Dublin City Councils previous be sound campaign is better messaging; its perfect for shared streets. A council making up well-meaning but impractical rules that dont exist creates unrealistic expectations, which could cause more conflict.Comment & Analysis: If you spend much time on Dublins 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 youll 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 its 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 wont 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. Thats 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, theres 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 its 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 isnt 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.IMAGE: A screenshot of the advert on Instagram. Main text quoted below.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, youre 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 carragway 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 carragway 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 Im 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: Thats not to say theres zero issue with cyclists on the street, its just the majority of the faster two-wheel users are being repeatedly misidentified as cyclists. A pro-cycling council department shouldnt be involved in this. And Im writing this with a strong awareness that some people will twist what Im 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; its just an acute issue on Capel Street.