Bicycles, Phoenix Park and traffic

tomasrojo

Hurrache wrote: »

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's like an early attempt to pass the Turing test.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't see how that gives pedestrians right of way in any legal sense, and certainly not in any practical sense.

it explicitly doesn't give pedestrians any right of way - 'STOP' is written on the crossing, for pedestrians looking to cross. couldn't be clearer that they don't have right of way there.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it explicitly doesn't give pedestrians any right of way - 'STOP' is written on the crossing, for pedestrians looking to cross. couldn't be clearer that they don't have right of way there.

Oh yeah, I see that now. Looks as if there's a yield triangle painted there too?

RobertFoster

magicbastarder wrote: »

it explicitly doesn't give pedestrians any right of way - 'STOP' is written on the crossing, for pedestrians looking to cross. couldn't be clearer that they don't have right of way there.

But...

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

If you are a driver you should know that pedestrians and cyclists always take precedence.

In other news, there's no crime in Sweden because:

Birdie Num Num

tomasrojo wrote: »

At this stage, I'm not sure what you're claiming about Chesterfield Avenue. I don't see how it's set up to give pedestrians precedence though. It's not set up to give them right of way at any location or point in time, as far as I can see, and yet you have to cross it to get to the east side of the park, where the café and the zoo are.



O'Donovan's argument is that the park is a major commuter route, especially Chesterfield Avenue. And he's right; the way the park has been allowed to develop, it is a commuter route. And it's treated as such by people using it as such.

"Drivers need to be mindful, blah, blah, blah" is just soft soap for politicians who aren't going to invest in infrastructure or take decisions that will anger people who want to drive where they like. It doesn't mean pedestrians have precedence on Chesterfield Avenue, and they don't.



Chesterfield Avenue is a few kilometres long. We haven't established yet that it does have a pedestrian crossing (and a few painted lines isn't a pedestrian crossing on a commuter route), but even if it has one, that's scandalously low pedestrian provision.

About 2.5 miles.

Look, we'll agree to disagree. A couple of posts back you're advocating for the installation of traffic lights or zebra crossings in the Park. I haven't had the need to put petrol in my car since February.

Pinch Flat

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Are you making this stuff up as you go along? Where did I say there were none on Chesterfield Avenue or where did I point out that there are pedestrian crossings, cross points on Chesterfield Avenue? There are pedestrian and cycle crossing areas throughout the Park. Generally two white parallel lines across the road. Some are marked with give way markings (white triangle) or even stop markings. Similarly there are road junctions in the Park marked with give way and stop signs. These are for road users which is predominantly cars and cyclists.

This is a Public Park and all users of the Park must respect all other lawful users of the Park as is written within the regulations.

There are vast areas of the Park that are pedestrianised and car free, there are other parts that are not through roads, there are sections that are fluid in the sense that they are sometimes closed to vehicles and opened up to pedestrians and vice versa. These changes work well within the Park. An example is the closing off of Chesterfield Ave in part during summer weekends and opening up Odd lamp road to cars to alleviate traffic.

Again it is a Public Park, not the open road and drivers at all times need to be mindful and respectful of pedestrians and cyclists and I would argue that cyclists need to be mindful and respectful of pedestrians. I know I certainly am respectful of other Park users and as a driver I will always give right of way to a pedestrian, horse rider, wheelchair user, cyclist, runner...

So looking at the aerial view, you go and see where the crossings are and I'd guess you might even see one on Chesterfield Avenue.

I mentioned on boards before how I gave way to a family crossing one time while driving into ashtown castle. It was Christmas time (st Stephens day from memory) and the driver behind me was in some apparent hurry to get to an almost empty car park. The driver over took me and jumped the crossing, almost hitting the family. This caused an interesting debate on boards - the amount of motorist who condoned this and admonished me as it wasn't an "official" crossing was quite concerning

tomasrojo

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

About 2.5 miles.

You're dialling in from 2004, I see.

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Look, we'll agree to disagree. A couple of posts back you're advocating for the installation of traffic lights or zebra crossings in the Park.

Yes, madness. My reputation is in ruins.

magicbastarder

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I haven't had the need to put petrol in my car since February.

i haven't eaten red meat in months.
i am not sure how this point is relevant.

a148pro

I don't tend to like Una Mullaly's pieces but I think someone with the social media nous should really put this up to the Greens now to get this decision reversed or see their votes going elsewhere

I'd actually love to see this go to a vote as well as to what should be done

I cannot see the necessity to allow through traffic through the side gates. it really only facilitates rat runs, at the very least don't allow it through them all. Given there's no right turn at Parkgate St maybe they should leave the one way run down to Islandbridge open and the entrance at the top of infirmary road

And the fact that there are no meaningful pedestrian crossings of the main drag is a national embarassment, am sorry to say its so Irish

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, madness. My reputation is in ruins.

Zebra crossings? You monster.

magicbastarder

a148pro wrote: »

someone with the social media nous should really put this up to the Greens now to get this decision reversed or see their votes going elsewhere

that expectation is a dangerous precedent to set though; it's going to be tough for them to fix everything they *have* been given responsibility for, and to also pile on fixing things they *haven't* been given responsibility for is quite a load to expect them to carry. they're only about one seventh of the government.

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

Zebra crossings? You monster.

sure the zoo is nearby, wouldn't it just be phenomenal if they had *actual* zerba crossings?

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

sure the zoo is nearby, wouldn't it just be phenomenal if they had *actual* zerba crossings?

Are you suggesting skinning the zebras to use their hides as road surfacing?

Okay, now we have an actual monster.

AndrewJRenko

buffalo wrote: »

Are you suggesting skinning the zebras to use their hides as road surfacing?

Okay, now we have an actual monster.

Username checks out - just worried about the proposed Buffalo Wings on the menu.

magicbastarder

we can use toucan crossings instead.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

we can use toucan crossings instead.

Given the relative proximity of the Guinness brewery, I sense a marketing tie-in ...

a148pro

magicbastarder wrote: »

that expectation is a dangerous precedent to set though; it's going to be tough for them to fix everything they *have* been given responsibility for, and to also pile on fixing things they *haven't* been given responsibility for is quite a load to expect them to carry. they're only about one seventh of the government.

Yes but this is very simple to fix, can be done literally with the stroke of a pen, and is free

To be honest, the Greens have to be regarded as having responsibility for the cycling welfare of those using the best source of nature and green space in our capital city and the largest used such area in the country.

Isn't Ryan the Minister for transport? Who cares about the OPW. They are fairly undynamic, this is a transport issue.

tomasrojo

This is an OPW matter though. It doesn't come under Transport.

Peregrine

a148pro wrote: »

Isn't Ryan the Minister for transport? Who cares about the OPW. They are fairly undynamic, this is a transport issue.

It's very much an OPW issue. They're OPW roads in an OPW park. Ryan has no say in this.

MojoMaker

Jesus, if politics in Ireland was restricted to the actions of those who were supposed to have accountability for something, we would literally get nothing done, ever.

tomasrojo

I suppose the Greens might try to use whatever leverage they have to put pressure on O'Donovan, but they can't overrule him. It's his department. And they surely won't bring down the coalition after two weeks over an issue like this.

Weepsie

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is an OPW matter though. It doesn't come under Transport.

Which is precisely why O'Donovan shouldn't be doing anything on behalf of "commuters"

tomasrojo

Weepsie wrote: »

Which is precisely why O'Donovan shouldn't be doing anything on behalf of "commuters"

Oh yeah, conceptually it's strongly bleeding over into transport, but how the park is run isn't Ryan's brief.

The conflict between the amenity nature and the thoroughfare nature of the park isn't well handled by the political set-up.

tomasrojo

Michael Pidgeon has written up something about the way forward:
http://pidgeon.ie/where-next-for-the-phoenix-park/

a148pro

tomasrojo wrote: »

Michael Pidgeon has written up something about the way forward:
http://pidgeon.ie/where-next-for-the-phoenix-park/

Useful and helpful piece, as is the twitter thread he links to, I think I'd fully support the twitter suggestions

I had never thought of putting a luas spur through the park, that would be class. It was only this recent controversy that made me realise there's little to no public transport in the park, which is ridiculous. Doubtless there'll be some kind of preventative bottleneck issue at Heuston though.

magicbastarder

it's funny how many people recoil in horror at the idea of dublin buses being allowed in the park, but are OK with hundreds of single occupancy private cars driving through.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's funny how many people recoil in horror at the idea of dublin buses being allowed in the park, but are OK with hundreds of single occupancy private cars driving through.

What the hell is the objection? I know it's out there, but it makes no sense to me.

tomasrojo

a148pro wrote: »

Useful and helpful piece, as is the twitter thread he links to, I think I'd fully support the twitter suggestions

I dropped in the point about the "STOP" pedestrian crossing and theaccomopanying image that others raised here.

Duckjob

Couldn't the LUAS be split off near Heuston St to go to the Park ?

An electric tram would be a good 21th Century solution for people to get to the park. No pollution, little noise, predictable movement behaviors. It could have stops at the Zoo and other main amenities. Ideally have it run further out Cable/Blanch way with a park and ride, so people commuting from further afield could park and have a nice part of the commute going through the beautiful park.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

What the hell is the objection? I know it's out there, but it makes no sense to me.

the reason i mention it specifically is i was talking about it with my father on monday; he thought the ban on buses should be maintained, a general 'oh, you couldn't allow double deckers into the park!'.

i'm not sure if i won him over with my counter argument.