IrishCycle.com is reader-funded journalism, but our subscription numbers have stalled at around 250 subscribers. 20 more subscribers by the end of August is the current target. Can you help? If you can, please subscribe today for €5 or more. If you have already done so -- thank you!

Clontarf S2S cycle route: Yield to pedestrians and a car park entrance, recommends report

People cycling on a main cycle route along Dublin Bay in Clontarf could be told to yield to pedestrians and a car park entrance which cross the cycle path, if the recommendations of a report to city councillors is approved.

This is reader-funded journalism, but it needs more support -- our target is 20 more subscribers by the end of August... can you help? Subscribe today.

Being told to yield to those crossing a main route is different to the norm where side roads and paths yield to the main flow of walking, cycling or motor traffic.

The cycle path is one of the only sections of the Sutton to Sandycove cycle route along the city’s bay to be built. The new recommendations are part of a review of the Clontarf section of the route was undertaken to reduce conflicts between people walking and cycling.

It was reported that it was originally suggested using Dutch cycle path speed ramps before it was found that these were for mopeds rather than bicycles.

The report by the transport and environment section of Dublin City Council also recommends new paths to segregate walking and cycling, and closing one car park.

The full report below via Cllr Naoise Ó Muirí (Fine Gael).

MORE: Council to take second look at walking/cycling conflict in Clontarf

1 map1 ABR CR

1 ABR CR Area 2

1 ABR CR Area 3

 

2 map

2 CR HRCP

 

3 map b

3 CR BR

4 CR VA

5 CYC

6 DCC CP

7 DB CP

8 Lines

 

9 imp

Hello Reader... IrishCycle.com 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 IrishCycle.com, it just needs enough people like you to believe!

Monthly subscriptions will give IrishCycle.com's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year IrishCycle.com 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 ko-fi.com/irishcycle/tiers

Cian Ginty
Editor, IrishCycle.com

6 comments

  1. While the attitude that it is cyclists who are endangering motorists who get out of their cars and step on to the cycle path without looking is annoying to me those changes are good.

    I’m against cyclists having to yield to people pulling out of car parks. Surely motorists should know that they are required to yield when exiting a car park and if they cannot see due to shrubbery then improving the sight lines by changing or removing the vegetation is a better solution.

    Adding yields for cyclists in situations like this promotes the notion that cyclists always need to yield to cars regardless of the circumstances.

    Reply
  2. This Reports more like a script from Fr. Ted rather than a report from a publicly funded body. Like most of these type of documents it poses more questions than answers.
    Has the arrival of Mr Owen Keegan in DCC had any impact on the report? God knows he left a plethora of anti cycling constructions in DLRDCoCo.
    Were any cyclists consulted, even Sunday afternoon hobby cyclists? Maybe the consultation process was restricted to the shrubs!
    I always find myself in agreement with most of those that post messages. In this case I am very persuaded by HivemindX.
    How can we be so out of touch with what cyclists need when we are the cyclists?

    Reply
  3. Unfortunately I have to agree with the above comments……This report reads like a major puzzle, with the priorities very skewed! I cannot make head nor tail of the proposals, as outlined in the section at Alfie Byrne Road. I know that area reasonable well, and I would suggest that the proposals…as far as I can make them out!….are a case of overkill.
    The proposals at the other 2 public car parks need to be fully reviewed and the realistic view taken that motorists exiting their cars need to give way to the cyclists, not the other way round! This would follow ‘best practice’ in that pedestrians are crossing a main (cycling) thoroughfare.
    I will raise these issue in discussions with City Council

    Reply
  4. Beneath the dense convoluted language , there are some good ideas on improving the segregation between cyclists and others. Most are low cost such as the segment behind the ESB station/Vernon Avenue.

    It is surprising that it takes a report to note that “line marking has become faded…….causing confusion ” etc.

    The emphasis on cycling having to yield to pedestrians is depressing and reveals an inherent anti-cyclist mentality.

    Reply
  5. Quite familiar with this route. I’m always happy to yield to pedestrians, that is as it should be. However the car park yielding suggestions are just insane. Good though that the path should be aligned away from the car parks, not for the sake of the drivers becoming pedestrians, but rather that the parked cars can encroach up to near a meter on the current path and are a hazard.

    Reply
  6. What’s this really all about ? Mostly people getting out of cars in the car parks without looking where they are going when crossing the cycle track. People on bicycles having to yield to people walking on a non shared path ! Who ever heard the like of this ? Whoever came up with this must never have ridden a bike in their life. Momentum on a bicycle is important for the safety of the rider as well as everyone else. Having to stop and restart will more likely lead to some sort of accident, whereas if people walking actually took time to remember their safe cross code, all would be fine.

    What are we really looking at here ? The users of the least efficient form of urban transport once again throwing their toys out of their pram until they get their way. All this looks and sounds like a massive step backwards.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to colmryder Cancel reply

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