Bodkin / Headford Road roundabout replacement [Lights are on!]

antoobrien · 13-11-2013 9:58am

Unrealistic wrote: »

They are far from tiny. They completely block the pedestrian part of the pavement and extend out a little bit into the cycle lane. There were actually three of them in place when I drove over the bridge on Saturday.

They were in place since Tuesday 5th, with very little reported inconvenience to either cyclists or pedestrians.

Anybody who thinks that these signs are serious obstructions are not to be taken seriously.

zarquon · 13-11-2013 10:08am

antoobrien wrote: »

They were in place since Tuesday 5th, with very little reported inconvenience to either cyclists or pedestrians.

Anybody who thinks that these signs are serious obstructions are not to be taken seriously.

I can see how they might be a small obstruction now to the salmon cyclists meeting cyclists that are cycling legally :rolleyes: It's the same nonsense when people complained about the obstruction to cyclists on the other lane of the bridge even though 95% of cyclists on the bridge all use the same lane and footpath going both ways rather than take the legal lane. I see there are no complaints to the cyclists using the footpaths on the bridge and around the new junction creating obstructions to pedestrians! There are a lot of casual student cyclists in the area and they will not use the new junction as shorts cuts through dun na coirbe and salmon cycling the wrong way up and down footpaths are far more convenient to them that cycling legally.

snubbleste · 13-11-2013 10:46am

The point is it is a designated footpath provided by the Council for pedestrians. It is not a place to abandon signs aimed at motorists.
The Council have the same obligation to facilitate pedestrians as they do the motorist. In this case the footpath has been closed with no notice, diversion created etc

If either of these signs were obstructing one lane on the road, you can be sure that motorists would be vocal. It is another case of pedestrians being treated as the lesser mode of transport.

Patrickheg · 13-11-2013 10:53am

snubbleste wrote: »

The point is it is a designated footpath provided by the Council for pedestrians. It is not a place to abandon signs aimed at motorists.
The Council have the same obligation to facilitate pedestrians as they do the motorist. In this case the footpath has been closed with no notice, diversion created etc

If either of these signs were obstructing one lane on the road, you can be sure that motorists would be vocal. It is another case of pedestrians being treated as the lesser mode of transport.

It's another case of the boards anti car brigade being selective with both what they post and their choice of words. Ye remind me if the minister for information in Iraq!

galwaycyclist · 13-11-2013 10:59am

zarquon wrote: »

I can see how they might be a small obstruction now to the salmon cyclists meeting cyclists that are cycling legally :rolleyes: It's the same nonsense when people complained about the obstruction to cyclists on the other lane of the bridge even though 95% of cyclists on the bridge all use the same lane and footpath going both ways rather than take the legal lane. I see there are no complaints to the cyclists using the footpaths on the bridge and around the new junction creating obstructions to pedestrians! There are a lot of casual student cyclists in the area and they will not use the new junction as shorts cuts through dun na coirbe and salmon cycling the wrong way up and down footpaths are far more convenient to them that cycling legally.

So when did you stop beating your wife? - to pose a rhetorical question.

What is the basis for your claim that there are no complaints about footpath cycling on the bridge or anywhere else? Who exactly is it that you are accusing of not "complaining"?

zarquon · 13-11-2013 11:02am

snubbleste wrote: »

The point is it is a designated footpath provided by the Council for pedestrians. It is not a place to abandon signs aimed at motorists.

I do agree that it is ridiculous that these signs are needed to accomodate retarded drivers who cannot use bodkin properly however where is your outcry over the cyclists that i regularly see cycling both ways on the footpath across the same stretch. Pedestrians can easily walk around the sign however they are more of an obstacle for the cyclists that regularly use the footpaths along this stretch.

zarquon · 13-11-2013 11:04am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So when did you stop beating your wife? - to pose a rhetorical question.

Completely uncalled for!!:mad: Calling people wife beaters for pointing out illegal cycling practices around bodkin and the bridge!

What is the basis for your claim that there are no complaints about footpath cycling on the bridge or anywhere else? Who exactly is it that you are accusing of not "complaining"?

I regularly run through bodkin and across the bridge and often encounter cylists on the footpath, usually coming to or from college i suspect. So the basis of my complain are my eyes and experience.

What is the basis for you calling me a wife beater apart from rudeness and obnoxiousness!!!!

snubbleste · 13-11-2013 11:10am

:rolleyes:

Iwannahurl · 13-11-2013 11:13am

snubbleste wrote: »

The point is it is a designated footpath provided by the Council for pedestrians. It is not a place to abandon signs aimed at motorists.

The Council have the same obligation to facilitate pedestrians as they do the motorist. In this case the footpath has been closed with no notice, diversion created etc

If either of these signs were obstructing one lane on the road, you can be sure that motorists would be vocal. It is another case of pedestrians being treated as the lesser mode of transport.

zarquon wrote: »

I can see how they might be a small obstruction now to the salmon cyclists meeting cyclists that are cycling legally It's the same nonsense when people complained about the obstruction to cyclists on the other lane of the bridge even though 95% of cyclists on the bridge all use the same lane and footpath going both ways rather than take the legal lane. I see there are no complaints to the cyclists using the footpaths on the bridge and around the new junction creating obstructions to pedestrians! There are a lot of casual student cyclists in the area and they will not use the new junction as shorts cuts through dun na coirbe and salmon cycling the wrong way up and down footpaths are far more convenient to them that cycling legally.

In my experience -- often pushing a child in a buggy -- Council workers and contractors habitually and mindlessly use the footway as a handy spot to place "road" signage. Their objective seems to be to warn motorists of roadworks ahead in a manner that does not slow down or otherwise impede motorised traffic even slightly. Not a thought is given to pedestrians, children in prams or on bikes, people in wheelchairs etc. Temporary and unexpected obstacles also cause particular difficulty for vision-impaired people, especially on their regular routes.

In the case of the QB, the obstructions on the footway become a problem when there are high volumes of pedestrian and cycle traffic.

This is especially the case given the prevalence of 'salmon' cycling in the area. There is something seriously wrong with the design of cycling 'facilities' if "95%" of cyclists find that doing the wrong thing is easier than doing the right thing.

galwaycyclist · 13-11-2013 11:35am

zarquon wrote: »

Completely uncalled for!!:mad: Calling people wife beaters for pointing out illegal cycling practices around bodkin and the bridge!

No you didnt just point out illegal practices - you accused unamed others of not complaining.

I regularly run through bodkin and across the bridge and often encounter cylists on the footpath, usually coming to or from college i suspect. So the basis of my complain are my eyes and experience.

What is the basis for you calling me a wife beater apart from rudeness and obnoxiousness!!!!

I didn't call you a wife beater - I asked you when you stopped doing something for which there is no evidence. Sauce for the goose?

To restate the question on what basis are you accusing others of not complaining?

Unrealistic · 13-11-2013 11:51am

zarquon wrote: »

Completely uncalled for!!:mad: Calling people wife beaters for pointing out illegal cycling practices around bodkin and the bridge!

What is the basis for you calling me a wife beater apart from rudeness and obnoxiousness!!!!

Calm down. No one is accusing you of being a wife beater, just using a clichéd example to highlight a flaw in your logic.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption ( e.g., a presumption of guilt). Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

antoobrien · 13-11-2013 12:12pm

Unrealistic wrote: »

Calm down. No one is accusing you of being a wife beater, just using a clichéd example to highlight a flaw in your logic.

I'd love to see that defence for slander charges on front of Mary Fahy or Raymond Groake. "It wasn't slander because I wasn't actually accusing him of being a wife beater".

ballinadog · 13-11-2013 12:37pm

Unrealistic wrote: »

They are far from tiny. They completely block the pedestrian part of the pavement and extend out a little bit into the cycle lane. There were actually three of them in place when I drove over the bridge on Saturday.

"3" - is a complete lie considering i was the one who put them there... anyway there gone now

galwaycyclist · 13-11-2013 1:16pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd love to see that defence for slander charges on front of Mary Fahy or Raymond Groake. "It wasn't slander because I wasn't actually accusing him of being a wife beater".

I think the sordid and sleazy record of Galway City Council and certain public officials and elected councillors regarding the issue of footpath cycling is something that might be very, very useful to have explored in a court of law.

There are several people here, on this forum, who would be in a position to bring voluminous documentation on the matter, stretching over more than a decade, before the court.

zarquon · 13-11-2013 1:19pm

ballinadog wrote: »

"3" - is a complete lie considering i was the one who put them there... anyway there gone now

Yes, i also noted there were only 2 signs but factual detail is not in the remit of some people within certain vested interest groups on this thread who revel in hyperbole and excuse making for illegal practices of their own group for which they are self appointed spokespeople for.

antoobrien · 13-11-2013 1:23pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I think the sordid and sleazy record of Galway City Council and certain public officials and elected councillors regarding the issue of footpath cycling is something that might be very, very useful to have explored in a court of law.

There are several people here, on this forum, who would be in a position to bring voluminous documentation on the matter, stretching over more than a decade, before the court.

But your honour I was making a point about other people, not trying to insinuate that the person I made the comment about beats his wife.

Yeah, that will help.:rolleyes:

zarquon · 13-11-2013 1:28pm

So is the new rule on this forum that we can make slanderous inflammatory comments about others we disagree with as long as we are doing so in order to prove an unrelated point? I must re-read the charter as i was not aware of this.

galwaycyclist · 13-11-2013 1:31pm

zarquon wrote: »

So is the new rule on this forum that we can make slanderous inflammatory comments about others as long as we are doing so in order to prove an unrelated point? I must re-read the charter as i was not aware of this.

I again invite you to make your accusations against identified persons. Or do you not have the courage?

zarquon · 13-11-2013 1:32pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I again invite you to make your accusations against identified persons. Or do you not have the courage?

Please point out what exactly i accused someone of and whom i accused?

Edit: Actually, never mind i don't want to get into a nonsensical argument with you with more inflammatory comments saying i lack courage.

biko · 13-11-2013 1:35pm

Ok work is now ended on the roundabout/new junction.
This thread has veered off the roadworks into general blah and handbags.
We'll stop here.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So when did you stop beating your wife? - to pose a rhetorical question.

Even as rhetorical that's not on. A certain level of decorum is expected and you've received a warning for that.

zarquon wrote: »

So is the new rule on this forum that we can make slanderous inflammatory comments about others we disagree with as long as we are doing so in order to prove an unrelated point?

Of course not but mods aren't always here to jump in immediately.

Edit, reopened after discussion but keep mainly to actual work information please.

snubbleste · 01-10-2014 6:34pm

These roadworks on the N6 are being undertaken by Dunnes Stores to provide a right turning lane into Terryland Retail Park. The Duration of the works is approximately 6 weeks. Traffic Management will be in place for the duration of the works. 2 vehicular traffic lanes will be maintained on the Headford Road between 7am - 7pm

What does this mean exactly? Where is the right turn going?

Edit: Found link - Is that silliness really going ahead?

El_Dangeroso · 01-10-2014 7:10pm

snubbleste wrote: »

What does this mean exactly? Where is the right turn going?

Edit: Found link - Is that silliness really going ahead?

Oh, that must be the roadworks that are going on now, does that mean there's now a rat run created to avoid the menlo roundabout if going east?

gordongekko · 01-10-2014 8:09pm

Are we seriously going to have lights at the bridge ,lights at dun na corrib, lights at terryland and lights replacing the roundabout at Menlo?

snubbleste · 01-10-2014 8:12pm

gordongekko wrote: »

Are we seriously going to have lights at the bridge ,lights at dun na corrib, lights at terryland and lights replacing the roundabout at Menlo?

Our version of the LasVegas strip

El_Dangeroso · 01-10-2014 9:43pm

gordongekko wrote: »

Are we seriously going to have lights at the bridge ,lights at dun na corrib, lights at terryland and lights replacing the roundabout at Menlo?

Sher they'll co-ordinate them, maybe, when they get around to it.

Iwannahurl · 02-10-2014 10:25am

gordongekko wrote: »

Are we seriously going to have lights at the bridge ,lights at dun na corrib, lights at terryland and lights replacing the roundabout at Menlo?

Perhaps it's an inevitable consequence of the "planning" decisions which gave us all the commercial and residential developments in the area.

snubbleste wrote: »

Our version of the LasVegas strip

Except walking or cycling through will no longer be a game of Russian Roulette, as it is with roundabouts.

goalscoringhero · 02-10-2014 11:02am

gordongekko wrote: »

Are we seriously going to have lights at the bridge ,lights at dun na corrib, lights at terryland and lights replacing the roundabout at Menlo?

As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian, I don't have any objection to any traffic lights - they liberate anyone participating in traffic (on road, cycle paths or sidewalks) from being reliant on the mercy of others.

The lights at Dun na Corrib and the pedestrian crossing could probably superseded by the new lights at the right turn into Terryland Retail Park.

Overall I think it's a good idea - the right-hand turn will take traffic destined for the retail park off the road earlier. Right now the traffic has to move around the roundabout first, adding unnecessarily to congestion.

I don't think anyone seriously will consider using Terryland Retail Park as a rat run to avoid going through the roundabout (traffic junction in future?). The navigation in the retail park is too slow with narrow lanes, cars parking and speed ramps.

02-10-2014 11:53am

People do rat-run the other way though - coming off the Sandy Road / Liosban Road through the petrol station or by EZ Living to avoid the Menlo roundabout.

I doubt this will change that.

The flow of pedestrians coming out of Dun Na Coiribe going to Dunnes probably will use that route - it is a bit of a more natural path.

goalscoringhero · 02-10-2014 12:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

People do rat-run the other way though - coming off the Sandy Road / Liosban Road through the petrol station or by EZ Living to avoid the Menlo roundabout.

All speculation of course, but to access that rat run the other way round, people would have to wait for a green light turning right first - I think that would be a big deterrent.

And with Menlo Park roundabout turning into a traffic junction (hopefully), I think with the positive experience (to me, at least) of controlled traffic flow on Bodkin and Headford Rd junctions (and any other roundabouts-turned-traffic-junctions in Galway), I would have confidence that traffic flow won't be as frustrating there in the future, making progress more predictable all round (excuse the pun).

WallyGUFC · 02-10-2014 1:11pm

Lights are generally welcome yes, but if the roundabout is eventually done as well, 4 sets of lights along that short stretch will be nonsense. Why do they need so many entrances into Dunnes? When they were doing it the first time could they not have just made a proper junction where the current one is?

Bodkin / Headford Road roundabout replacement [Lights are on!]

Comments