Journalism and cycling

Chiparus

Muahahaha wrote: »

From the Journal article Brendan OBrien of DCC seems to think cyclists can use motorways

Also interesting that he does not deny the needs of cyclists were ignored.

I can see this costing the council millions is legal claims.

LuckyLloyd

Chiparus wrote: »

Also interesting that he does not deny the needs of cyclists were ignored.

I can see this costing the council millions is legal claims.

On what basis?

Beasty

I don't see any basis. If there was you could equally argue the needs of motorists were not fully considered

Cyclists can still use all facilities provided for pedestrians - they just are supposed to get off their bike to do so

There cannot be an obligation to cater for all types of road users when putting in place an improvement to transport infrastructure. Yes those needs should be considered, as seems to have been the case here. They simply concluded, for whatever reason, that additional cycling infrastructure to accommodate this improvement was not appropriate at the time they considered it. The term "ignored" was used by the person asking the question. I think the response was entirely in keeping with an interpretation those needs were considered but discounted for the "greater benefit" of the Luas extension. Now people may have a different opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion

rubadub

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

On what basis?

If you are referring to legal claims I guess he means since the luas people have already effectively admitted

• they are known to be dangerous
• there is a solution, or a harm reducing measure
• they have presumably calculated it is not cost effective

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cross-city-luas-cyclist-fears-may-be-fixed-with-rubber-strips-1.3142194

Colm Ryder, chairman of the advocacy group cyclist.ie and secretary of the Dublin Cycling Campaign, has called on Luas builders to drop their opposition to the rubber strips.
The Luas team had considered fitting the strips along the length of the line, but rejected the idea because they would need constant renewal and would be too expensive.

still makes my blood boil to see that scumbag cuffe involved with this and in articles. 100% hypocrite scum, no doubt sitting back and laughing at those he misled.

LuckyLloyd

They are essentially concluding that the rubber strips create an illusion of safety, as they wear down quickly and cannot be reasonably maintained. The builders of CC LUAS are clearly advocating for cyclists to not use the particularly dangerous parts and have put up signs indicating to dismount. I don't see where a legal claim will be successful.

There's no - one or nothing to sue here. Bull on cycling along the Cross City route should you wish, but the dangers are clearly called out. I'd personally give it a miss and figure out some alternative.

ED E

The problem is that it destroys city permeability which is a DCC goal as set out by their own handbook.

SPDUB

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They are essentially concluding that the rubber strips create an illusion of safety, as they wear down quickly and cannot be reasonably maintained. The builders of CC LUAS are clearly advocating for cyclists to not use the particularly dangerous parts and have put up signs indicating to dismount. I don't see where a legal claim will be successful.

There's no - one or nothing to sue here. Bull on cycling along the Cross City route should you wish, but the dangers are clearly called out. I'd personally give it a miss and figure out some alternative.

Shouldn't it be their duty to help provide an alternative like for example allowing cyclists to use current one way streets in both directions .

To give an example in my case to go home from the city centre there is a number of one way streets that I can access to make the diversion from the CC Luas ( the most direct route ) relatively small . However to actually get into the city centre without using the CC Luas route or those streets would basically double the journey distance

Why should they be absolved of even trying to provide alternative routes ?

Lumen

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They are essentially concluding that the rubber strips create an illusion of safety, as they wear down quickly and cannot be reasonably maintained.

I don't think anyone is making that argument as it's nonsensical. A bit like saying that battery-operated smoke alarms create an "illusion of safety" because they don't work when the batteries are depleted.

No, I think they're arguing that the cost of installing and maintaining them isn't justified.

Which is either a completely reasonable position or a total outrage depending on which position one takes.

I don't use these routes any more, but putting aside the inconvenience of a longer route for through traffic* are there places which are now inaccessible by bike without dismounting?

* this has long been the case with one-way streets in the city centre. They're particularly annoying for cyclists because one-way streets are a mitigation of a car-congestion problem.

SPDUB wrote: »

Shouldn't it be their duty to help provide an alternative

Depends on what you mean by "duty". Public bodies have lots of duties which are often in conflict with each other.

tomasrojo

The rubber infills don't do anything to address the slipping problem, which is the harder problem to avoid (it does address tthe wheel getting stuck in the groove). Well, so said the Edinburgh campaigners. Dublin Cycling Campaign tweeted out a document the Edinburgh lot wrote about it.

That's a good point about allowing two-way cycling on one-way streets. They should be doing it anyway, but that would increase permeability. That should have been considered during planning.

They really didn't bother. They just assumed they'd get a blanket ban on cyclists using the routes, and now assume a Dismount sign will absolve them of any blame. They might be right too. But it would probably be worth forgoing those Luas-track routes (which I have, for the moment anyway) in return for some more discretionary waiving of one-way rules. It's a completely normal practice in the countries who facilitiate cyclists in cities.

tomasrojo

I also have a problem with asking cyclists to wheel their bikes on the footpath at these points. These points are highly congested already with pedestrian traffic, and diverting cyclists, who take up more space than pedestrians, into these pedestrian routes is also counterproductive, if your stated aim is to facilitate walking and cycling. You're just ruining it for both transport modes.

I'm very happy to have the Luas extension. But this lazy negligence isn't acceptable.

tomasrojo

I find it a little ironic too that Dublin City Council narrowly voted against increasing the use of waiving one-way rules for cyclists, which would require cyclists to exercise no more than a modicum of common sense, while simultaneously nonchalantly waving through a plan which will throw even careful and experienced cyclists to the ground in a violent and quasi-random fashion.

LuckyLloyd

tomasrojo wrote: »

I also have a problem with asking cyclists to wheel their bikes on the footpath at these points. These points are highly congested already with pedestrian traffic, and diverting cyclists, who take up more space than pedestrians, into these pedestrian routes is also counterproductive, if your stated aim is to facilitate walking and cycling. You're just ruining it for both transport modes.

I'm very happy to have the Luas extension. But this lazy negligence isn't acceptable.

It's far from ideal, but it's certainly better than putting cyclists in harm's way.

I honestly can't really see where or how cyclists could have been properly accommodated at certain pinch points along the route without fundamentally redesigning footpath and even standing buildings. It simply doesn't work. We all accept however that the CC will carry a far greater volume of passengers and, as such, if a priority needed to be made I can fully accept the decision.

The nonsense in my mind as it stands is pretending cyclists have a place along the major pinch points. Those who have built it certainly agree. The DCC should really ban cyclists from Dawson St and Parnell Square until further notice on that basis. The risk just isn't worth it.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I find it a little ironic too that Dublin City Council narrowly voted against increasing the use of waiving one-way rules for cyclists, which would require cyclists to exercise no more than a modicum of common sense, while simultaneously nonchalantly waving through a plan which will throw even careful and experienced cyclists to the ground in a violent and quasi-random fashion.

And as a counterbalance to taking such a measure, two way cycling along one way streets could be a reasonable compromise.

DCC are just handling the entire CC situation terribly. Cycling provisions are merely a part of that.

Pinch Flat

Irish Times and Indo are reporting road deaths down to all time low since records began....

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ultimately-our-aim-should-be-zero-deaths-2017-was-safest-year-on-record-on-irish-roads-36449243.html

http://on.irishtimes.com/ukV5vsq

the Indo mentions the fact that cycling deaths rose 50% in the last year, but gets overlooked in the irish times. Similar story with the rsa - reduction in road deaths overall, glances over dramatic rise in cycling deaths

Edit - 9pm news on RTÉ just ran a piece on this. No mention of dramatic rise in cycling deaths.

tomasrojo

Some discussion of RSA report here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105701149#post105701149

tomasrojo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's far from ideal, but it's certainly better than putting cyclists in harm's way.

I honestly can't really see where or how cyclists could have been properly accommodated at certain pinch points along the route without fundamentally redesigning footpath and even standing buildings. It simply doesn't work. We all accept however that the CC will carry a far greater volume of passengers and, as such, if a priority needed to be made I can fully accept the decision.

Pedestrians and cyclists combined are a much larger part of the transport mix in the city than the Luas though (I think cycling alone until recently has carried more people into the city centre than the Luas), so it's not a given that they should be given a lower priority.

The ideal situation would be to have worked out attractive alternative routes and heavily signpost and advertise them. This wasn't done. Don't fall for this baloney that they looked and just couldn't find a way. There's no report on the subject beyond the initial consultation that said there was a problem and it would have to be addressed at an early stage in planning. They never did anything with that information.

(I agree, though, that at certain points I don't see what they could do along the Luas route itself, short of shaving a bit off some buildings, or removing the wall in front of Trinity and rebuilding it further back. They had planned to do that in the 60s when they wanted to run an arterial route that way, but they didn't do it then, and they don't do that sort of thing these days with such impunity.)

Chips Lovell

On the subject of the Luas, the boss of Transdev in Ireland was recently quoted in the Irish Times as saying he was surprised at how much uproar there was about cyclists potentially falling on the tracks:

Ireland is “unique” in the way it has highlighted concerns by cyclists as the Luas Cross City is rolled out in Dublin, according to the tram operator’s managing director who says similar issues are not as prevalent in other countries.

I'd been kind of wondering the same thing myself, since there's umpteen other European countries with similar tram systems, but it only seems to be an issue in Dublin and Edinburgh. Aside from Dublin, Bordeaux would be the tram city I'm most familiar with and I don't recall hearing about any complaints.

I'm not really sure why this is though. Could it be connected to construction of new lines, since Edinburgh's trams were rolled out relatively recently, as was the Luas cross city? Or is it something cultural, where English-speaking countries have more of a healthy and safety/personal injury litigation culture? Or something else entirely?

Idleater

I wondered similarly. For instance, trams have been coexisting with a lot of bicycles in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other Dutch cities for as long as I can remember, and my cousins would occasionally joke of falling foul of the tracks after being out and cycling home. It was just one of those things that you looked out for.

Lumen

Snowflakes!

rubadub

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

but it only seems to be an issue in Dublin and Edinburgh. Aside from Dublin, Bordeaux would be the tram city I'm most familiar with and I don't recall hearing about any complaints.

Here is an article of the Swiss testing them in Zurich, and mentioning how they are in place in the netherlands.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&section=nieuws&mode=newsArticle&repository=Z%C3%BCrich+will+test+bicycle-friendly+tram+rails

Zürich will test bicycle-friendly tram rails
23-09-2013

Zürich is going to test a new product designed to prevent cyclists falling as a result of their tires getting stuck in tram rails. The specially designed rails will accommodate an embedded rubber profile.

Actually, filling rails with a rubber profile is not a new thing. This measure has also been adopted in the Netherlands, often at train-tram intersections

And an Australian site mentioning the problem and also mentioning how Germany use the inserts too
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/west-beaches/state-government-close-to-solution-for-cyclists-falling-off-bikes-crossing-tram-tracks-at-jetty-rd-glenelg/news-story/b6f3f47b49bc99b35238a533f777e343

A department spokesman said it was “evaluating a solution that is being used successfully at level crossings in Europe”.


“We are currently reviewing its applicability and will be happy to provide more information as it progresses,” he said.

One solution used in Germany is for rubber or plastic to be placed into the gap between the rail and the road. Bikes ride across it smoothly but trams are heavy enough to push it down.

These appear to be just at crossings, not the entire way along.

magicbastarder

Fianna Fáil want electric cars in bus lanes but campaigners warn of increased danger
http://irishcycle.com/2018/01/02/fianna-fail-want-electric-cars-in-bus-lanes-but-cycling-campaigners-say-it-would-increase-danger/

stupid idea. i bet FF are thinking 'joined-up-thinking!' but all i'm thinking is 'join the dots is for people who can't draw'.

CramCycle

I do think that there is a level of idiocy among several background Fianna Failers, that staggers the mind. I realise other parties have it in spades as well but they just seem to push the envelope that little bit further than anyone else.

Lumen

CramCycle wrote: »

I do think that there is a level of idiocy among several background Fianna Failers, that staggers the mind. I realise other parties have it in spades as well but they just seem to push the envelope that little bit further than anyone else.

They're like populism bots trained on a diet of journal.ie comments.

tomasrojo

I think what makes Edinburgh and Dublin's tram routes problematic is that it mixes cars, bikes and trams in sections that have tracks that can't be crossed at 90 degrees -- not if there are trams and cars behind you anyway.


I cycled all round Basel and the tracks there were easy to negotiate, in my experience. You were warned not to get your wheel stuck in the groove, but there were no points that I came across that required you to lurch into the path of following traffic in an attempt to avoid suboptimal crossing angles.

I haven't tried any of the three pinch points on the bike yet. I will soon though.
(Bottom of Dawson Street, north side of TCD, and Parnell Street ... are there others that are the source of complaint?)

CramCycle

Surely a government grant for Fat bikes, like an extra B2W is the only solution. I will prepare my letter for the Minister.
Cake and Fat bikes for everyone.

Chiparus

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

On the subject of the Luas, the boss of Transdev in Ireland was recently quoted in the Irish Times as saying he was surprised at how much uproar there was about cyclists potentially falling on the tracks:



I'd been kind of wondering the same thing myself, since there's umpteen other European countries with similar tram systems, but it only seems to be an issue in Dublin and Edinburgh. Aside from Dublin, Bordeaux would be the tram city I'm most familiar with and I don't recall hearing about any complaints.

I'm not really sure why this is though. Could it be connected to construction of new lines, since Edinburgh's trams were rolled out relatively recently, as was the Luas cross city? Or is it something cultural, where English-speaking countries have more of a healthy and safety/personal injury litigation culture? Or something else entirely?

World wide it is a problem.
Manchester , Sheffield, London, Toronto, even the US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=YfeQvbIFBks

Lumen

Chiparus wrote: »

World wide it is a problem.
Manchester , Sheffield, London, Toronto, even the US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=YfeQvbIFBks

Are those cops at 0:50?

I love the way the one on the inside does a shoulder check before barging his partner into the roadway. Safety first!

Granolite

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think what makes Edinburgh and Dublin's tram routes problematic is that it mixes cars, bikes and trams in sections that have tracks that can't be crossed at 90 degrees -- not if there are trams and cars behind you anyway.


I cycled all round Basel and the tracks there were easy to negotiate, in my experience. You were warned not to get your wheel stuck in the groove, but there were no points that I came across that required you to lurch into the path of following traffic in an attempt to avoid suboptimal crossing angles.

I haven't tried any of the three pinch points on the bike yet. I will soon though.
(Bottom of Dawson Street, north side of TCD, and Parnell Street ... are there others that are the source of complaint?)

I think this is pretty spot on and isn't being acknowledged by the Transdev spokesperson, who is apparently surprised by the fuss over the Luas track design and poor accommodation for other transport modes.

From a recent visit to Amsterdam I was looking out for tram and bicycle lane intersections and of those I saw in the city local engineers accounted for bicycle crossing using staggered turns / S-shape bends, to allow people cycling cross trams lines perpendicular to the tram line. Needless to say this is still provided whilst maintaining segregation from other public transport and private car traffic.

tomasrojo

When I said that the Luas cross-city mixed bikes, trams and cars on sections that don't facilitate orthogonal crossings, I forgot to mention buses.

(Are there more problem points on the cross-city route than the three I mentioned?)

MediaMan

Chiparus wrote: »

World wide it is a problem.
Manchester , Sheffield, London, Toronto, even the US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=YfeQvbIFBks

This video shows pretty graphically the potential for people to be killed by following vehicles if they slip on the rails. Some very close calls thete!

P_1

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/01/03/picking-the-most-dangerous-country-roads-to-cycle-on-a-guide/

:P