Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Brian?

Weepsie wrote: »

So when one point fails, onto the next stupid one?

Why wouldn't 60+ years old use it. 60 isn't particularly old. I know quite a few over 70s who cycle either for leisure, exercise and commutting. A neighbour of mine cycled everywhere up until his passing, despite having a car.

Less cars, would make it a lot more appealing for them to cycle too, and with pedal assist and an ever increasing improvement in eBikes it would make sense.

That's before we get to the health benefits

I cycle past people in their 70s and 80s on bikes all the time. A lot of them use e bikes these days. It's the standard in the Netherlands. It keeps people active and healthy

First Up

Dowee wrote:

Don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you could share a screenshot of your measurement.

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=how+to+take+a+screenshot+on+my+phone

Weepsie

No matter which way you dress it up, its 700 metres. The only way those directions get close to that is if you're walking through sandymount green and going from the other end of seafort avenue to the other end of gilford rd.

And you can quite easily do a screen shot on your phone

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

MOD VOICE: It isn't what you claim, end of discussion. Other posters have put up proof, I have stupidly wasted time double checking. If you disagree come to me with proof via PM but if you post in thread again saying its something it isn't, you will be banned. I have better things to be doing than responding to this.

Dowee

First Up wrote: »

Can't do that on phone. Go into Maps and enter Gilford Rd, then under Directions put Seafort Ave as the starting point. The go into Steps and see how far is the section along Strand Rd.

If you click on my link here Gilford Rd to Seafort Ave.png you'll see that's what I've done.

Any chance you're looking at the distance in miles? It's about 0.4 of a mile.

Trudee

CramCycle wrote: »

MOD VOICE: It isn't what you claim, end of discussion. Other posters have put up proof, I have stupidly wasted time double checking. If you disagree come to me with proof via PM but if you post in thread again saying its something it isn't, you will be banned. I have better things to be doing than responding to this.

A most unusual way of dealing with First Up posts, from my reading of last few pages of posts from First Up I find it really shocking that you would consider banning him/her for their views, opinions, measurements etc

Alias G

Trudee wrote: »

A most unusual way of dealing with First Up posts, from my reading of last few pages of posts from First Up I find it really shocking that you would consider banning him/her for their views, opinions, measurements etc

If he/she actually bothered producing evidence of those measurements or indeed any substantive evidence to back up his/her opinions, then you might have a point. He/she was challenged numerous times to do so and failed to deliver. Others actually went to the effort of measuring the length of the suggested boardwalk, produced clear evidence of it. And yet still FU persists with intentional obfuscation. How to you think non serious and non faithful debating such as that should be tolerated.

CramCycle

Trudee wrote: »

A most unusual way of dealing with First Up posts, from my reading of last few pages of posts from First Up I find it really shocking that you would consider banning him/her for their views, opinions, measurements etc

MOD VOICE: Discussion via PM please, do not discuss mod decisions in thread. First Up has been advised of the standard of posting expected. As with all posters, if you make a claim, be prepared to back it up with reasoned discussion and facts. This is for all posters.

Trudee

Alias G wrote: »

If he/she actually bothered producing evidence of those measurements or indeed any substantive evidence to back up his/her opinions, then you might have a point. He/she was challenged numerous times to do so and failed to deliver. Others actually went to the effort of measuring the length of the suggested boardwalk, produced clear evidence of it. And yet still FU persists with intentional obfuscation. How to you think non serious and non faithful debating such as that should be tolerated.

Did First Up not agree that the first measurement might have been too short so hardly obfuscation.

Alias G

Trudee wrote: »

Did First Up not agree that the first measurement might have been too short so hardly obfuscation.

Nope, he simply underestimated the length again by about 50%. This time extending to 370 metres rather than his original 250. It is quite easily fact checked by anyone with access to Google maps that the distance is approx 750 metres. Pure obfuscation is what he was at all afternoon on this and every other topic he constantly moved the goalposts on, wasting his time and the time of anyone who engaged with him.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Back on topic, less of this back and forth about a poster. It has been explained, IMO clearly, what's expected of posters. From now on if it's not related to the cycleway ( or related issues), leave it out.

Qrt

I, for one, welcome our new ciclista overlords!

Digiteer

100%

buffalo

From what I've read elsewhere My government sources tell me DCC are now investigating building a flood defence and promenade along this stretch. Cycling and walking facilities would be part of this promenade.

Obviously it'll be years in the building, but that does mean that even if the trial goes ahead and is a success and made permanent, an end will come for the downtrodden citizens of Sandymount.

Although what they do about the section by the Merrion Gates, I don't know. At that stage the gates will probably be closed so often that Strand Road will effectively be a cul-de-sac.

Grassey

buffalo wrote:

From what I've read elsewhere My government sources tell me DCC are now investigating building a flood defence and promenade along this stretch. Cycling and walking facilities would be part of this promenade.

But won't this block the view of the gridlocked motorist...

Effects

Grassey wrote: »

But won't this block the view of the gridlocked motorist...

It's ok, they'll build it too high at first, then spend half a million to lower it again.

magicbastarder

nah, they can just raise the road surface by 40cm to compensate.

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

nah, they can just raise the road surface by 40cm to compensate.

That will make it more difficult for the Strand Rd houses to see their sea-view. I propose that the houses should also be raised by 40cm.

buffalo

I think this is north Dublin, but sure I'll crowbar it in here anyway:

CatInABox wrote: »

As the first example of a "Dublin Junction", this clearly needs work. Very frustrating that we've decided to ignore what's been happening in other countries and tried to come up with a brand new way of doing it.

https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

It should be better once the light sequence is fixed to prioritise cyclists, and not have them start at the same time (they can't seriously be planning on keeping it this way, right?), but even so, it's a definite downgrade in safety.

https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

Effects

buffalo wrote: »

I think this is north Dublin, but sure I'll crowbar it in here anyway:



https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

Is the guy on the bike just doing a U Turn? Am I missing something?

a_squirrelman

Effects wrote: »

Is the guy on the bike just doing a U Turn? Am I missing something?

Yeah he is. The design is so so bad.

Weepsie

buffalo wrote: »

I think this is north Dublin, but sure I'll crowbar it in here anyway:



https://twitter.com/Feljin_J/status/1368994310012735494

It's not a million miles from me and close to ikea. The roundabout it replaced was a complete ****show and the standard of driving about the place is questionable st best. Been a while since I've been that way though. Probably when I was limited to 2km

yascaoimhin

Effects wrote: »

Is the guy on the bike just doing a U Turn? Am I missing something?

Hes part of the Commuter Coalition, went up to specifically demonstrate how unsafe the junction is.

Seth Brundle

This sums up why infrastructure to date has largely been crap

https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1369289444113735681

hesker

The design intent in this country seems to be centred on the principle of “let’s move cyclists over to the side of the road so that motor vehicles can drive at speed and then cyclists had better look out for themselves”

Seth Brundle

hesker wrote: »

The design intent in this country seems to be centred on the principle of “let’s move cyclists over to the side of the road so that motor vehicles can drive at speed and then cyclists had better look out for themselves”

You mean like this...?

https://twitter.com/SBInaShui/status/1225148941328637952

CramCycle

As an athiest I am loathe to say it but dear f*cking lord.

breezy1985

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Yeah he is. The design is so so bad.

I really didn't see the problem in the video

a_squirrelman

breezy1985 wrote: »

I really didn't see the problem in the video

Well if you were on the road you'd do a U turn as a car would. The main problem I see is turning right, why even bother using the cycle path if you have to wait for another light change after crossing the first crossing. Might as well use the road.