I also think they need to say - do not cycle on the footpath across the bridge. Of course people ignore signs so either way it is a waste of money

Email below from Head of Technical Services to Owen Keegan.



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.

Koobcam

Does look a bit narrow in fairness. Plenty of other bridges to cycle across the Liffey surely? The one that looks like a harp (James Joyce?), is grand and not too far from there.

buffalo

Koobcam wrote: »

Does look a bit narrow in fairness. Plenty of other bridges to cycle across the Liffey surely? The one that looks like a harp (James Joyce?), is grand and not too far from there.

Too narrow for a bike? How wide are your tyres?

Seaswimmer

Koobcam wrote: »

Does look a bit narrow in fairness. Plenty of other bridges to cycle across the Liffey surely? The one that looks like a harp (James Joyce?), is grand and not too far from there.

Well maybe if you want to add a couple of extra kilometres onto your trip.

Carawaystick

Koobcam wrote: »

Does look a bit narrow in fairness. Plenty of other bridges to cycle across the Liffey surely? The one that looks like a harp (James Joyce?), is grand and not too far from there.

You can't turn left off the North Quay onto that bridge.

How is the eastlink narrow when hgv's can pass no bother on it?

Koobcam

Carawaystick wrote: »

You can't turn left off the North Quay onto that bridge.

How is the eastlink narrow when hgv's can pass no bother on it?

Narrow in the sense that when there's lot's of traffic then there's no room for cars to pass bikes. Just judging from the picture mind, it's not a bridge that I'd normally take.

cjt156

Koobcam wrote: »

...there's no room for cars to pass bikes...

For the sake of a hundred yards or so couldn't drivers just wait behind a cyclist and overtake later? It's not like they're going to get far - either into the toll plaza or the roundabout.

07Lapierre

Koobcam wrote: »

Narrow in the sense that when there's lot's of traffic then there's no room for cars to pass bikes. Just judging from the picture mind, it's not a bridge that I'd normally take.

There's also a solid white line painted on the road..so no overtaking allowed anyway.

https://goo.gl/maps/HhkvWAZM5wJ2

magicbastarder

Koobcam wrote: »

Narrow in the sense that when there's lot's of traffic then there's no room for cars to pass bikes.

i've never cycled it, but i'd be taking primary position on it i reckon, so cars wouldn't have much opportunity to pass.

irishrover99

I don't see a strava segment for this bridge. If we create on i'm sure it could be crossed in about 15 seconds. Sure cars would have to break the speed limit to catch us

Koobcam

cjt156 wrote: »

For the sake of a hundred yards or so couldn't drivers just wait behind a cyclist and overtake later? It's not like they're going to get far - either into the toll plaza or the roundabout.

Yes of course they could, but many won't, so just for the sake of avoiding the ire of an angry motorist (or more importantly someone driving a large HGV bicycle-exterminating truck), it might be just a bit more sensible to take another bridge. Or just don't give them room to pass, but that depends on how confident you are doing that in traffic.

beauf

I think its more that an inexperienced cyclist will stay left and try squeeze up the inside of a HGV on a narrow bridge.