Q9: Image question on shared use

For the Cycling in Dublin newspaper, we surveyed Dublin’s TDs and councillors to get an overview of politicians’ opinions on cycling; here we publish extra details with analysis by Cian Ginty and Colm Moore. Results should be read in the context set out across the following pages:

  • Q9: Image question on shared use SUR shared use FULL TEXT: 9. Pictured above is a “shared use” area on the Grand Canal cycle route — cyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users mix in this area. Do you think this design…

    • sends mixed messages to cyclists who are usually told not to cycle on footpaths?
    • should ever be used on a premium cycle route?
    • is an inviting place for cyclists?
    • is an inviting place for pedestrians?
    • is an inviting place for people who are blind?
    • is an inviting place for people who are old?
    • Any other comment?

    The answer options were ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘No opinion’. An open-ended response field was also included (see below). Results Q9 Open-ended comments

    These are unedited as follows:

    • Questions are misleading – Design is often constrained by physical circumstances – not always a perfect solution
    • I have actually been working with local parents and the traffic sections of DCC to tackle that specific spot, the one with a similar issue on the Mount St Bridge, and the one controlled by the DDDA further down the path. I don’t have an ideological preference for either shared spaces or segragated paths, but currently the mix of the two along single stretches is cannon-like firing speeding cyclists into pedestrianised areas and is endangering both pedestrians and cyclists.
    • It really would depend on the numbers of cyclists at such junctions. it could be intimidating for older people or wheelchair bound people.
    • It looks dangerous to me
    • Just to dangerous for other road users
    • The canal path green way is mixed use with no markings and I use it frequently as a pedestrian and as a cyclist and it’s not satisfactory for either.
    • Shared space is not ideal, but I think most cyclists can handle it. It is undoubtedly intimidating for some, particularly frail, pedestrians etc. However, it is better to share space with slow-moving pedestrians than fast-moving or oblivious motorised traffic.
    • Where possible I feel shared spaces should be avoided. Where necessary clear signage/warnings and road markings essential
    • No
    • Design also means cyclists loose priority versus cars.
    • All new ideas require getting used to
    • Space is too busy
    • I don’t know what the solution is but I do think pedestrians are much more vulnerable than cyclists and there should be a degree of separation of them.
    • Hi Cian. I think the questions here are pretty loaded. You are trying to get people to say that this design is unacceptable. But there will always be compromises in design. We’ve seen that the number of cyclists along this route has risen dramatically in the 15 months that it has been open. So cyclists are voting with their wheels.
    • My response to the above – CG.

    Leave a Reply

    %d bloggers like this: