Galway Cycling Campaign News

In 2003. the GCC made a comprehensive Submission on the Draft City Plan. In January 2004, the GCC was shown a pre-draft copy of the new city plan that was being circulated to councillors. As with the existing 1999 plan, the transport section contained no reference to the main concerns cyclists have been raising over the last two decades regarding road designs/traffic management in the city. Regarding roundabouts, the only evidence of any issue was a reference to the possiblility of providing "crossing facilities" for cyclists at some locations. This strongly suggests that the Roads Department plan to stick to their established "get off and walk" model of providing for cyclists. Following a meeting three core issues were identified for an approach to the city councillors.

Warning signs at the approaches to the city's roundabouts
The elimination of hostile cycle path/cycle lane layouts - (In favour of shared bus/cycle lanes, widened kerb lanes and hard shoulders)
By way of "heading off" the anti-cyclist plans of the city officials, the councillors were also asked to delete any references to cycleways or cyclist provisions along roads.
Removing the current developement levy system on cycle parking at private developments.

The "development levy" is a charge payable by developers in lieu of providing cycle parking. There is a remarkably consistent absence of cycle parking at new developments in the city. It is believed this is because city officials are insisting that private developers pay the levy instead of providing cycle parking. (All new developments in the city are required to have cycle parking provision equivalent to 25% of the car parking spaces) These funds are then supposed to be used to provide municipal cycle parking. However, Galwegians will be aware that there is also a remarkably consistent absence of public cycle parking in the city. It would appear that in the hands of city council officials the "development levy" is being used in a manner that ensures that no cycle parking is provided in a Universilty City with 12,000 third level students.

Five GCC members divided up the City Councillors and sought to make contact with them over the week preceding their last meeting on the "Pre-draft" City Plan on 4th Feb. Meetings were held with; Val Hanley FF, Tom Costello Lab, Angela Lupton FG, Paraic McCormick TD FG., Telephone contact was made with; Michael Leahy FF, Declan McDonnell PD, Terry Flaherty PD (Mayor), John Mulholland FG, Paul Colleran PD, Martin Quinn FF.

The following councillors did not return calls; Michael O'Huigin FF, Senator Margaret Cox FF, Donal Lyons PD.

Catherine Connolly Lab and Fintan Coogan FG could not be contacted. The result: the issue of the Cycle Campaign's Concerns were raised at the meeting (it is not clear by how many councillors). Declan McDonnell tabled a motion calling for a report from the planning department as to why the GCC submission on the city plan was apparently ignored, he was backed in this by Catherine Connolly. The GCC has been requested to make a presentation to the Transport Policy Committee of the City Council on 12/3/04. We will need to have meeting soon to discuss this. In the meantime "well done!" to the team that hit the councillors at such short notice.

12/11/2003 Cyclists call for warning signs and speed ramps on University road as controversial pedestrian crossing goes in.

The Galway Cycling Campaign is calling for warning signs and speed ramps to be installed on University road to reduce the dangers caused by a controversial new pedestrian crossing. The GCC's concerns have been sparked by the construction of a "central island" that will create a "pinch point" squeezing cyclists and moving cars together in risky and threatening manner. The lane width that is left is within the "critical width" that is identified in the international literature as being the most unsuitable for roads with mixed traffic. The "critical width" means there is no longer enough space for motorists to pass cyclists safely but the road width is just enough to tempt motorists to try squeezing past the cyclist within the narrowing. This can result in an extremely frightening situation particularly for less confident cyclists. The preferred solution is to either widen, or further narrow, the road. However, narrow lane widths are only acceptable where traffic is light and speeds below 30mph. Some sources recommend the use of speed ramps or speed cushions slow the traffic down before the danger point. The GCC is also calling for warning signs to forbid overtaking of cyclists by motorists approaching the gap. In a 1997 Transport Research Laboratory Report, it was recommended that the UK's Highway Code stipulate that motorists should not overtake cyclists within 20m of a road narrowing.

The GCC has been raising the issue of inappropriate pinch points and road narrowings with Galway City Council since 1998 with no reply or acknowledgement of the issue to date. Most recently this issue was raised yet again in the GCC's submission on the draft development plan for Galway City and in the recent submission on National Speed Limit Review group. The Galway City Community Forum's adopted transport policies also specifically reject the use of such road narrowings and "pinch points" in the city.

The wider suitability of this pedestrian crossing has also been questioned with serious reservations being raised at SPC level regarding both the design and the location of the crossing. It is felt by the community reps on the transport SPC that this "crossing" will actually increase the risks faced by pedestrians trying to cross University Rd. Despite these well-founded concerns, the city council have chosen to proceed with these works regardless.

03/10/2003 Galway City Community Forum rejects use of cycle tracks.

The Galway City Community Forum has adopted a motion rejecting the use of roadside cycle tracks in Galway City. The motion was adopted Thursday 2/10/03, at the regular quarterly meeting of the forum. The motion was brought on behalf of the Galway Cycling Campaign and the meeting received a detailed presentation setting out the legal and cultural reasons why cycle-track devices are alien to Ireland's native cycling culture and inappropriate to the situation in Irish towns and cities. The meeting was also presented with data regarding the appalling accident records associated with cycle-track use in other countries. Depending on direction of travel, cyclists who use cycle-tracks have been found to experience 2 to 12 fold increases in the risk of the most common car/bicycle collisions. Evidence for this effect was presented from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Canada the UK, The US and Germany.

The presentation also raised the problems associated with the use of cycle-lane devices marked or painted on roads. Typical problems such as reduced clearance from passing motorists and cyclists feeling encouraged in making dangerous manoeuvres were explained. Particular reference was made to the issue of cyclists being encouraged to creep up inside turning HGV's and buses. This practice carries high risk of fatality and the recent use of cycle tracks in Ireland has been accompanied by a simultaneous increase in the proportion of cyclists being killed in collisions with HGV's.

Although there are situations where it is sensible to provide extra road space for cyclists, the Galway City Community Forum has endorsed the view that this can usually be achieved by using standard, well-established, treatments, such as hard shoulder markings or bus/cycle lanes. If used in accordance with appropriate design guidance these offer profound advantages over imported foreign treatments such as cycle lanes. The motion adopted acknowledges a role for cycle facilities but only if they are meticulously designed and intended to solve some clearly defined problem such as providing two-way cyclist access on one-way streets. Galway's cyclists are currently facing numerous problems caused by inappropriate road designs. These cannot be solved with roadside "cycle facilities" and will in fact be made worse in most cases by tacking on "cycle facilities". Spending money on "cycle facilities" without first tackling these problems would be considered a waste of public money.

Cycle Campaign Cycle Track Motion for October Galway Community Forum meeting. Also avalable in MS Word '97 Format.

25/09/2003 Cyclists back privatisation of speed limit enforcement

The Galway Cycling Campaign has come out in support of reported moves towards privatisation of speed cameras in Ireland. The privatisation of speed limit enforcement services was a key recommendation of Galway Cycling Campaign's recent submission on the current national speed limit review. In their submission, the GCC had noted that a top safety measure in an EU report on promoting walking and cycling had been comprehensive automatic camera speed control using mainly movable equipment at unexpected spots.

The Irish situation with only 20 fixed camera installations and only three actual cameras was also contrasted with the estimated 1500 speed/traffic light camera installations in the Netherlands. A recent report estimates that an Irish motorist stands less than a 1:1400 chance of getting caught speeding. In 2000, an NRA Study found that on uncongested urban arterial roads, the average free speed of cars within the 30 mph zone was 45 mph with over 94% of motorists speeding, on urban residential roads 68% of cars were found to be speeding. In impacts occurring at 40 mph a pedestrian has less than 1 in 10 chance of survival. In 1997, 1998 and 2001 Ireland had the highest child pedestrian death rates in the EU.

In the current absence of an adequate speed enforcement service, local communities often feel that they are left to put up with what is perceived as speeding "free for all" on secondary and residential streets. Privatising speed detection services is seen as a way around this situation. If the desire is to achieve societal benefit then such a policy must focus on tackling speeding in urban areas, rather than more "shooting of fish in barrels" on selected arterial routes. If a privatised service is introduced then it should therefore be restricted to urban areas and non-national roads with the Garda retaining their role on interurban routes. GCC Speed Limit Submission.

September 2003 GCC supports opposition to Leaflet/Freedom of association ban

---------.

August 2003 GCC makes submission on speed limit review process

The Galway Cycling Campaign has made a detailed submission on the speed limit review currently being undertaken by the Dept of Transport. Roundabouts were a particular focus for the GCC submission. On roundabouts of the design common in Ireland cyclists have an injury accident rate that is 14-16 times that of motorists. Motorcycle/scooter users are only marginally better off at 10-13 times the injury rate. Some towns/cities, such as Galway, have effectively been sealed-off from their suburbs behind a ring of hostile roundabouts. Tackling this issue is seen as key to restoring cyclist access to many towns and cities. The GCC submission argues that at locations where roundabouts are to be retained, the traffic speed must be restricted to that achievable by average bicycle users by imposing a 20kph(12mph) limit. This would permit cyclists to carry out the standard weaving and merging manoeuvres required to negotiate roundabouts. Similar concerns are also raised about other junction locations requiring weaving and merging manoeuvres.

Another key focus for us is the issue of deliberately engineered "pinch-points" and road narrowings particularly at so-called "gateway schemes". Cyclists are currently being forced into extremely hostile situations often with following traffic approaching at speeds of up to 60mph. An English report into the use of such devices as "traffic-calming" has remarked that in some cases the main traffic-calming "feature" is the presence of cyclists. The GCC submission argues that where such pinch-points are to be retained, the traffic speed must also be restricted to that achievable by average bicycle users again by imposing a 20kph(12mph) limit.

The submission also endorses the adoption of the standard Northern European speed limit regime with 30kph (20mph) as the standard urban speed limit. With regard to rural roads of limited width and geometry the GCC are calling for a national limit of 70kph(44mph). On enforcement the GCC submission details the apparent inability of the Garda to enforce current speed limits and proposes the privatisation of speed limit detection services as a way around this obstacle. On education the GCC propose that the current focus on crashes and collisions should be dispensed with in favour of a focus on the societal impacts of speeding and an emphasis on the societal benefits of wider compliance.

Finally on engineering the GCC submission makes the point that roads should have a "self explanatory" speed limit and that road designs should match the speed limits being applied. A particular problem in Ireland has been the use of inappropriate design speeds on urban roads. This necessitates a national program of remedial works to eliminate unsuitable road designs such as roundabouts, slip roads, filter lanes, one-way street systems and other features that are inappropriate to urban roads with mixed traffic.

July 25th Dublin Cycling Campaign joins wider efforts to scrap National "Safety" Council

The Dublin Cycling Campaign has joined the wider national effort to have the Irish National "Safety" Council scrapped. The Dublin Campaigners organised a protest cycle on the 25 of July to register their disgust at their treatment by the National Safety Council. Apparently the DCC had attempted to make contact with the NSC so as to raise issues of concern to their group. The DCC apparently then found themselves being subjected to sharp practice by the NSC with correspondance and FOI requests being left unanswered and an attempt made to ambush DCC reps at a meeting with "surprise changes" to the agreed agenda.

In Galway, the National Safety Council has long been viewed as "part of the road safety problem". In September 1998 the NSC refused to invite cyclists' representatives to the meeting/conference which was to launch the "National Program for Road Safety". The NSC position at the time was that if any cyclists reps wished to attend they would be charged the full corporate rate. The launch meeting went ahead without any cyclist reps being present. 1998 was also the second year in an a row in which Ireland achieved the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe. It is understood that Ireland continues to hold this record in 2001**. There are no representatives of cyclists, pedestrians or of non-commercial motoring bodies on the NSC. However, the NSC does have strong links with the motoring lobby and particularly the motor insurance industry.

In the past a complaint procedure had been started against the misleading advertising propagated by the NSC. Unfortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority is an industry body who have no jurisdiction over the NSC. The NSC have therefore been able to hide behind their quasi-official status in pushing their pro car/pro insurance lobby propaganda. In April 2002 the Motor Insurance Justice Action Group and the Galway Cycling Campaign made a joint call for the National Safety Council to be scrapped. This followed revelations of massive profiteering by the Irish motor insurance industry. There is very good reason to believe that the insurance industry has a business model that allows them to profit directly from the high levels of crashes on Irish roads. To then allow this industry a large measure of influence over road safety information could be seen as comparable to giving the Tobacco companies a central role in lung cancer prevention.

**Child predestrian death rates in republic are highest in Europe. S. Breen, Irish Times 02/09/03