Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Seth Brundle

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yeah it’s sad that 5 axles can still go through Sandymount village at will.

It's the will of the people, seemingly
:rolleyes:

Weepsie

First Up wrote: »

Cycling is great and I'm all for it. But it doesn't work for some people and for some journeys - long distance, shopping, families with small kids, old people and commercial transport to name a few.

Closing Strand Rd to northbound traffic won't put many more bicycles on the road but it will put a lot more cars and trucks through Sandymount village.

I must have imagined all the families with small kids I've seen cycling only today. There's plenty in my area who cycle with small kids, carriers, trailers, those "bike attachments". There are loads of ways.

Old people might be better served cycling, and they might be more willing if safe infrastructure was implemented. Don't forget, theirs a whole generation of drivers who have never passed a test, but have licences. And admittedly this is again purely anecdotal, but I know a fair few cyclists in that are 70+ and are happy to cycle places.

What's long distance?? a 15 km cycle commute is not beyond anyone without impairment (and again, today witnessed a double amputee using a hand cycle, and know of a handful of people using specially adapted bikes).


Shopping? I can carry the weekly shop home on one of my bikes. Some people can carry flat pack furninture home.

The bike is a far more equitable mode of transport. It doesn't matter your age, ability, impairment (to a point). It's cheap, it's clean and it's hugely beneficial to the person doing it.


Commercial is different. But if private vehicle journeys cut be slashed, then commercial trips will be quicker and far more economical.


You have no idea that it won't put more bicycles on the road. When they previously started planning various routes, they did some predictive models on how much cycle traffic flow they would see in about 20 routes around the city. The underestimated every single one, include Sandymount by between 10-20%. And that's without any improvement works done for infrastructure.

You build the correct infrastructure and it will be used. FAr too often we've had half hearted painted lines. This was a properly, promising plan and it's been **** upon by a small number of change resistant folk. If I were beligerent enough I'd organise people to just go and drive around those roads anyway.

knockoutned

First Up wrote: »

Lets hear what he has to say when the first child is killed by a truck on Sandymount Green.

The truck would have to moving at some speed to break through the wall to get into the green, which the current setup of narrow streets and car parked does not allow!

tomasrojo

I'm not going to bore people with my unusual-load carrying efforts again, but I'll just say that carrying shopping on a bike is not difficult, uncommon or expensive to accomplish.

Edit: since someone mentioned it, I know grandparents who carry small kids on bikes. That's not that big a deal either, especially in the Netherlands, but it's hardly crazy talk here either.

Fighting Tao

knockoutned wrote: »

The truck would have to moving at some speed to break through the wall to get into the green, which the current setup of narrow streets and car parked does not allow!

Thanks for the smart reply. Coming from Irishtown allows for decent speeds.

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote:

Report them. There is an app for that.

Report who for what?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Cycling is great and I'm all for it. But it doesn't work for some people and for some journeys - long distance, shopping, families with small kids, old people and commercial transport to name a few.

Fair point, it's clearly impossible to carry any shopping load on a bike;

https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1365271389108908034

And completely impractical for families with kids to travel by bike.
https://twitter.com/MamaMoose_Be/status/1357368167006429186

First Up wrote: »

Lets hear what he has to say when the first child is killed by a truck on Sandymount Green.

Children are killed by motorists on the roads with alarming regularity. The best thing we can do to reduce road deaths is to persuade people to switch to other forms of travel.

knockoutned

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Thanks for the smart reply. Coming from Irishtown allows for decent speeds.

There is nothing smart about it. My kids play in the park daily.

Coming from Irishtown, the truck would first have to pass all the cars pulling in and out outside Tesco, which would slow them down, however, if they still manage to keep their speed, would then have to pull a sharp right before hitting a wall into the green.

It’s this type of “would someone think of the children” nonsense that has lead to this delay.

I know you didn’t post the original point.

First Up

Weepsie wrote:

I must have imagined all the families with small kids I've seen cycling only today. There's plenty in my area who cycle with small kids, carriers, trailers, those "bike attachments". There are loads of ways.

I'm not surprised that the bike lobby has descended on this but they are missing the point. Cyclists and other road users could co-exist on Strand Rd. A dedicated cycle way with a section over the beach and another in the park would be a great amenity, easy to construct and would attract more cyclists

It would give everyone what they need but that isn't Keegan's agenda. So instead, legitimate road users will be inconvenienced and Sandymount and Irishtown will get more traffic than they can safely handle.

Pinch Flat

First Up wrote: »

, legitimate road.

Wait have I missed something - are cyclists not not legitimate road users?

Larbre34

I agree with that.

Its an lazy argument to say that a cycleway on the prom would take six years to design and get through planning. The question ought to be, why wasn't the City Council on top of doing precisely that 6 years ago or even 15 years ago when the Port Tunnel opened?

The case for doing it has always been strong and the CC is using the pandemic both to railroad through substandard alternatives and to cover up their own incompetence in this matter down the years. Also for Keegan to be saying 'we're doing it anyway' before the legal and administrative review processes are complete is pretty disgraceful from an unelected official.

The sooner we have an elected Mayor with strong executive powers over the whole 4 counties of this City, the better for everyone.

Podge_irl

First Up wrote: »

I'm not surprised that the bike lobby has descended on this but they are missing the point. Cyclists and other road users could co-exist on Strand Rd. A dedicated cycle way with a section over the beach and another in the park would be a great amenity, easy to construct and would attract more cyclists

It would give everyone what they need but that isn't Keegan's agenda. So instead, legitimate road users will be inconvenienced and Sandymount and Irishtown will get more traffic than they can safely handle.

Cyclists and motorists should be able to co-exist on basically every road in the country outside motorways. The fact they can't is overwhelmingly the fault of motorists, not cyclists.

Private motor transport is going to become more and more restricted as time goes on. It is inevitable.

First Up

Pinch Flat wrote:

Wait have I missed something - are cyclists not not legitimate road users?

Of course they are but they are not being inconvenienced.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

Report who for what?

5 axles in Sandymount once the ban comes into place. It was discussed a few pages back. Another red herring argument!

Fighting Tao

knockoutned wrote: »

There is nothing smart about it. My kids play in the park daily.

Coming from Irishtown, the truck would first have to pass all the cars pulling in and out outside Tesco, which would slow them down, however, if they still manage to keep their speed, would then have to pull a sharp right before hitting a wall into the green.

It’s this type of “would someone think of the children” nonsense that has lead to this delay.

I know you didn’t post the original point.

It was not me that was arguing about trucks in Sandymount. Read the posts. I said there was a ban coming in as part of the Strand road changes.

First Up

Podge_irl wrote:

Cyclists and motorists should be able to co-exist on basically every road in the country outside motorways. The fact they can't is overwhelmingly the fault of motorists, not cyclists.

That horse has been flogged enough already. Everyone has to use the roads that are available to get to where they need to go.

Podge_irl wrote:

Private motor transport is going to become more and more restricted as time goes on. It is inevitable.

As alternatives emerge, they will be used. In the meantime it would be good if people like Keegan thought more about "and" than "or".

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote:

5 axles in Sandymount once the ban comes into place. It was discussed a few pages back. Another red herring argument!

I don't think many 5 axles use Strand Rd. The traffic forced into the village will be smaller vehicles.

knockoutned

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It was not me that was arguing about trucks in Sandymount. Read the posts. I said there was a ban coming in as part of the Strand road changes.

Before we go back and forward, read my full comment that you quoted. We are both in agreement about the trucks, but my original comment was on another user hyperbole which you said was smart!

Pinch Flat

First Up wrote: »

Of course they are but they are not being inconvenienced.

I think you'll find they are. Spend and afternoon on a bike and you'll soon see how inconvenienced cyclists are.

First Up

Pinch Flat wrote:

I think you'll find they are. Spend and afternoon on a bike and you'll soon see how inconvenienced cyclists are.

Oh I'm sure you suffer no end but that has nothing to do with the plans for Sandymount, which is what we are talking about.

magicbastarder

First Up wrote: »

I don't think many 5 axles use Strand Rd. The traffic forced into the village will be smaller vehicles.

i was passed by quite a few when i was commuting, i suspect deliveries to the frascati centre and the like.

First Up

magicbastarder wrote:

i was passed by quite a few when i was commuting, i suspect deliveries to the frascati centre and the like.

Can they still use it southbound?

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

The sooner we have an elected Mayor with strong executive powers over the whole 4 counties of this City, the better for everyone.

Do you want strong executive powers or not? If Keegan was elected Mayor, say by the majority who responded to the public consultation, you'd be perfectly happy with all this?

Larbre34

buffalo wrote: »

Do you want strong executive powers or not? If Keegan was elected Mayor, say by the majority who responded to the public consultation, you'd be perfectly happy with all this?

Nope.

I'd be happy if the City Council followed the law. An elected Mayor could be held to account directly for that. Keegan can't.

Whats happened the last few weeks and months is an abuse of process on the part of the Council.

Larbre34

I think there's some confusion.

The 5-axle ban extension is off.

Weepsie

knockoutned wrote: »

It’s this type of “would someone think of the children” nonsense that has lead to this delay.

.

It's this type of won't someone think of the children type nonsense that people have objected to works that are for the greater good of a much wider network than what happens inside their own little.worlds.

It's a bit incestuous really.

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats been suspended along with the cycleway works (per DCC twitter yesterday). Hopefully we will see the buses revert to their regular routing too asap.

Why would they ? It’s only suspended. It’s the route they’ll use in Future

ted1

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nope.

I'd be happy if the City Council followed the law. An elected Mayor could be held to account directly for that. Keegan can't.

Whats happened the last few weeks and months is an abuse of process on the part of the Council.

That’s your personal opinion. Not the courts.
As far as everybody knows the law has been followed.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think there's some confusion.

The 5-axle ban extension is off.

Yes. The court action ensured that 5 axles can drive right through Sandymount for another while. Some locals and yourself must be delighted to have trucks in the village.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nope.

I'd be happy if the City Council followed the law. An elected Mayor could be held to account directly for that. Keegan can't.

Whats happened the last few weeks and months is an abuse of process on the part of the Council.

So you'd be okay with Keegan as Mayor, because he could then be held to account?