Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Political Action Thread

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    dited
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭dited


    Finally got a (somewhat unhelpful) reply to my query sent in November.
    Thirty-nine weeks ago.
    Thirty-nine.
    Dear Dited,
    I refer to your email in connection with the mandatory use of cycle lanes. The current position is that the preparation of new regulations to amend the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997-1998, including a revision of the use of cycle track requirements is now nearing completion. It is intended that the amending regulations will be finalised shortly.
    Yours sincerely,
    Leo


  • Options
    #123
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    I supose we can't argue with the logic of this: a task can be permanently "nearing completion" yet never get there :rolleyes:

    (? Any philosophy or semantics experts want to have a go at this one...?)


  • Options
    #124
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,055 ✭✭✭buffalo


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    I supose we can't argue with the logic of this: a task can be permanently "nearing completion" yet never get there :rolleyes:

    (? Any philosophy or semantics experts want to have a go at this one...?)

    Maybe it's a DoT motto - didn't CIE have something similar? "We're not there yet, but we're getting there".


  • Options
    #125
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Ah yes, the Xeno's arrow provision which allows for all tasks to always be almost complete but infinitely far from completion at the same time.


  • Options
    #126
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    droidus wrote: »
    Ah yes, the Xeno's arrow provision which allows for all tasks to always be almost complete but infinitely far from completion at the same time.
    Googles to "Zeno's paradoxes".
    Ha - and motion is an illusion... :D
    "But Garda..."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Doctor Bob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Doctor Bob


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    I supose we can't argue with the logic of this: a task can be permanently "nearing completion" yet never get there :rolleyes:

    (? Any philosophy or semantics experts want to have a go at this one...?)

    It's possible that you've just discovered a version of the semi-mythical tenth Paradox of Zeno which, like the other nine, is really just a slight variation of the other nine.

    In short, the paradox (allegedly) states that for a job to be fully complete, it must first be nearing completion, but before it can be nearing completion it must first be almost complete, but before it can be almost complete it must first be nearing almost completion. This appears at first to be a standard philosophical reductio ad absurdum, but in the case of the semi-mythical tenth paradox, there is a subtle yet profound twist (more akin to a genetic mutation) which states that, should a job attain the status of 'nearing completion', then the remaining workload is halved and apportioned out. Before each half is undertaken, it is itself halved, and these in turn... well, you get the picture.

    If not, then the best graphic representation of the core principle of the paradox can be found in the concept of the Sigma Code, developed by Cecil Balmond in his book Number 9 - The Search For The Sigma Code, in which he uses a sort of lop-sided infinity symbol to illustrate the location of the fixed point in the wind, a point which can only be known with certainty by reference to an external fixed point, which can itself only be known with certainty by reference to...

    Any questions?

    (With respect, I dispute droidus's assertion that it is most akin to Zeno's arrow paradox, although I do think the arrow paradox is relevant, if only inasmuch as it demonstrates that progress is impossible as it depends on the unverifiable concept of forward motion, given that at every infinitely small point in time an object itself is static in space. If anyone would like me to clarify this further, I will do so, but only by reference to the dog in Borges's 'Funes El Memorioso'.)


  • Options
    #128
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    Apparently Dun laoghaire CoCo are planning to re-remodel Killiney Towers roundabout, putting the controversial segregated-but-on-road cycle lane off-road, so that cyclists will be expected to cross each entrance/exit individually at the whim of motor traffic flow -- see link in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82118684&postcount=231

    For what it's worth, I've sent the following email to cycling@dlrcoco.ie

    To whom it may concern:

    I see the Killiney Towers roundabout is to be remodelled again(!), with a raised cycle path from which cyclists must cross each of the entrance/exit roads individually after they have stopped, swivelled around and waited until they are permitted to proceed by a lull in motor traffic. I also see that one of the rejected variants of the proposed plan (http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,8949,en.pdf) mentioned that “Confident cyclists can take the lane on a traffic-calmed single lane carriageway”. However this statement is omitted in other variants, including the final choice.

    Please be aware that most “confident cyclists” will indeed avoid the raised cycle lane and do this anyway. With the recent revocation of the “mandatory use” law for solid-line/off-road cycle lanes (as of October – see footnote*), there is no legal impediment to doing so.

    The single-lane roundabout at Stradbrook works well enough without off-road cycle lanes – why complicate things? If the proposed remodelling does proceed, please make it clear to motorists that cyclists have a right to continue on the road.

    Yours faithfully

    [name]


    * S.I. No. 332/2012 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html. From the Explanatory Note at the end of this document: “… only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory …” See also the Sunday Business Post article at http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760.


  • Options
    #129
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,055 ✭✭✭buffalo


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Apparently Dun laoghaire CoCo are planning to re-remodel Killiney Towers roundabout

    Just so I'm sure I understand. They're replacing the current controversial, non-standard roundabout design (on which cars are supposed to yield to cyclists) with a new non-standard roundabout design on which cyclists have to yield to drivers if they use the cycle lanes?

    I'm not sure from the diagram - are the crossing points zebra crossings or pedestrian lights?


  • Options
    #130
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    buffalo wrote: »
    Just so I'm sure I understand. They're replacing the current controversial, non-standard roundabout design (on which cars are supposed to yield to cyclists) with a new non-standard roundabout design on which cyclists have to yield to drivers if they use the cycle lanes?

    I'm not sure from the diagram - are the crossing points zebra crossings or pedestrian lights?
    Very good question. I'm fearing the worst :eek:, but assume that DLRCOCO will correct me if the crossings actually do have priority...

    Edit: I suspect I may just be addicted to outrage :p, so aploogies in advance to DLRCOCO if I've jumped the gun :o


  • Options
    #131
    Doctor Bob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Doctor Bob


    buffalo wrote: »
    Just so I'm sure I understand. They're replacing the current controversial, non-standard roundabout design (on which cars are supposed to yield to cyclists) with a new non-standard roundabout design on which cyclists have to yield to drivers if they use the cycle lanes?

    I'm not sure from the diagram - are the crossing points zebra crossings or pedestrian lights?

    I believe they are neither, but rather are standard uncontrolled dished crossings where crossing peds (and cyclists) have no priority.
    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Apparently Dun laoghaire CoCo are planning to re-remodel Killiney Towers roundabout, putting the controversial segregated-but-on-road cycle lane off-road, so that cyclists will be expected to cross each entrance/exit individually at the whim of motor traffic flow -- see link in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82118684&postcount=231

    For what it's worth, I've sent the following email to cycling@dlrcoco.ie
    To whom it may concern:

    I see the Killiney Towers roundabout is to be remodelled again(!), with a raised cycle path from which cyclists must cross each of the entrance/exit roads individually after they have stopped, swivelled around and waited until they are permitted to proceed by a lull in motor traffic. I also see that one of the rejected variants of the proposed plan (http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,8949,en.pdf) mentioned that “Confident cyclists can take the lane on a traffic-calmed single lane carriageway”. However this statement is omitted in other variants, including the final choice.

    Please be aware that most “confident cyclists” will indeed avoid the raised cycle lane and do this anyway. With the recent revocation of the “mandatory use” law for solid-line/off-road cycle lanes (as of October – see footnote*), there is no legal impediment to doing so.

    The single-lane roundabout at Stradbrook works well enough without off-road cycle lanes – why complicate things? If the proposed remodelling does proceed, please make it clear to motorists that cyclists have a right to continue on the road.

    Yours faithfully

    [name]


    * S.I. No. 332/2012 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html. From the Explanatory Note at the end of this document: “… only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory …” See also the Sunday Business Post article at http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760.

    Is it possible that DLRCC knows about the revocation of the 'mandatory use' provision already, and in fact might have been facilitated in the new design by that very revocation? Now the council can provide options for both risk-averse cyclists and vehicular cyclists, whereas before the layout had to cater for both ends of the spectrum, and everyone in between, with a single design.

    For what it's worth, while the Stradbrook roundabout is generally liked by vehicular cyclists, it is apparently still disliked by risk-averse cyclists. In this regard, the new Killiney Towers layout would actually be better than Stradbrook in that it doesn't ignore an important cycling cohort, i.e. non-vehicular cyclists (which is most of us - kids, older folks, a significant sub-set of commuters - although perhaps not most of us on Boards).

    Looking forward to hearing DLRCC's reply...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    Doctor Bob wrote: »
    I believe they are neither, but rather are standard uncontrolled dished crossings where crossing peds (and cyclists) have no priority.



    Is it possible that DLRCC knows about the revocation of the 'mandatory use' provision already, and in fact might have been facilitated in the new design by that very revocation? Now the council can provide options for both risk-averse cyclists and vehicular cyclists, whereas before the layout had to cater for both ends of the spectrum, and everyone in between, with a single design.

    For what it's worth, while the Stradbrook roundabout is generally liked by vehicular cyclists, it is apparently still disliked by risk-averse cyclists. In this regard, the new Killiney Towers layout would actually be better than Stradbrook in that it doesn't ignore an important cycling cohort, i.e. non-vehicular cyclists (which is most of us - kids, older folks, a significant sub-set of commuters - although perhaps not most of us on Boards).

    Looking forward to hearing DLRCC's reply...
    Agreed. My main concern is the behaviour of motorists towards the vehicular cyclists...

    Edit: I also think that the ped/cyclepath crossings should have priority, and would be happy to stop as a vehicular cyclist for a walker or cyclepath cyclist to cross. But again, the sucess of that arrangement depends on respect from the average Irish road-user...


  • Options
    #133
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Agreed. My main concern is the behaviour of motorists towards the vehicular cyclists...

    That is exactly why the notion of a dual network (one for the risk-averse cyclists, one for the confident cyclists) is doomed from the start. Why not ask for something like the Dutch do?


  • Options
    #134
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    enas wrote: »
    That is exactly why the notion of a dual network (one for the risk-averse cyclists, one for the confident cyclists) is doomed from the start. Why not ask for something like the Dutch do?
    Perrhaps


  • Options
    #135
    GlennaMaddy
    Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭GlennaMaddy


    enas wrote: »
    Why not ask for something like the Dutch do?

    My main concern would be behaviour of motorists towards cyclists


  • Options
    #136
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    enas wrote: »
    That is exactly why the notion of a dual network (one for the risk-averse cyclists, one for the confident cyclists) is doomed from the start. Why not ask for something like the Dutch do?
    The main functional advantage of this, on a once-off basis (i.e. in the absence of an entire Dutch-type network), is that the cyclist keeps a direct line (no turning their back to the road before crossing). The rest – that road traffic should stop for path traffic – would be about minor physical tweaks (e.g. ground marking), expectations, education and enforcement. As with the current arrangement, it’s a case of “good luck with the 3 Es"...


  • Options
    #137
    Doctor Bob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Doctor Bob


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    Edit: I also think that the ped/cyclepath crossings should have priority, and would be happy to stop as a vehicular cyclist for a walker or cyclepath cyclist to cross. But again, the sucess of that arrangement depends on respect from the average Irish road-user...

    ...and one of the key lessons that Killiney Towers has taught us is that there's a sub-set of motorists that can not be relied upon to show that respect, either by accident or by design. As long as the 'might makes right' mentality prevails, with tacit institutional support, 'good luck with the three Es' indeed. :)


  • Options
    #138
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Doctor Bob wrote: »
    ...and one of the key lessons that Killiney Towers has taught us is that there's a sub-set of motorists that can not be relied upon to show that respect, either by accident or by design. As long as the 'might makes right' mentality prevails, with tacit institutional support, 'good luck with the three Es' indeed. :)



    Sounds just like the poor arguments against zebra crossings.

    The at least mini zebra crossing comeback across has proven that wrong.


  • Options
    #139
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Doctor Bob wrote: »
    ...and one of the key lessons that Killiney Towers has taught us is that there's a sub-set of motorists that can not be relied upon to show that respect, either by accident or by design. As long as the 'might makes right' mentality prevails, with tacit institutional support, 'good luck with the three Es' indeed. :)

    Good infrastructure design not only makes most motorists behave more predictably, it also makes it easier for cyclists to see and react to the bad ones. Typically for the roundabout, as you cycle around the roundabout, the current design will have you check if the driver behind you and on your side will yield (hard and intimidating to do, due to poor visibility, having to look behind etc.) and leave you in an intimidating position to stop if the car doesn't yield, whereas the Dutch design as shown in the previously linked video puts you in a position where it's very easy to see approaching cars and stop in a safe place if it looks they're not going to stop (and conversely, it's easier for cars to yield for cyclists). That's a massive difference, and that's how good infrastructure caters for bad drivers or drivers doing mistakes.


  • Options
    #140
    Iolarwood
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭Iolarwood


    Many of those Dutch cyclists don't even pause to check if the motorists will yield - confidence born of long experience (by both sides).

    One factor is that a far larger proportion of Dutch motorists are cyclists also. And that's another reason why safety improves as cycling becomes more popular.


  • Options
    #141
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Iolarwood wrote: »
    Many of those Dutch cyclists don't even pause to check if the motorists will yield - confidence born of long experience (by both sides).
    I don't want to continue too much on this discussion, since it is out of topic for this thread and the very same topic is being discussed in the other thread, but just one remark about this. Most cyclists on the video will turn their head towards oncoming traffic, so they do check; the fact they don't have to pause simply shows that there is good visibility on the approach to the crossing to proceed confidently. Also, the tight geometry means car reduce their speed to a speed similar to the cyclists speed, meaning both streams of traffic interleave smoothly without anyone really having to pause (most cars don't or hardly brake in order to yield to cyclists, judging from the brake lights I can see).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    [contact details]

    20 May 2014

    RSA, Research & Education section (researchdept@rsa.ie)

    To whom it may concern

    Thanks for the recent TV advertisement highlighting the need for drivers and cyclists to share the road sensibly and safely.

    I would be grateful if you could publicise a related issue: the function of the ‘advance stop’ zones/boxes for cyclists, and expected behaviour at these.

    I have witnessed and sometimes been affected by a good deal of apparently perverse behaviour at junctions:

    A significant minority of motorists approaching an already red light choose to enter the box, either immediately or by creeping forward as they wait for the light to change. (I understand that vehicles may be caught in that position unexpectedly when lights change to red, but I am specifically referring to deliberate actions.) In doing so they block the area for cyclists who may arrive in the meantime, or may intimidate cyclist’s already in place; I recently had a motorcyclist pull up to the right and slightly ahead of me in the box while signalling left! And, where there is an inductive loop sensor embedded in the road before the vehicular stop line, drivers are also potentially putting themselves, at least, at a disadvantage for progression by not covering it!

    Then there are the drivers who take it one step further at junctions where there is a free area before the crossing road by choosing to stop ahead of the bike zone. At least twice I have observed such vehicles having to reverse or pull over to the kerb having blocked buses from turning in Dun Laoghaire at the crossroads formed by York Road, Cumberland Street, Georges Street Lower and Clarence Street!

    Conversely, while driving recently I had the reverse experience: I was indicating left in a left-turn-only lane at a red light when a cyclist pulled up to the left of me. I thought it best to wait until he had cleared the junction on green in case he went straight ahead, which he did (slowly). It would have been safer and more efficient if he had pulled ahead into the advance stop box, preferably in the central position.

    Perhaps he considered it unsafe to move into the box, particularly away from the left of the road, in case the lights changed while he did so? This brings up uncertainties I have on the expected behaviour of cyclists coming up to a junction with vehicles already waiting: If intending to go left or straight and there is a cycle lane or unobstructed room to the left of the queue, the situation seems relatively straightforward – I will cycle into the advance stop box, unless the first vehicle is indicating left and I think the light might change to green before I get there. However if I need to position myself to the middle or right in the box where going straight (with a left-turn-only lane) or right, respectively, then I am unsure what to do – come up on the left and then move right through the box, filter in the middle or right and enter directly, or stay to the back of the traffic queue, no matter how long.

    Finally, returning to the issue of vehicle sensors at junctions: Do any of the loops in Ireland detect cyclists? If so, how do we know which? If not, or at junctions that detect only motor vehicles, and when no vehicles arrive to trigger them, this is a problem; should the cyclist move back out of the box to align their wheels with the grid, hoping for the best?

    I think that clarification on all these points might increase the safety and efficiency of traffic flow at junctions and reduce frustration and ill-feeling between road users.

    Yours Sincerely

    [name]



    =======

    4 wot it's worth
    Grumble, grumble, thinly veiled passive-agressive genteel ranty scribbling :P


  • Options
    #143
    bambergbike
    Registered Users Posts: 342 ✭✭bambergbike


    I presume that was sparked by problems you've noticed (dysfunctional induction loops etc.) at various specific junctions?


  • Options
    #144
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    bambergbike wrote: »
    I presume that was sparked by problems you've noticed (dysfunctional induction loops etc.) at various specific junctions?
    When it comes to the sensors I'm basically in the dark - I think I've read that some may react to bicycles, but I don't think I've ever noticed evidence for it myself. I'm hoping the RSA may enlighten me (yeah, right :p)


  • Options
    #145
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    Pleased to recieve this reply from the RSA communications manager:
    Dear [name], Many thanks for contacting the RSA. We really do appreciate it when people contact with feedback on road safety.

    We will certainly keep your suggestion in mind when planning our next campaign regarding the interaction of cyclists with drivers, particularly around the rules of the road for the advance stop line.

    Regarding the sensors at traffic lights and the control of traffic lights in general, this is the responsibility of the local authority in this case I assume its Dublin City Council? I’m afraid the RSA has no control over these matters, indeed we don’t have any role or responsibility in relation to roads engineering, traffic management or road markings. In addition to the local council you might also bring your concerns to the attention of the National Transport Authority (NTA). We will certainly forward on your comments to these agencies as well.

    Many thanks again for contacting us and sharing your personal experience and please be assured that we will consider educational activity around the advance stop line .

    Kind regards [etc.]


  • Options
    #146
    pelevin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭pelevin


    I wrote this letter or email to various TDs in my constituency and also to more prominent politicians on the national scale.

    "You're all a bunch of crooked bast*rds and I hope you all rot in hell for what you've done to this country. And if you ever make helmets mandatory, you better watch your backs. C***s.

    Yours sincerely . . .


  • Options
    #147
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    pelevin wrote: »
    I wrote this letter or email to various TDs in my constituency and also to more prominent politicians on the national scale.

    "You're all a bunch of crooked bast*rds and I hope you all rot in hell for what you've done to this country. And if you ever make helmets mandatory, you better watch your backs. C***s.

    Yours sincerely . . .

    That'll help, all right.


  • Options
    #148
    pelevin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭pelevin


    RainyDay wrote: »
    That'll help, all right.

    That's what I was hoping.


Advertisement