Galway Cycling Campaign News

Cycling activists held a protest outside the Department of Transport on Friday 28th May. The protest was preceded by a critical mass cycle from the Garden of Remembrance in Parnell Square. The protest was sparked by the recent calls for a cycle helmet law by several National Safety Council employees. This turned out to be based on "reports" whose findings had already been publicly discredited and reubutted by independent researchers. At the Department of Transport, an oversized P45 (Details of employee leaving) for discredited NSC Chief Executive, Mr. Pat Costello and the Council was attached to the front doors of the department.

21/05/04 Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation issue detailed rebutals of National Safety Council claims

Goto: www.cyclehelmets.org pages detailing the scientific criticisms and rebuttals made for NSC sources.

13/5/04 National Safety Council spark fury with Helmet Law call

On Thursday 13th of May, Mr. Eddie Shaw, Mr. Pat Costello and Mr. Brian Farrell of the National Safety Council released public statements and organised a media event where they called for the imposition of cycle helmet laws such as those seen in Australia. This provoked immediate fury among cycling activists as the Australian helmet laws are widely viewed a disaster and a thoroughly discredited legal experiment.

It rapidly transpired that although purporting to act on behalf of the state, the individuals involved, neither sought, nor obtained, the approval of NSC board for their proposal. Similarly, the individuals involved did not seek to consult with any cycling groups in relation to this matter. Nor were any representatives of any cycling groups invited to the media event that was organised.

In support of their claim, the NSC staff involved made demonstrably selective and demonstrably biased reference to several reports that had already been discredited and exposed as flawed in the the scientific literature. Within days, the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF), an international coalition that includes doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet design and performance subsequently also made available detailed rebuttals of the claims made on behalf of the of the NSC (see above). The claims for every one of the NSC's supporting documents have now been either discredited or rejected as irrelevant to the debate.

This development immediately sparked a nationwide campaign of rebuttal by cycling activists. The issue got coverage on Radio 1's flagship show "Liveline" over two days but was also carried by Newstalk 106, Radio Kerry and the Independent newspaper.

Is the NSC planning to rid Ireland of all cyclists? By Rory McKevitt, Irish Cycling Campaign

Cyclists Reject Safety Council's Helmet Proposals

06/05/04 Minister calls for increased speed limits

Story pending

1/05/04 Cycle Campaign Network meets in Dublin

A Cycle Campaign Network meeting was held in Trinity College Dublin. The meeting brought together cycling activists from accross the UK and Ireland. Speakers included Jan Gehl from Denmark, CCN chair, John Franklin, Phil Liggett from the UK National Cycle strategy group and Steve Patterson from Sustrans. At the morning session, Shane Foran of the Galway Cycling Campaign and Michael Aherne of the Dublin Transportation Office gave juxtaposed presentations which contrasted the "official" and "unofficial" interpretations of what has being happening for Irelands cyclists. The following day saw the delegates take guided cycle tours around Dublin and out as far as Howth head. Very useful work was done and good contacts made among the wider cycle campaigning community.

April GCC Delegation makes submission to City Council Transport Committee

story pending

21/04/04 GCC Holds AGM

Story pending

01/03/04 Cyclists reject Department of Transport's claims

The Galway Cycle Campaign has a issued a 12 page letter of rebuttal to the Minister of Transport in the latest instalment in a six year old row over Government policy. The latest exchange was sparked by last year's vote to reject the use of roadside cycle-tracks by the Galway City Community Forum, which represents 90 community and voluntary organisations. It was the serious safety problems associated with cycle tracks that prompted their rejection by the Forum. In reply, the Minister's office has made various claims: Including claims regarding the intent of the government's much criticised "cycle facilities design guidelines" and also a claim that segregated cycle tracks are the most effective means to encourage more cycling. In response, the Galway Cycling Campaign have highlighted the ongoing failure of the minister's office to acknowledge or address the appalling safety record of roadside cycle tracks. The GCC have pointed out to the minister that Irish cyclists are having their lives and property endangered by cycle track/cycle lanes that demonstrably flout basic safety principles. The view is put that the activities of the officials who created this situation are a national disgrace and constitute a national scandal.

The GCC also rebuts the claim that the construction of cycle-tracks is the most effective way to get non-cyclists on the bicycle. Reports are cited from the UK, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands indicating that this claim is false and untenable. For example, in the late 80's and early 90's the Dutch spent the equivalent of IR£600 million on "cycling infrastructure". This achieved a total of 19,000 km of cycle paths but this resulted in no demonstrable benefit in terms of increasing cycling.

The claims of the minister's office regarding the National Irish Cycle Facilities Guidelines are also rejected. In 2000, the Galway Cycle Campaign published a review showing that the Irish authorities had endorsed the use of designs that had already been reported internationally as having serious safety problems. This use of hostile "cycle facilities" is then juxtaposed with wider cyclist-hostile Irish traffic policies including; multilane roundabouts, extensive one-way street systems, slip roads, filter lanes and road narrowings. It is also pointed out that the Irish authorities have not addressed the widespread flouting of speed limits in urban areas.

The view is put that claims of a government policy to promote cycling are untenable and are not supported by the available facts. The evidence suggests strongly that the opposite is the case and that in fact it is Government policy to discourage cycling in Irish towns and cities. The experience of Irish cyclists suggests that the primary goal of Irish cycle planning is to restrict cyclists so as promote and facilitate the increased use of cars in Irish towns and cities. In Ireland, between 1996 and 2002 there was a 28% fall in cycle commuting, a 39% drop in cycle use among third level students, a 61% drop in cycle use among secondary school children and a 59% drop in cycle use among primary school children. Ends

Online documents: Letter to Minister for Transport Regarding Govt. Cycling Policy

. Summary of main points

17/02/04 Cycle Campaigners renew call for "cycle track network" plans to be scrapped as Dublin figures show 16% drop in cyclists.

The Galway Cycle Campaign have renewed their call for the scrapping of plans for "cycle track networks" in Irish towns. The call comes in the wake of the revelation of a 16% drop in the number cyclists crossing the "Dublin Inner Canal Cordon" since 1997. This decline coincided with the construction of 320km of "Strategic Cycle Network" in Dublin. It had been claimed this would "double" cycle use over a five-year period. The apparent failure of the Dublin Strategic Cycle network mimics the failure of similar efforts elsewhere. From the mid-1980's the Netherlands spent the equivalent of IRP 600 million (EU 760 million) on extending their cycle path network. In 1995, it was found that these works had not resulted in any significant increase in cycling levels.

Irish cycle campaigners have long been concerned that the imposition of inappropriate cycle track/cycle lane designs is increasing the problems that Irish cyclists are already facing as a result of existing, inappropriate, Irish road traffic management practices. This has resulted in a situation where in many cases it is the "cycle facilities" themselves that are the biggest obstacles to that Irish cyclists face on their journey to work or college. Many cycling activists suspect that most Irish "cycle facilities" are neither intended to enhance safety nor to promote and encourage cycling. Instead, it is suspected that they actually represent a crude attempt to manage and control bicycle traffic for the benefit of motorists.

There is established historical precedent for such an effect. In Germany in the 1930's, the use of cycle tracks was central to Nazi traffic policy. The specific intent was to promote increased use of private motor-cars by clearing cyclists off the streets. In a pre-budget submission in 2002, the Galway and Cork Cycle Campaigns called on the Minister for Finance to take urgent action and block the use of state funds for "cycle tracks" and "cycle lanes". The use of "cycle tracks" in other countries is associated with significant increases the rate of collisions between cars and bicycles. This is something that the Irish authorities are known to have been aware of for 28 years. At a European conference in 1991 the use of roadside cycleways was described as being equivalent to "Russian roulette". In October 2003, the Galway City Community Forum, which represents 90 community and voluntary organisations, voted to reject the use of roadside cycle-tracks on grounds of their appalling safety record.

Lessons from German history (In German translations will be put up on the site in due course)

From The Decline Of A Means Of Mass Transport To The History Of Urban Cycle Planning, Burkhard Horn: ForschungsDienst Fahrrad FDF 136 - 09.03.1991

History Of Cycle Tracks, Cycle Tracks For The Expansion Of Motorised Traffic, Volker Briese: ForschungsDienst Fahrrad, FDF 218 - 28.05.1994

Dublin Inner Canal Cordon Counts 1988 -2003

1988 7958

1989 7287

1990 6937

1991 7176

1992 6742

1993
6674

1994
5954

1995 5429

1996 5467

1997 5628 (Commencement of cycle network)

1998 4579

1999 5384

2000 4464

2001 5122

2002 4675

2003 4715 (320km of cycle network in place)