is reader-funded journalism. To keep it going and free-to-view, it takes people like you to act now and subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.

Cyclists to be pedestrianised at Killiney Towers Roundabout

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council are tendering for contractors to implement a design which will remove priority for cyclists at the Killiney Towers Roundabout near Dalkey — cyclists will now be mixed with pedestrians crossings.

Cyclists will be allowed to go both ways around the roundabout on off-carriageway cycle tracks, but the new design will mix cyclists with pedestrians at and on pedestrian crossings, and it will also include a large number of 90 degree turns for cyclists:

A section of the tender drawing showing details of a crossing on one arm of the roundabout.


TENDER DRAWING: Killiney Towers Roundabout redesign (PDF)
MORE: Killiney Towers Roundabout page at is reader-funded journalism. That means it's funded by readers like you.

Subscription drive update: reached its target of 270 subscribers by the end of August -- thank you to all who have helped! Our new target is to have 300 subscribers by the end of 2022 -- originally this was hoped to be exceeded by the first year of running the site full time (end of October).

If you can help push above 300 subscribers, please subscribe today for €5 or more. If you have already done so -- thank you!

Please remember, every month there's a natural drop-off in subscriptions due to people getting new cards, cards stolen, Revolut not topped up etc.

*** is a reader-funded journalism publication. Effectively it's an online newspaper covering news and analyses of cycling and related issues, including cycle route designs, legal changes, and pollical and cultural issues.

There are examples, big and small, which show that the reader-funded or listener-funding model can work to support journalism -- from the Dublin Inquirer and The Guardian to many podcasts. To make it work for, it just needs enough people like you to believe!

Monthly subscriptions will give's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year had an average of 15,800 readers per month and we know our readers include people who cycle and those who don't, politicians, officials and campaigners.

I know only a small percentage of readers will see the value of keeping this open enough to subscribe, that's the reality of the reader-funded model. But more support is needed to keep this show on the road.

The funding drive was started in November 2021 and, as of the start of June 2022, 250 readers have kindly become monthly subscribers -- thank you very much to all that have!

But currently, it's only around 1.6% of readers who subscribe. So, if you can, please join them and subscribe today via

Cian Ginty


  1. There are a number of issues here, which need to be stated, and clarified, before a bald condemnation is issued!
    1 The ‘new style’ roundabout was installed at the instigation of the NTA originally, to trial it, in what was seen as a relatively low volume, low pressure junction. The ‘process’ of installation was lacking in terms of education of users to how it worked. As a result, there was considerable confusion by users, and ineviatable complaints.
    2 The newly proposed design takes cylists, ‘who wish to’, off the roundabout, and will slow them down considerably, as they must give way to other traffic at all crossings. But, as a result of recent legislation changes, cyclists are not obliged to use the ‘laid out’ cycle lanes, and may mix directly with the general roundabout traffic.

    So, in summary: The initial scheme was poorly introduced, and cyclists are not necessarily ‘pedestrianised’ by the new design, as a result of recent legislation changes

    • A problem with your second point is that there has been no education around the change in law and, regardless of the law change, there is a notable amount of motorists who will act aggressively towards cyclists who take the lane / don’t use cycle lanes. And there’s a considerable amount of cyclists who will never take the lane.

      Overall, many cyclists will be pedestrianised so the headline is fair.

  2. Being a user of the Killiney Towers Roundabout, both as a cyclist and a car driver, it is disappointing to see the removal of the current arrangements. Roundabouts by their very nature pose difficulties for cyclists and pedestrians as they prioritise and promote free-flowing conditions for cars. I thought the current arrangement worked well, compared with more conventional designs, as it made drivers aware of the movement of cyclists, prioritised the movement of more vulnerable users and significantly slowed the speed at which vehicles navigated the roundabout. At a time when there is a growing awareness of the need to prioritise more sustainable forms of transport and protect more vulnerable users by calming traffic, it sent exactly the right message.

    The proposed arrangement concerns me as the movement of motor vehicles will be prioritised over ALL other users. The inclusion of raised crossings will assist in slowing down vehicles and some may even stop to let pedestrians cross as a courtesy. However the previous condition will be reinstated where all of the risk and responsibility will be borne by vulnerable users (i.e. if you move into the path of an oncoming vehicle and get hit, it is your fault).

    The cost benefit of the proposed works is also highly questionable.

    What % of cyclists that will use the proposed cycle tracks when it requires them to divert from their desired route and slows their momentum? Will cyclists take the more direct/faster route and move onto the vehicular carriageway when entering and existing the roundabout? Does the design of the roundabout therefore promote safer behavior?

    As for safety. During a 7 day monitoring period, of the 32,000 motor vehicles and 1,700 cyclists passed through the roundabout. 7 or 0.004% of cyclists had a ‘near miss’ experience. 0 accidents occurred 99.9% of cyclists passed through without any danger.

    It seems to me that safety concerns have more to do with perception than actual reality.

    This money would be better spent making improvements elsewhere in the network.

  3. I, too, am both a cyclist and a motorist and looking at the progress of the work, as on 16/04/13, it looks like another expensive, complex, semi-functional piece of road design that will please no one and frustrate most- sincerely hope I’m wrong.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.