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!

Redesign of deadly Dublin junction called “Death By Design”

— Junction redesign includes unprotected junctions and narrow cycle lanes.

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.

A near-complete redesign of the deadly junction between Seville Place, Guild Street and Sheriff Street is claimed leave the junction “not much better off than it was before”.

Donna Fox was killed at the junction while cycling to work in 2016 when a truck driver turning left failed to see her.

As reported at the start of the year, a Dutch-style protected junction design was suggested for the junction. The Dutch-style design suggested after Neil Fox, Donna’s brother, appealed for information on cyclists’ experiences of the junction. However, Dublin City Council opted to rebuild the junction with an unprotected junction design and added sub-standard cycle lanes.

Kevin Baker, a cycling advocate with the Dublin Cycling Campaign infrastructure group, said: “It is not just about money. It’s also about providing the space. Here’s an example of how get it wrong. This is a recently redesigned and reconstructed junction, where a woman was killed, that still leaves people on bikes dangerously exposed.”

In a twitter thread (shown below), Baker highlights images of a new kerb separating the cycle lane from the general traffic lane, but he said: “When we get to the corner there is absolutely no protection. There’s a narrow cycle lane going around the corner that has no protection. Drivers will cut into it to make taking the corner easier. This is #DeathByDesign.”

We’ll report reaction from the council and others as we get it.

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

2 comments

  1. I use it daily. I can’t understand why they couldn’t keep the left turn separate, there is lots of room to allow cyclists to turn left without needing to stop at the lights.

    Also the angle of the new path (heading towards the bridge) to join the existing path is all wrong, the old path is better.

    To be honest I stay on the on road cycle lane, as the junctions ion the off road path is carnage, it mixes with pedestrians at the traffic lights. and then up further at the bridge it seven worse, there’s so many different red lights no one knows what happens.

    Reply
  2. Brian – agree that left-turns at lights should be free-flow for cyclists: if you don’t put in things like that the design is only encouraging “law breaking” by cyclists. Even though the NTA’s own National Cycle Manual requirement for good design is to “confer advantage on the bicycle”, it is NTA policy (and this filters down to the county and city councils) NOT to use Dutch standards at traffic signals. The reason why they do not want to emulate best international practice is that they have a problem with the Dutch approach of bringing cyclists outside of the signals control and into an uncontrolled interface with pedestrians: the NTA consider that pedestrians always have priority over cyclists. The Dutch generally designate cycle track as having priority when they intersect with footpaths and this allows a much more free-flowing cycle infrastructure that avoids unnecessary delays for left-turns at signals, is ultimately higher-quality and safer.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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