His age was reported by cycling sports website Stickybottle.ie.

A Garda Press Office spokesperson said: “Gardaí are appealing for witnesses following a fatal road traffic collision in Ballygalane, Lismore, Co Waterford this morning Tuesday 16th June, 2026.”

“The collision involved a parked lorry and a pedal cyclist and occurred shortly after 11:00am. A juvenile male, pedal cyclist was fatally injured and was pronounced deceased at the scene,” the spokesperson said.

Gardaí said that the teenager’s body has been removed to the mortuary at University Hospital Waterford where a post-mortem examination will take place in due course.

The coroner has been notified, they said. The truck driver was uninjured Gardaí said.

“The road was closed for technical examination by Garda Forensic Collision Investigators and has since reopened. Gardaí are appealing to anyone who witnessed this collision to come forward,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added: “Road users who may have camera footage (including dash-cam) and were travelling on the N72 between Lismore and Cappoquin, Co. Waterford this morning between 10.30am and 11.15am 16th June, 2026 are asked to make this available to investigating Gardaí.”

Anyone with any information or footage is asked to contact Dungarvan Garda Station on (058) 48600, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda Station.

Taoiseach Micheál Martin said: “I am very pleased to announce funding to advance development of four greenway schemes in the border region through the Shared Island Greenways Development Fund. This funding will help progress four schemes — Sligo to Enniskillen, Lifford to Derry, Derry to Buncrana and Warrenpoint to Newcastle — through design and planning phases.”

“Building on the success of the Carlingford Lough Greenway and the North West Greenway Network, the development of these new routes will improve connectivity, generate sustainable tourism and recreation, and boost the local economy in each region,” he said.

The Taoiseach added: “This is also an important step towards creating an island-wide greenway network to link the Atlantic coast with the Eastern seaboard across the border region – a key objective under the revised National Development Plan.”

The comments were made in statment issued as the Government approved Department of Transport Shared Island Funding of €25,000/£21,581 for the preliminary design development work on the Warrenpoint and Newcastle route in County Down; Shared Island Funding of around €350,000/ £302,125 for the Sligo to Enniskillen greenway, €260,000/ £224,463 for the Derry to Buncrana route, and €137,500/£118,706 for the Lifford to Derry scheme.

There is also Department for Infrastructure funding of £20,000/€23,200 confirmed for the Warrenpoint and Newcastle greenway, with further Northern Ireland funding to be approved.

The Republic’s Minister for Transport, Darragh O’Brien said: “Greenways have represented a tremendous success for rural Ireland showcasing our beautiful landscape, bringing visitors to overlooked areas and helping small local businesses to thrive as well as providing an outdoor recreational facility that all members of the community can enjoy.”

“I welcome today’s funding announcement for Greenways in the border region which reflects the Government’s commitment to balanced regional development and all-island collaboration through the Shared Island initiative. This fund will support local authorities in delivering these projects,” he said.

Northern Ireland’s Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, said: “Through collaborative working with our counterparts in the Government of Ireland, I’m delighted that funding has been identified to further expand our cross-border greenway network and to build on the success achieved to date.”

She added: “Cross-border greenways provide a transformative opportunity to enhance sustainable transport, tourism and regional connectivity. This funding demonstrates commitment to further develop sustainable transport on a cross-border basis. This all enhances the island of Ireland as a place where people want to live and work, to visit and invest.”

The Irish Government said that the Shared Island Greenways Development Fund will support the implementation of the National Development Plan objective to “continue development of an island-wide greenway network to link the Atlantic coast with the Eastern seaboard across the border region.”

All four greenways are in the pre-planning stages, with funding allocated to planning, environmental screening, and design work. All of the greenways will require millions to reach completion.

The Department of Transport outlined the current funding use for greenways as follows:

Sligo to Enniskillen

Funding will be provided to support project costs associated with closing out Phase 3: Design and Environmental Evaluation for this cross-border route.

Derry to Buncrana

Funding will be provided to support project costs associated with closing out Phase 3: Design and Environmental Evaluation for section in County Donegal. Funding is available to progress the scheme in County Derry to enabling works (prior to construction)

Warrenpoint to Newcastle

Funding will be provided to support project costs associated with completing a feasibility study for this proposed route in County Down.

Lifford-Derry

Funding will be provided to support project costs associated with close out Phase 3: Design and Environmental Evaluation for section in County Donegal. Funding is available to ensure a connection with the Foyle Valley Greenway is progressed in County Derry.

IMAGE: File image of a greenway.

The project was approved by a clear majority of councillors of South Dublin County Council, with 22 voting for, 12 against and 2 abstaining.

At the meeting when the project was approved, a number of councillors complained about misinformation spread online against the project.

But despite officials reassuring councillors at the council meeting that the NTA now supports the village project, a Facebook group against the project reposted an advertisement they ran in the local Echo newspaper, which included the claim that “the NTA objects to bus throttles and the gate on Main St in this Part 8.”

The “throttle” is a reference to the “throttle gates”, a type of chicane traffic calming which the NTA had objected to because of their potential to delay buses. The number of these kinds of pinchpoints in the plan has been reduced, while officials outlined that the bus gate in the revised design has been moved on Main Street to the west of the Old Greenhills Road junction.

After its approval, the council hopes the project will go to construction in early 2027. The plan is to construct the local BusConnects changes at the same time.

Amendment

The approved amendment for the project said: “The proposed development of the Tallaght Village Enhancement Scheme as recommended in the chief executive’s report is hereby approved, subject to further liaison with local residents and businesses during detailed design to address their concerns where possible, including, to retain 6 spaces on Main Street for existing Main Street resident parking permit holders, engage with local disability services around crossings and subject to engagement with the NTA to ensure that the proposed development is fully compatible with the approved Bus Connects scheme.”

It was proposed by Cllr Mick Duff, Cllr Louise Dune, Cllr Kay Keane, Cllr Adam Smyth, Cllr Jess Spear and Cllr Niamh Whelan.

Cllr Niamh Whelan (SF) said: “So firstly, I just want to start by thanking management and the [project] team for the work on this part date. We’ve been back and forth for months to try and get to some sort of plan that’s taken into account the concerns we have we’ve brought forward. So thanks a mill for the extensive engagement.”

“Despite the hugely negative message that has been shared largely online about this process, I’ve never seen another Part 8 project that has had as much public engagement. Whether as an elected rep or Community Council, it’s all of our responsibilities to ensure that the information we are sharing with the general public is accurate and factual,” she said.

Cllr Whelan said: “It’s unfortunate to see the waters muddy by misinformation being shared throughout the process. And it has made our role as councillors all the more difficult. I’ve been approaching several occasions, asking, ‘Why are SDCC removing disabled parking?’ It’s not true; ‘Why are cars being blocked from accessing Main Street?’ That’s not true, and ‘Why are SDCC taking all 40 parking spaces?’ Again, that’s not true.”

She added that while she thinks the village improvements are needed, she was “still extremely conflicted” on the decision because there’s a small number of residents who are dependent on the parking spaces and that she was looking for reassurance from council management to resolve that issue as they had with the crossings issue.

It’s a heritage area and has an “ancient structure”

Cllr Britto Pereppadan (Fine Gael), who, with his party colleagues, voted against the scheme, spoke against the scheme, saying that relocated parking is not the same as convenient parking.

“It’s not only a case of how many spaces but also regarding where the new spaces are. We’ve already seen it happen in Dundrum and Lucan, where my colleagues in Lucan can confirm the impacts on the local residents and businesses,” he said. Cllr Pereppadan pointed out that the village is an Architectural Conservation Area.

Cllr Kay Keane (People Before Profit) questioned Cllr Pereppadan on how many meetings he attended about the project. She said that, in her many years as a resident of the area, her experience has been that people drive through the village centre to get to places, especially since the Square shopping centre opened. She said people will still have access to the businesses.

Cllr Patrick Holohan (independent), who also voted against the project, said he didn’t want to be a part of changing the village’s “ancient structure”. But Cllr Mick Duff (independent) said that the “village has been crying out for investment since the N81”, which bypasses the village, was built. He said many people have said that “it’s fine as it is”, but he said it’s not.

Gary Walsh, a senior engineer with the council who is working on the project, said: “The parking is the big element… we’re working on many solutions and we’ve involved councillors on what we are trying to work on.”

This is an apparent reference to the council trying to work with unnamed landowner/s to provide parking space. While members of the public commenting online have taken issue with the lack of transparency, negotiations on this issue are apparently ongoing.

“We’re working really hard to get a good outcome for residents with parking permits in the village,” said Walsh. “I’m more than happy with the amendment — we want to work so hard to get this right for people in Tallaght…. we’re going to try to do everything we can.”

He pointed out that adjusting the crossings so that all are fully signalled shows they can adapt the plan based on feedback. Walsh added that consultation would also continue with local stakeholders.

Despite claims from objectors that there are no traffic counts, Walsh said that the council has traffic count data and that a conservative estimate is that 70% of the traffic on Main Street does not stop in the village. In other words, it is rat-running traffic.

The council meeting was broadcast online and can be watched back in full at sdcc.public-i.tv.

After the meeting, the Save Tallaght Village page on Facebook took issue with the approved amendment. In a post last week, the group said: “They put in the words ‘where possible’, giving the council a get-out clause. Their spin is as bad as the CEO of SDCC. They accused this Facebook page of spreading misinformation regarding Part 8. We will stand over everything that was posted on this Facebook page.”

The group also pointed out that, with the number of parking spaces included for removal as part of BusConnects, up to 40 spaces would be removed.

Misinformation

But the Facebook page does seem to have repeatedly posted misinformation.

The page has posted links to a petition which claims: “The proposed enhancements may seem appealing at first glance, but they come with serious drawbacks. Under these plans, all business and resident parking bays will be removed, and the roads will be restricted solely to buses and bicycles. This approach could potentially split our village in two, creating barriers for local businesses, residents, and visitors.”

But it is untrue to claim that “roads will be restricted solely to buses and bicycles”. Through traffic will not be able to rat run via Main Street, but access for private motorists and deliveries will be maintained. And while detailed design and planning are ongoing, objectors may be on safer ground claiming parking bays on the public street are to be removed, no private or business-owned parking bays are to be removed, so it is misleading to claim all “all business and resident parking bays will be removed”.

A post last week implied that the NTA did not support the scheme after it was made clear that they do. When contacted by this website, a spokesperson for the NTA said: “Following discussions with the Council Executive, the NTA is satisfied that the Council will develop the Tallaght Village Enhancement Scheme through the remaining design stages in conformity with the Tallaght/Clondalkin to City Centre Core Bus Corridor (CBC) Scheme, which forms part of the overall BusConnects Dublin programme.”

The NTA also confirmed that the removal of that parking on Old Greenhills Road is included in the BusConnects CBC, for which they have planning approval.

As another example, when Cllr Jess Spear appeared on RTE News speaking about the project, she mentioned “places for children to play”. The Save Tallaght Village page posted a clip of the councillor speaking and said: “More fake news… There is nothing in the Part 8 about a children’s play area. There is a proposed teen space that is completely different.”

But the council officials have outlined how the plan includes incidental play areas for children, and, in any case, teenagers under 18 are also children. Incidental play areas are not playgroups but rather informal spaces designed where children can play in public spaces.

The group also shared the video claiming Puffin crossings are less safe than the standard signalised pedestrian crossings used in Ireland, known as Pelican crossings, but — as covered last week — research shows otherwise.

Back in April, when the decision on the Part 8 plan was postponed, the group also said: “They are expecting a new design then in June which they can push through with out consultation with all the stakeholders.” However, this is a misrepresentation of the Part 8 process — the “new design” is part of the Part 8 process and was developed based on feedback from the public and groups.

But even when feedback is acted on, the group has taken issue with that. In a post today, the group said: “We don’t trust you, as you didn’t listen to us….” and then tagged councillors and said: “you were both ok with the crossings until it was pointed out to you that they were not fit for purpose. Isn’t that why you included them in your amendment?”

It is also unclear which page/s councillors were referring to regarding misinformation. At least some amount of misinformation was also posted on the Tallaght Community Council Facebook page.

The group yesterday shared a post from Cllr Linda de Courcy (Independent Ireland) — who’s known, amongst other things, for posting a conspiracy theory that Brennans bread has become halal certified. In the post, Cllr de Courcy claimed that she lives “in the real world, not La La land or some non-existent green utopia”.

She said because of this she “could not support the proposal to remove vehicular traffic AND parking spaces from Tallaght’s Main Street and replace this with a bus lane at last Monday’s council meeting.” But there is no proposal or plan “to remove vehicular traffic” or put in a bus lane to replace it — car access is to be maintained to all car parks around Main Street.

— A council making up well-meaning but impractical “rules” that don’t exist creates unrealistic expectations, which could cause more conflict.

Comment & Analysis: If you spend much time on Dublin’s Capel Street and can distinguish between:

• bicycles (including legal e-bikes which are pedal-assisted and have to meet legal requirements), and;
• “bicycle-shaped-objects” which are legally mopeds (for most people, that means light motorcycles),

…then you’ll see the majority of the issues with “speeding cyclists” are coming from those bicycle-shaped-objects. In other words, not bicycles.

The problem is that most people cannot distinguish between bicycle-shaped-objects and bicycles. And it’s very understandable why —  they look almost the same, and some models can look identical.

Legal electric bicycles help people cycle — they are great for overcoming hills, wind or distances that would otherwise stop many people from cycling. But their motors cut off at 25km/h, and they won’t move over longer distances without pedalling (other than the normal freewheeling down a hill or with the wind behind you).

Bicycle-shaped-objects are far more likely to be travelling at higher speeds. In the case of Capel Street and most of the city centre, most food delivery riders seem to be using these devices, which are legally mopeds. That’s not even to say all of the food delivery riders on Capel Street are acting recklessly, but because of a number of factors, including the pressure they are under to make X amount of deliveries during their shifts, food riders represent a disproportionate amount of people on two wheels who are speeding through Capel Street.

Layered on top of this is poor communication about what Capel Street was planned to be — when the media en masse reported the car-free plan was pedestrianisation, and it became clear in the early years that this was leading some people to believe that cycling was not allowed at that point, it should have been made clearer that cycling was allowed.

A car-free street with cycling allowed was basically a new concept for most people who live and visit the city centre, but authorities were so focused on the objectors that they may have missed the need to communicate the change in approach to users of the street.

The long delay in allowing a northbound cycling connection from the southside and the quays to the top of Capel Street, and the partly related mix of signage, did not help matters. The ad hoc approach to signs and markings still needs to be fully resolved — in a number of locations, there’s little to show people who have just wandered off fully pedestrian streets that cycling is allowed on the street they have just walked onto.

It can be argued that it’s mainly the responsibility of people cycling to adjust their behaviour, but street design should make it clear that at least almost everyone walking there knows which road users are allowed on the street.

Layered on top of this again is that there are people who have a disproportionate hate for cyclists in the first place, which isn’t going to encourage sharing from some while they are pedestrians. Some others just did not like cars being removed from the street and now resent cyclists because of that policy change.

In the above context, it is not a good move for Dublin City Council to make up “rules” that lack legal backing and would render street cycling impractical.

In a collaboration with District magazine, the council has an Instagram advert running about Capel Street, which includes the text:

“Cyclists are absolutely welcome here too but the rules are not the same as standard city roads.

These are pedestrian-prority spaces with means if you are cycling you must do it at a walking pace while staying alert, and always yielding to people on foot.”

Anybody with an even slight interest in the Road Traffic Acts would know that the above is badly phrased in a number of ways. While it might have meant well, it misses the mark.

The rules are exactly the same as in other places where the Road Traffic Acts apply. Those include the legal expectation to adjust your behaviour based on the street/road design and the conditions you face. For example, on a street full of people lingering, people crossing, and children playing, you’re expected to be aware of this and what might happen next, including yielding for the people crossing or expecting that children might run in any direction.

Transforming the central area of the former carriageway on Capel Street to become a shared path was, on balance, the best approach for all users of the street. It allows for deliveries in the morning, and it means that pedestrians are not just consigned to the footpaths, which have been retained with larger pedestrian areas, including for seating.

If the former carriageway were made into a cycle path, it would mean that pedestrians would be expected to cross the street at the crossing rather than where they want to, and people cycling might feel greater ownership of the cycle path being “just for them”.

The council were spot on the overall design concept, but has struggled with details like signage and messaging.

The idea that people cycling “must do it at a walking pace” only doubles down on the mistakes already made. While people cycling may need to be ready at all times to slow to walking speed (4.5-6km/h) and yield and stop where needed, if people need to cycle at walking speeds for the entire street, why bother allowing cycling?

It is also misleading for a road authority to make up a rule that has no legal backing whatsoever.

Maybe more prominently, it creates an unrealistic expectation that cyclists will always be travelling at walking speed. That is likely to cause more conflict.

The idea that cyclists “must… always yielding to people on foot” is also highly problematic in law. Yes, cyclists should expect to yield to people walking on shared streets. But the phrase “must always” is also likely to create an unrealistic expectation that may cause more conflict.

“Yielding” is a legal term, and adding “must” and “always” is highly problematic and goes far beyond the law governing yielding and collision avoidance. Besides edge cases of people moving irrationally and unpredictably beyond what can reasonably be expected, on a busy street, it neglects the cut-and-trust of a shared area.

Some people might think I’m nitpicking, but what a road authority says about its street or road design is important, even if it might not affect most people ever; it might come up in a liability case where there is an unfortunate collision, or it might just embolden a cycling hater.

Messaging around “being sound” or even adjusting your cycling speed appropriately, depending on the activity on the street, would be far more useful.

It might be outside of the hand of the council to act directly, but they could be pushing the Gardai for greater enforcement of illegal electric mopeds, or for the government to regulate the sale of such devices, something they keep shying away from. But these things are harder than targeting cyclists for what is mainly a moped issue.

Again: That’s not to say there’s zero issue with cyclists on the street, it’s just the majority of the faster two-wheel users are being repeatedly misidentified as cyclists. A pro-cycling council department shouldn’t be involved in this. And I’m writing this with a strong awareness that some people will twist what I’m saying or will want to lump moped users with cyclists because what they are using looks like bicycles.

These bicycle-shaped-objects are already becoming more and more of an issue on cycle paths elsewhere in the city, and on city streets, they need to be tackled generally, even beyond Capel Street; it’s just an acute issue on Capel Street.

Dublin City Council plans to finally link the cycle paths on the Clontarf route to the quays, with construction due to start in August 2026. It is planned as a quick-build interim project, with artists’ impression images (below) showing that the route will mainly use planters similar to those outside the Four Courts.

The interim plan will override another plan which this website covered in 2024. It was a more permanent plan but the draft drawings ended unresolved before the quays, with the final section depending on the layout chosen around Custom House for a plaza at the front or rear of the landmark building. But progress on the plaza options, proposed as part of the Dublin City Centre Transport Plan 2023, has stalled.

The interim route would run from the southern end of Clontarf to City Centre Cycle and Bus Priority Project at Connolly Station and extend past Busáras and Custom House and over Talbot Memorial Bridge across the River Liffey.

Drawings and artist’s impression images of the route were published online ahead of a meeting of the council’s Central Area Committee next week.

Cllr Karl Stanley (Social Democrats), who cycles along the route daily, said: “The link between the end of Talbot Street and the river is crucial for people travelling by bike from the Northside. At the moment, there is an abrupt end to the safe, protected infrastructure at the Talbot Street junction, which is off-putting to a large cohort of commuters.”

“In this plan, a physically segregated bike lane connects from the Talbot Street junction past the IFSC, which is a difficult stretch at the moment, needing up to three lane changes in unpredictable traffic. The unconventional median strip design somewhat solves this problem, which is welcome,” he said.

Cllr Stanley said that it’s an unusual design, but it overcomes the need to battle it out with motorists when cycling through the one-way traffic system around Custom House, which he said is “brutal, especially in bad weather”. He added: “So, if it helps with that, I’m broadly in favour.”

The route fills in a key missing link

At George’s Quay and City Quay, the route will link to the existing two-way cycle path from O’Connell Bridge to the south Docklands. It will fill in a key link in a growing network of cycle routes, which includes the Royal Canal Greenway, Grand Canal Cycleway, the northern section of the S2S Dublin Bay route, and smaller links such as Lombard Street.

At the junction of Amiens Street and Talbot Street, the existing cycle paths on the building sides of Amiens Street will cross over via a traffic light-controlled system to the new two-way cycle path.

Along the full length of the two-way cycle path on Amiens Street, there will be planters on both sides protecting the cycle route. The space used by one of the two southbound traffic lanes between Connolly and the IFSC is to be reallocated to provide the two-way cycle path. The bus lane and bus stop bays are to remain unaffected.

The images of drawings within the report are of low resolution, but the text seems to suggest that the cycle path will be around 3 metres wide, with sections mostly varying between 2.8-3.2 metres. The artist’s impression images show a narrow buffer space between some of the marked cycle tracks and the planters; it’s unclear if the measurements include this space.

At Beresford Place, just south of Busáras, the cycle path will run alongside the traffic island before crossing over to the side of the grounds of Custom House, partly replacing and expanding on the existing contra-flow cycle path that runs between the footpath and bus lane at this point.

At Talbot Memorial Bridge, the existing contra-flow cycle path will be removed from the footpath level, and a two-way cycle path will be provided at the carriageway level. Most of the space for the cycle path is to be taken from the current protected cycle lane and its buffer on the south side of the bridge. The footpath on the bridge is to be fully repaved.

The existing southside cycle lane is likely to be less used, but will remain in place with a width of 1.5 metres. Three current traffic lanes will be maintained.

“This arrangement would not be appropriate in most parts of the city”

In a report to local area councillors, Claire French, a senior engineer with the traffic and transport section of the council, said: “The Traffic section of the Public Realm and Transportation Department has been examining an interim cycle scheme to connect two key routes: the Clontarf–City Centre route and the Liffey Cycle Route at George’s Quay.”

“While a longer-term permanent scheme will be developed by the Active Travel Team, its delivery is likely to take several years due to the significant civil works required. In the interim, and to maximise the benefits of these existing high-quality routes, an interim cycle route from Talbot Street to George’s Quay will be implemented,” she said.

French said: “A new cycle lane layout will be installed which has not previously been implemented elsewhere in the country. This involves the creation of a protected two-way cycle lane located in the centre of the roadway between traffic lanes. Due to traffic volumes, the absence of right turns along the route, and the significant width of the road, this location is particularly suitable.”

She said that an advantage of the design is that it avoids busy bus stops while reducing interactions with buses. She said that in most cases, the cycle path will also go through junctions with general traffic without requiring separate green time, meaning the two-way cycle path will flow at the same time as the main flow of traffic and buses.

French said: “While this arrangement would not be appropriate in most parts of the city, the layout at this location makes it well-suited.”

“As this is an interim scheme, no major civil works are required. However, some minor works at junctions will be necessary. Working closely with Parks, Biodiversity & Landscape Services, planters have been designed (including dimensions, materials and planting) to provide protection along most of the route. These will improve the visual appearance of the currently wide, vehicle-dominated streets and introduce much-needed greening,” she said.

French outlined that if the scheme proves unsuccessful, or when a permanent scheme is developed, the planters can be removed and reused elsewhere in the city centre.

The report said that the works — primarily road markings, planter installation, and minor junction modifications — are proposed to start in August and are expected to take around six weeks. A low amount of traffic disruption is expected during the works, and local stakeholders will be notified in advance.

Drawings from the south quays to Connolly Station

At Talbot Memorial Bridge — with the Custom House in the top right and IFSC in the bottom right:

At the traffic island — with Custom House in the top left, Busáras in the top right, and the IFSC to the bottom of the drawing:

At Connolly Station, with the two-way cycle path in the middle of the road and the crossover point to the right of the image:

A low-res close-up of the crossover point:

MORE: Report on Amien Street to George’s Quay Interim Cycle Route

If the current draft plans for a Luas route in Cork aren’t improved on, authorities risk pushing cycling out of the core of the city, the Cork Cycling Campaign has said in its submission to the current public consultation for the tram route.

Cork Luas is a plan for a route between Ballincollig and Mahon Point, connecting locations such as MTU, Cork University Hospital, UCC, Cork city centre, Kent Station, Cork Docklands, Páirc Uí Chaoimh, Blackrock and Mahon. The Emerging Preferred Route Consultation on the near-19km line ends today, Friday, June 12th, at 5.30pm.

The Cork Cycling Campaign said: “We support the revised preferred route and recognise its potential benefits, including improved public transport capacity and reduced reliance on private car use. We also welcome the avoidance of greenway disruption in the revised alignment.”

“Importantly, we see cycling and Luas as complementary systems. Together, they should form an integrated transport network that enables people to move safely, efficiently, and without dependence on private cars. For that reason, our submission focuses specifically on ensuring that cycling is properly designed into the Luas corridor from the outset,” the group said.

The campaign also said that there were risks for people cycling around tram tracks, including wheels getting trapped in tram rail grooves and reduced traction on the top of tram tracks, especially when they are wet. To counter this, the campaign points to international best practice of providing cycling crossings as close as possible to 90 degrees to the tracks, and generally no less than 70 degrees.

The submissions pointed to tram-track related injuries highlighted by the Dublin Cycling Campaign in 2017, and said: “Evidence from Dublin has shown that poorly designed interactions between cyclists and Luas tracks can lead to serious incidents. These are well-documented and highlight the importance of getting design right from the beginning and educating people rather than retrofitting solutions later. Only this way will the Cork Cycling Campaign remain supportive of the Luas.”

Partick Street should have cycling provision

The work to install Luas along Cork’s Patrick Street should also include creating provision for two-way cycling that “reflects the growing demand for cycling into and through the city centre”, campaigners said. “As a primary civic space and transport corridor, it must support all modes, with cycling treated as an integral part of the design.”

They said this ask should not come as a surprise, as it is baked into Cork’s transport strategy and the Cork Cycle Network Plan 2017.

The Cork Cycling Campaign, in their submission, said: “Current proposals risk pushing cycling out of the city centre. That would be a clear mistake. Patrick Street is a key link between Daunt’s Square, Lavitt’s Quay, Merchant’s Quay and St Patrick’s Quay, where cycling infrastructure already exists. Restricting cycling here would break that network and undermine its value. What is needed instead is better connectivity to improve links to existing cycle infrastructure, thereby creating better coherence for the cycle network in the city centre.”

“A public transport-only corridor in the western and central sections would weaken connectivity. Continuous two-way cycling should instead be included to preserve access, improve safety, and support local businesses through increased footfall,” the campaigners said. “St Patrick Street should not exclude cycling. It should be embedded as a core element of a coherent, future-ready street.” Below is an example of a design where the space is being used effectively to allocate some space for a safe cycle track, and a safe distance from the Luas stop.”

Improvements sought along the route

Elsewhere, campaigners said that shared running arrangements, where people cycling are expected to cycle on the tram route, at Station Road in Ballincollig and at Washington Street in the city centre, should be replaced with segregated cycle paths.

On the approach into the city centre from the west, the campaign notes that the route along Western Road through to Daunt Square “exhibits significant inconsistency” and “lacks overall coherence”.

The campaign said that, for cycling, this stretch of route transitions too much between a mix of quiet streets on Wood Street, single-direction lanes on Sheare Street, shared-use treatment on Little Hanover Street, two-way facilities on Liberty Street, and contraflow cycling on Castle Street, before “terminating abruptly into the heavily trafficked pedestrian space” at Daunt Square.

Similar issues at a smaller scale also pointed out where cycle routes are convoluted or disjoined.

Along large parts of the route, while accepting that the “drawing may be indicative”, the campaign said that “it is not acceptable that the entry/exit points to new cycle lanes are through pedestrian space” and rather than using shared space at junctions and other crossing points for people walking and cycling, the campaign said that clearly marked out crossings should be used.

While providing alternative drawings with more continuous cycle routes and clear crossing points (see examples below), the campaign notes that these are suggestions and other options could also be considered.

The full submission can be read at corkcyclingcampaign.com, while more details on the project can be found at luascork.ie.

Mayo County Council has said that a nearly €180,000 plan to install new gates and traffic signs along the Great Western Greenway between Westport and Achill has increased in cost to just under €200,000.

The spending was revealed in a Freedom of Information request to the council after the local authority had started installing the gates last year, nearly 15 years after the greenway first opened. The installation of gates was still underway earlier this year when IrishCycle.com visited the route to assess the placement of the chicanes gates.

The fixed barriers, which look like old gates, are called chicanes or staggered gates. The gates have also been used on other greenways, but have been retrofitted to the Mayo greenway, even though national guidance states that bollards with a minimum spacing of 1.5m are the “optimum solution” for access controls to active travel routes.

Previously, the junctions along the Great Western Greenway mainly included bollards, while not all might have met the spacing requirements, a decision was made to replace bollards with a less-than-optimum solution.

While these types of gates are often used to signify major road crossings on greenways, IrishCycle.com has found that they have been installed at minor road junctions and even at some driveways, which runs counter to national guidance. The gates were also installed in locations where people cycling around a corner have no visibility of the gate because of a high stone wall.

The spending includes four (4) traffic sign poles with eight (8) road signs at nearly every junction and driveway where the treatment was applied. Lower-level signs, such as those in the bollards previously along the greenway in recent years were recognised as legal signs in Ireland.

In another case, the gates and signs have been added at the point where the greenway merges not with any road or driveway, but with a footpath west of Newport village (see image below) — families and others often continue along the footpath as it appears to be part of the greenway, but the route has yet to be developed through the village.

At this point and others along the route outside Newport, greenway users are instructed by expensive signs to “stop” for no apparent reason. International experience indicates that repeatedly placing safety-critical signs in areas with no danger risks “desensitises” people to the warning and the signs become “background noise”, reducing awareness of critical warnings where they are needed. This is why some EU countries only use stop signs where there’s a safety-critical need, opting for yield signs or markings in most cases.

This website asked the council to confirm whether the €179,798.13 was the full cost of installing the gates and signs at 33 junctions and driveways, or whether there had been any additional costs since the figure was released to this website last year.

A spokeperson for the council today said: “Mayo County Council can confirm that the package of works at the 33 identified junction locations under the Great Western Greenway Asset Protection and Renewal Scheme had an original tendered cost of €179,798.13, which increased by €18,279.26 to a final cost of €198,077.39 following the identification on site of additional elements required to complete the works, including extra poles and signage, primer to all gates and the installation of gate stops.”

IrishCycle.com also asked whether there are extra costs for new gates along the ongoing Newport to Derrada road upgrade works, and whether the council could explain why the gates were installed at several driveways when national guidelines do not seem to support such interventions at private access points.

A Mayo County Council spokesperson said: “The staggered gates were installed at locations where the Council had identified a risk to Greenway users from vehicular movements due to restricted sightlines at these crossing points, and were provided as a necessary safety measure to reduce that risk. These works formed part of the wider Achill–Westport Greenway upgrade, which also included resurfacing and relining.”

The council also confirmed that the Newport to Derrada Road Project is a separate scheme, which is funded and delivered independently. That means any gates installed on that project will be above the €200,000 price tag.

National guidance in the Access Control of Active Travel Facilities Advice Note outlines that: “Bollards with a minimum spacing of 1.5m are the optimum solution where access control is required. All other forms of access control (gates, barriers etc.) require approval by the Approving Authority before being incorporated into scheme designs.”

While the advice for all active travel routes, including urban routes, is also referred to in the latest rural guidelines.

“Maintaining motion is clearly important for efficient cycling, therefore any access control should be designed to maintain the free flow of cyclists through obstructions. On the approach to points of interaction, it is preferable to adjust the horizontal alignment by providing deflection and curves rather than providing chicanes or staggered gates. This will allow cycle users to be fully aware of the interaction point and the need to adjust speed accordingly to give way to pedestrians or motor traffic if required,” the guidance outlines.

It continues, “Where this is not possible, and with the approval of the Approving Authority, access gates may be used in a manner that reduces speeds approaching the interaction point. For example, where a Greenway meets a road, staggered gates may be considered, however these should be sufficiently far apart (5.0m minimum) to allow all cyclists to negotiate without having to dismount.”

As reported recently, Clare County Council passed a motion calling on the Minister for Transport to make high-vis jackets mandatory for pedestrians and cyclists, with the threat of €120 fines for people in public without high-vis. The councillor, Cllr Pat Burke (Fine Gael), who proposed the motion, told Newstalk that it should apply to pedestrians even on footpaths and even in city centres.

He became frustrated and let out an exasperated sigh when asked how it would work, and was questioned about the practicalities of making wearing non-high-vis clothing a criminal offence.

Responding to the motion, Eoin Ó Nialláin said: “This month the drunk/drug driver that mowed down and killed my uncle on a Clare road was sentenced for her crimes. Today, Clare County Council effectively victim blamed uncle Mike for his death at the hands of a drunk/drug driver. Furious doesn’t cover my emotions right now.”

His 70-year-old uncle, Michael Lorigan, was described as a ‘gifted’ teacher and cyclist. He was killed by Saoirse Lillis McMahon, who was found guilty by Ennis Circuit Court of dangerous driving causing his death on August 16th, 2023, on the N67 at Baunmore, Kilkee, Co Clare.

According to a court report, Lillis McMahon was given a five-year sentence with the final six months suspended after the Court heard that she was under the influence of alcohol and a ‘cocktail’ of drugs, including cocaine. She also had children in the car with her at the time of the fatal crash.

Gardai also found that she was disqualified from driving, uninsured, and that the car was dangerously defective. She was driving at a speed of between 81-99km/h at impact and did not brake before impact.

In another post on X, Ó Nialláin added: “Attempting to absolve bad driver behaviour by shifting the focus to the right of other road users to exist is the wrong message. Driver behaviour is being worse, which stats show. That needs to remain the focus; not trying to criminalise non-drivers being on the road.”

When another user of the platform said: “Sorry to hear about your uncle, but where in this article does it speak about your uncle? The motion was put forward after a close call by a Fine Gael councillor with a pedestrian recently.” Ó Nialláin responded: “Driver behaviour is the issue, not the existence of other road users. Saying other road users are in any way at fault for their own injuries/death for not wearing a hi-vis, when research shows that’s not the case, is an insult. By the sounds of it, he was going too fast around said bend.”

The location is part of Clontarf, which was historically a fishing village and is now the main area for shops and other businesses. A report among the documents sets the urban centre as developing out of that fishing village, with what was to become the Clontarf Road at that point marked in some historical mapping as the “Clontarf Sheds”.

In the same report on the project, the council said: “Traffic Management is a key challenge in Clontarf Village. Solutions to address this have evolved over time, and currently include interventions such as double yellow lines along most of the length of the Vernon Avenue (except for some limited on-street parking), one-way traffic along Clontarf Park, the removal of parking to the southern end of Vernon Avenue to provide a public space in 2007, the introduction of temporary bollards on the footpaths to Vernon Avenue, pay and display parking in Clontarf Village and in the car park to the south of Clontarf Road.”

“Current traffic volumes have begun to detract from the quality and amenity of Clontarf Village, hence, a new and updated approach to traffic management is now required. This project tries to recalibrate the village in favour of pedestrians and cyclists, while still maintaining vehicular access and loading for deliveries, services and the provision of accessible parking,” the council said.

The council added: “By creating a new civic space at the southern end of Clontarf Village addressing the sea and improving the connection to Clontarf Promenade, it hopes to create a new destination for Dubliners along Dublin Bay.”

As well as creating a new public space, the Vernon Avenue to Clontarf Road Active Travel Scheme will connect the planned cycle path north of Seafield Road to the S2S Dublin Bay route while maintaining access for motorists.

The consultation runs until the 10th July 2026. As part of that, there will be an information evening on Tuesday, June 23rd, from 3-7pm at Clontarf GAA Club, Áras, Seafield Rd W, D03 Y6V3.

The drawings and documents are also available at dublincity.ie/vernonave, and at Raheny Library, D05 VY99 and Marino Library, D03 VW10.

MORE: A detailed look at the outline plan to restore more of a village feel to Clontarf again

The road traffic collision — which involved the man cycling being seriously injured — happened on Shangan Road in Ballymun, Dublin 9 today Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 at around 7.45am.

UPDATE: Reports from RTE, the Irish Independent and the Irish Mirror all indicate that the collision is said to be feud-related, and the hit-and-run appears to be deliberate.

In a statement, a Garda Press Office spokesperson said: “The collision involved a black Volkswagen Passat and a male pedal cyclist. The male cyclist (aged in his 20s) was conveyed to hospital for treatment of serious injuries.”

“The car failed to remain at the scene and was subsequently located by investigating Gardaí,” the statement said this evening, but there are no driverless Volkswagen Passats, so it was the driver who failed to remain at the scene.

Gardaí said that a Senior Investigating Officer has been appointed and an incident room established at Ballymun Garda Station.

“Gardaí said that they believe that a second vehicle was present during the incident — this are looking to speak to the driver of this vehicle which was understood to be a white Volvo XC90 Jeep with a 231- D registration,” a spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added: “Anyone who was in the Ballymun area between 6:30am and 8:30am on Tuesday 9th June 2026 who may have seen this incident or a White Volvo Jeep with a 231-D reg, or who may have dashcam footage is asked to please contact Ballymun Garda Station on 01 666 4400, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda Station.”