The developer’s consultants have demonstrated that they don’t know how to design for cyclists. I attach email correspondence which gives the picture. <\/p>\n
From: David Thank you for the copy In relation to If Mr. Deegan has any <\/span><\/p>\n This is a very In relation to the In relation to the I would be interested Cycle lanes often have The logical consequence I would welcome an Best David Councillor David Green Party\/Comhaontas Howth ward \/ Dublin North www.davidhealy.com<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 01 8324087<\/span><\/p>\n 54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann 54, Evora Park, Howth<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n From: Sean McGrath <\/span><\/p>\n Dear Cllr <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n I forward the <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n We are considering <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Regards<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Sean<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n —–Original Dear <\/span><\/p>\n Thank you for the <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n With reference to the <\/span><\/p>\n In the event of an emergency<\/a> or breakdown<\/a>, a motorist can pull into the <\/span><\/p>\n Best <\/span><\/p>\n
\nHealy \/ Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 29 May 2006 21:46
To: (Sean.McGrath@fingalcoco.ie)
Subject: RE: RE: design of grange road\/industrial estate junction.<\/span><\/p>\n
Dear
\nSean,<\/span><\/p>\n
\nof the developers’ consultant’s response. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nresponses 1 and 2, Mr. Deegan is entirely wrong in his suggestion of how a
\ncyclist should safely use the road. I would refer you to Cyclecraft by John Franklin published by
\nthe Stationery Office in the UK and recommended reading for the National
\nCyclist Training Standard in UK. (http:\/\/www.tsoshop.co.uk\/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0117020516&From=SearchResults<\/a>).
\n Alternatively, I would refer you to Oregon Department of Transportation’s
\nBicyclist Manual 2006 at pages 6 and 7 (http:\/\/www.oregon.gov\/ODOT\/HWY\/BIKEPED\/docs\/bike_manual_06.pdf<\/a>
\n)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nsource for his view of safe road use by cyclists, I would be interested to know
\nof it.) <\/span><\/p>\n
\nimportant point. An understanding of the sources of risk for cyclists and of
\nhow cyclists can use the road to best reduce the risk of collision is essential
\nif road design is to cater for safe use by cyclists. Nobody should be designing
\nroads which cyclists use and especially not designing specifically for cyclists
\nwithout this understanding. Many of the flaws in road design for cyclists in
\nDublin probably
\ncome from such basic misunderstanding.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwidth of the lane in question, I went out yesterday to measure the lanes
\nnorthbound entering the junction on the industrial estate road. From the kerb,
\nthere is a cycle lane (red tarmac) of 1.10m, then 0.10m broken white line, then
\n1.7m (black tarmac) to the next lane marking. I have put a photograph of a
\ntruck using this lane on my website. I did not measure the lane eastbound into
\nthe junction but it is similar. The reference to 3.25m is mistaken in every
\nrespect.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwidth of the hard shoulder going up and over the bridge (to be replaced by a
\nnarrower cycle lane), Mr. Deegan states “It is not a traffic
\nlane; nor was it designed as a cycle lane, although it serves the purpose well
\nin this instance.” Whether it is or is not a traffic lane is possibly a legal
\nquestion. However, if one checks the design for the bridge which was built in
\nthe 1990s one will find that the design documents from Dublin Corporation
\ndescribe this area as “hard shoulder\/cycle lane”. While there may in law be no
\nsuch thing as a “combined hard shoulder\/cycle lane”, it would appear that this
\nlane was designed as a
\ncycle lane. As you know, it is used as such.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nto know what are the “minimum industry standards” referred to by Mr. Deegan.
\n1.5m is not “well above” the standard in the Irish manual. It is the minimum.
\n What standards does Fingal use? <\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe effect of encouraging passing of cyclists closer than would otherwise be the
\ncase. See http:\/\/www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk\/WarringtonCycleCampaign\/report\/cycle-lanes.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\nof this knowledge is that where a cycle lane is being provided on a major road
\nwith very high levels of Heavy Goods Vehicles, a wide cycle lane is essential.
\nThe current situation with the hard shoulder which is effectively a wide cycle
\nlane is proposed to be made objectively worse for cyclists in the new design.
\n The difference for a user between the current cycle lane marked near the
\njunction and the hard shoulder marked further along the road is significant.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n
\nopportunity to cycle this area with you and\/or with Mr. Deegan to ensure that
\nthese points are understood.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwishes,<\/span><\/p>\n
\nHealy<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\nHealy<\/span><\/p>\n
\nGlas <\/span><\/p>\n
\nEast<\/span><\/p>\n
\nÉadair<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n[mailto:Sean.McGrath@fingalcoco.ie]
Sent: 19 May 2006 16:36
To: verdire@eircom.net
Subject: FW: RE: design of grange
\nroad\/industrial estate junction.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nHealy<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nconsultants response FYI. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nchanging the layout of the junction to have only two general traffic lanes on
\nthe approach from the M50 direction. This will give additional space to allow
\nfor full width traffic and cycle lanes in both directions without compromise.
\nThere may be some loss in capacity of the junction, but, given the improved
\ncomfort for all, it may be worthwhile. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\nMessage—–
From: Martin
\nDeegan [mailto:mdeegan@jbbarry.ie]
Sent: 11 May 2006 13:52
To: Sean McGrath
Subject: [Possible Spam] RE: design of
\ngrange road\/industrial estate junction.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSean,<\/span><\/p>\n
\nattached. As a regular cyclist and traffic engineer, I have pleasure in
\nresponding to Cllr Healy’s points in order as
\nfollowing.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nhighlights the presence and needs of cyclists to motorized road users. The left
\nturning conflict is apparent in this situation at every junction with or without
\ncycle tracks, and is dependent on a measure of good judgment and courtesy
\nbetween vulnerable road users and motorists. The safest place for the cyclist
\nin this situation is to stay within the appointed cycle track, and not in the
\nmiddle of the traffic lane where the risk rear end shunt type conflict with fast
\nmoving vehicles would undoubtedly be greater.
\n<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\nsafest place for cyclists is within the allocated cycle lane. This risk is
\napparent within all urban road environments which have cycle tracks
\nretrofitted.<\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\nwidened to a minimum of 3.25 metres. This is sufficient for a HGV to pass a
\ncyclist without entering the cycle lane or the adjacent right turning traffic
\nlane.<\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\nCllr’s final paragraph:<\/span><\/p>\n
\nhard shoulder to get out of the flow of traffic and obtain an element of safety.
\nIt is not a traffic lane; nor was it designed as a cycle lane, although it
\nserves the purpose well in this instance. Thought must be given to the safety
\nof all road users, in this instance 1.5 metres has been allocated for the cycle
\nlane, and 4.0 metres for the adjacent traffic lane, both dimensions provide a
\ngood level of service for both motorists and cyclists, and are well above
\nminimum industry standards.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nregards,<\/span><\/p>\n