Essex Quay incident

cyclopath2001

>>Obviously. I don't see how that's relevant though.

I hope that pedestrians do not feel threatened or intimidated by your behaviour?

>>very likely that I'm going to come off, or maybe have to swerve in front of the

The amount of injury to you or the whether or not you might lose control is a function of how fast YOU are going. If you take proper care, then, if a pedestrian does decide to cross, you will not fall of and you will not swerve under a truck.

>>I don't really see any unfair laws regarding movement of pedestrians. If a

You do not see the laws as unfair because you do not walk around the city much?

>>Just as a side thought, you mention "driving without due care or consideration for the safety of others". Would you be happy to extend this definition to include pedestrians who walk out in front of cyclists and motorcyclists? After all, they're putting other people safety at serious risk.<<

No, I would not be happy to extend the definition. Why whould pedestrians have their freedom curtailed because it is inconvenient for cyclists and motor cyclists to slow down?

You're engaging in 'victim-blaming'.

seamus

I hope that pedestrians do not feel threatened or intimidated by your behaviour?

About the most intimidating I would do is a quick rev of the engine when they cross when the lights are blatantly red for them and just gone green for me. Even then I only do it cos it's fun to watch them **** themselves and run. A quick rev also makes a lot of people think twice about crossing the road. I'm saving people's lives here. I certainly wouldn't put people's safety at risk by missing them by a few inches. I'm not on a bicycle.

The amount of injury to you or the whether or not you might lose control is a function of how fast YOU are going. If you take proper care, then, if a pedestrian does decide to cross, you will not fall of and you will not swerve under a truck.

This is almost as ridiculous as someone else's "drive properly and you'll never have an emergency" statement. As I've said, most incidents would occur at slow speeds. Whether at 15mph or 50 mph, swerving in front of a truck is going to do a lot of damage to me. If pedestrians took proper care, risk could be further minimised. I have in fact, had people step out literally in front of me (< 3m) at 15mph. If there had been any vehicle in a lane on my right, I would have been brown bread. What do you want drivers to do? Drive at 5mph just in case some moron decides he doesn't want to watch when he crosses the road? At slower speeds, it's just as easy to slip in wet conditions, and it's much more likely that I would up under 1/8 of a tonne of steel, probably rendering me great difficulty in walking again.

You do not see the laws as unfair because you do not walk around the city much?

I walk around the city plenty. You've failed to state what you find is so prohibitive about the law. Pedestrians have right of way on the roads. You can't get any freer than that.

No, I would not be happy to extend the definition. Why whould pedestrians have their freedom curtailed because it is inconvenient for cyclists and motor cyclists to slow down?

Why should cyclists and motorcyclists be on the defensive? What gives pedestrians the right to endanger other people's lives, just because they're not in/on a vehicle? I'm not asking for 13 foot walls along the roadside, I'm looking for some basic provisions to protect both pedestrians and motorists. As I've said, no matter how careful someone is, doesn't prevent accidents from happening. Why shouldn't pedestrians have the right to cross where convenient, and motorists to travel at a convenient speed?

You're engaging in 'victim-blaming'.

Just because someone is a victim of accident, or is dead, doesn't exonerate them from blame. A pedestrian who dies by walking out carelessly in front of traffic is just as guilty as the guy who may have been travelling a little too quickly.
Just because the law says that you aren't at fault, doesn't mean that an incident could not have been prevented if you were taking more care.

uberwolf

Originally posted by cyclopath2001


You do not need to be breaking the speed limit to be guilty of driving without due care or consideration for the safety of others.

Given the unfair nature of the laws governing the movements of pedestrians, it's understandable that some pedestrians will choose to ignore them.

Given the unfair nature of the laws governing the movements of motorists, it's understandable that some motorists will choose to ignore them.

You're really going to have to make some semblance of a justified and reasoned argument.

cyclopath2001

>>You're really going to have to make some semblance of a justified and reasoned argument<<

OK, consider this, the current regime discriminate against pedestrians by:

1: Making them give way to motorists, even where the pedestrian has arrived first at a junction.

2: Requiring them to wait at junctions for unreasonable amounts of time, especially in inclement weather conditions. By default priority at junctions given to motorists, not pedestrians, who must wait for permission from motorists before they can cross.

3: By requiring pedestrians to cross 3 junctions instead of just one.

4: By not allowing pedestrians to cross at the most convenient location and instead requiring them to use crossings positioned at locations that suit the convenience of motorists.

5: By giving excessive space to motorists while restricting pedestrians to narrow footpaths. Take Nassau Street for example, it's very hard to walk there, the paths could be tripled in width by removing the on-street parking.

Let's take another look at the massive amount of space wasted in single occupant vehicles. If people were less selfish & used smaller cars, we would increase the number of car lanes, provide proper cycle lanes and enlarge the foot-paths.Instread the lanes are wasted on single occupant cars, each with a living-room suite & room to spare. It's ludicrous to look at it, while hearing drivers moan that there's not enough road space in Dublin. There's lots, but most is wasted.

6: By failing to enforce laws against the bullying and intimidation of pedestrians by motorists. Many pedestrians give way to motorists, even where they have priority, because of aggressive driving behaviour.

7: By allowing motorists to poison the air inhaled by pedestrians.

>>Given the unfair nature of the laws governing the movements of motorists

Give examples, bearing in mind that the freedom to walk & breathe clean air is effectively guaranteed by the constitution, whereas the freedom to drive is not.

seamus

Originally posted by cyclopath2001
1: Making them give way to motorists, even where the pedestrian has arrived first at a junction.

Wrong. When a pedestrian arrives at a junction and places one foot on the road, motorists are obliged to give way.

2: Requiring them to wait at junctions for unreasonable amounts of time, especially in inclement weather conditions. By default priority at junctions given to motorists, not pedestrians, who must wait for permission from motorists before they can cross.

The weather is an irrelevant point. It's Ireland. It rains. Get used to it. Sometimes the lights do take a long time to change, but especially in the city centre, the lights change for pedestrians at the earliest opportunity. The key here being that largely you can't just make the lights turn red immediately when someone presses the button. It's unfeasible and open to abuse. Besides it's not a legal issue.

3: By requiring pedestrians to cross 3 junctions instead of just one.

4: By not allowing pedestrians to cross at the most convenient location and instead requiring them to use crossings positioned at locations that suit the convenience of motorists.

5: By giving excessive space to motorists while restricting pedestrians to narrow footpaths. Take Nassau Street for example, it's very hard to walk there, the paths could be tripled in width by removing the on-street parking.

I agree completely. However, they're not legal matters restricting the flow of pedestrians, they're planning matters.

Let's take another look at the massive amount of space wasted in single occupant vehicles. If people were less selfish & used smaller cars, we would increase the number of car lanes, provide proper cycle lanes and enlarge the foot-paths.Instread the lanes are wasted on single occupant cars, each with a living-room suite & room to spare. It's ludicrous to look at it, while hearing drivers moan that there's not enough road space in Dublin. There's lots, but most is wasted.

Indeed there is, but frankly I'd prefer not to live in a purely socialist state. I like to have a choice of what vehicle to drive. Askign people to drive smaller cars is like asking them to live in smaller homes. People will always be selfish, it's called instinct. The next best thing we can do is provide viable alternatives, i.e. A reliable, affordable public transport system, a safe cycle track system, and subsidies (maybe even tax breaks) for people who do things to improve the situation - car pool for example. In order to improve things, you have to appeal to the selfishness of the lowest common denominator, not try to appeal to the white collars to "do the right thing". Most people will do the thing that suits them, not what suits society, so long as it's legal.

6: By failing to enforce laws against the bullying and intimidation of pedestrians by motorists. Many pedestrians give way to motorists, even where they have priority, because of aggressive driving behaviour.

This is more of an attitude matter than a legal one. The Gardai can't be policing the entire city all the time, as silly as that sounds. If people can be encouraged to report motorists for poor driving and abusive behaviour, the number of prosecutions will rise. How are Gardai supposed to tackle things that they aren't told about?

Give examples, bearing in mind that the freedom to walk & breathe clean air is effectively guaranteed by the constitution, whereas the freedom to drive is not.

Funny, I don't recall seeing such things in the Irish constitution. Traffic laws are for people's safety, not to infringe on any rights they have. Regardless of how idealistic or romantic the idea of a fully co-operative utopia sounds, there will always be a sizeable chunk of society that requires protection from themselves.

Stark

Actually there was experiment done in a town in England, where they removed all traffic lights, road signs etc. from an area to see what would happen. Crash, bang, oops Well actually it turned out that things went a lot more smoothly. Cars were forced to slow down, motorists had to be more considerate of each other and it all went very well surprisingly.

cyclopath2001

>>Wrong. When a pedestrian arrives at a junction and places one foot on the road, motorists are obliged to give way.<<

Not if there is a pedestrian crossing there. Then they have to wait. Even when they do cross, they are subjected to intimidation by motorists who rev their engines, block the crossing Or even move away while pedestrians are still crossing.

>>The weather is an irrelevant point. It's Ireland. It rains. Get used to it.<<

Not irrelevent, the priorities should take account of the needs of pedestrians relative to that of motorists,.

>>the lights change for pedestrians at the earliest opportunity.<<

Simply untrue, they change when it is convenient for motorists. Some remain red even when there are no motorists. It''s well known than many buttons are ignored & that some sensors only react to cars.

>>The key here being that largely you can't just make the lights turn red immediately when someone presses the button. <<

Works this way at the crossing outside of Leinster House.

>>It's unfeasible and open to abuse.

Unfeasibe because motorists say so. The current arrangement is also being abused.....by motorists.

>>Besides it's not a legal issue.

It is if it is unconstitutional.

>> they're planning matters.

Planning that discriminates againts pedestrians.

>>Indeed there is, but frankly I'd prefer not to live in a purely socialist state. <<

How about a social state where everyone is equal & priority on the streets is not decided by mode of transport?

>> so long as it's legal.

Legalised by.....motorists.

>>Traffic laws are for people's safety, not to infringe on any rights they have. <<

That's not how they operate in practice. They are used to enforce a motoring-centric view of how our cities should function.

>>be a sizeable chunk of society that requires protection from themselves.<<

By restricting their rights?

seamus

Originally posted by cyclopath2001
Not if there is a pedestrian crossing there. Then they have to wait. Even when they do cross, they are subjected to intimidation by motorists who rev their engines, block the crossing Or even move away while pedestrians are still crossing.

That's not a junction really. Even if a pedestrian is on the road, and the lights are red, they have right of way. Enforcement of that right, and apprehension of errant motorists is again, another separate issue.

Not irrelevent, the priorities should take account of the needs of pedestrians relative to that of motorists.

Much vehicular traffic is just as prone to the weather as pedestrians. Motorcycles and bikes for example. Why should pedestrians have more right to be out of the rain than these road users?

Simply untrue, they change when it is convenient for motorists. Some remain red even when there are no motorists. It''s well known than many buttons are ignored & that some sensors only react to cars.

It's not a well-known fact. If you press the button, the lights will change for the pedestrians when their time comes around. I have never encountered a set of pedestrian lights that do otherwise. I don't see why pedestrians should be given priority. Everyone's a road user. Why should one group of road users have more rights than others?

Works this way at the crossing outside of Leinster House.

Yes, hence the term "largely". It's feasible at Lenister House, as it is on many other long, busy roads.

It is if it is unconstitutional.

Well, it's not, so it's not a legal issue.

Planning that discriminates againts pedestrians.

I agree. Planning has, and still does, discriminate against everyone but people driving cars. All other traffic isn't properly considered.

How about a social state where everyone is equal & priority on the streets is not decided by mode of transport?

But it's not. As I said above, at junctions, movement of traffic is determined by traffic lights. Everyone must wait their turn equally.

Legalised by.....motorists.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Are you even reading my posts, or just pulling some phrases out so you can stick in some soundbites?

By restricting their rights?

Yes. It can be necessary to restrict people's rights for their own protection.

cyclopath2001

>>Why should pedestrians have more right to be out of the rain than these road users?<<

Because they move more slowly, some are elderly & unable to drive, all are longer exposed to the elements.

>>If you press the button, the lights will change for the pedestrians when their time comes around.

Not always, some buttons are 'placebos'. At others the 'time comes round' more often for motorists than for pedestrians. Why are junctions 'green' by default for motorists and always 'red' by default for pedestrians?

>>Everyone's a road user. Why should one group of road users have more rights than others?

Quite.

>>It's feasible at Lenister House, as it is on many other long, busy roads.<<

Feasible = 'convenient for motorists'?

>>Well, it's not, so it's not a legal issue.

Discrimination of this kind is unconstitutional. & probably a breach of human rights.

>>But it's not. As I said above, at junctions, movement of traffic is determined by traffic lights. Everyone must wait their turn equally.<<

But the turns are not equal are they?

>>Yes. It can be necessary to restrict people's rights for their own protection.<<

An argument frequently used by repressive regimes......

seamus

Originally posted by cyclopath2001
Because they move more slowly, some are elderly & unable to drive, all are longer exposed to the elements.

\o/ A good argument!

Not always, some buttons are 'placebos'. At others the 'time comes round' more often for motorists than for pedestrians. Why are junctions 'green' by default for motorists and always 'red' by default for pedestrians?

Because roads are for vehicles? Imagine the situation where there were a set of traffic lights on a path, where when a car approached the lights, they pressed a button, waited for the lights to go green, and then they crossed the path. Tell my why in that situation, the lights shouldn't be green by default for pedestrians.

Feasible = 'convenient for motorists'?

Yep. You talk of traffic congestion. Having all lights give priority to pedestrians would make things worse. There has to be compromise on both sides. At the moment, our cities are pretty much biased towards providing convenient access to cars, and marginalise other motorists and pedestrians. To have it swing the other way isn't right either. Why should car drivers be marginalised? Asking that life that the convenience of motorists in general not be taken into consideration is pure selfishness and is exactly what is happening to pedestrians now. How does it make it any better when it's pedestrians being selfish, and not cars?

Discrimination of this kind is unconstitutional. & probably a breach of human rights.

Nope, and nope.

But the turns are not equal are they?

Mostly. It's not a case of pedestrians -v- all motors. At a junction, pedestrians are another line of traffic waiting to take their turn. One lane of traffic goes, then another, then another, and then back around to the first. Think of pedestrians as another lane of traffic, not as a separate group with special rights.

An argument frequently used by repressive regimes......

And non-oppressive ones too, funnily enough. Fan of the illegality of drugs are we? No? You don't want to drag the argument down (that road).

monument

Hmm... me thinks of Eyre Square in Galway city center Zebra Crossing… what a dream.

Since (like roundabouts) a lot of road users don’t know how to use them, never mind what they are, here…

“Zebra Crossings consist of thick black and white strips across a road with an orange flashing beacon on either pavement. These crossing give pedestrians the right of way however they must make sure that all traffic has stopped before they use the crossing.”

(Hope they never remove them from Galway - please dont tell me they have)

seamus

Originally posted by monument
Hmm... me thinks of Eyre Square in Galway city center Zebra Crossing… what a dream.

Since (like roundabouts) a lot of road users don’t know how to use them, never mind what they are, here…

“Zebra Crossings consist of thick black and white strips across a road with an orange flashing beacon on either pavement. These crossing give pedestrians the right of way however they must make sure that all traffic has stopped before they use the crossing.”

(Hope they never remove them from Galway - please dont tell me they have)

Yeah, forgot to mention, I would be completely for the removal of pedestrian lights and replacement with zebra crossings (complete with cameras to catch ignorant drivers), everywhere except in really busy pedestrian areas - Nassau Street for example. Some entirely different system would have to be introduced there.

cyclopath2001

From 'The Examiner', 8/04/05

Man knelt in front of moving lorry wheels, inquest hears
By Louise Hogan

A LORRY driver was unaware a 24-year-old man had deliberately knelt under the moving wheels of his truck in order to take his own life, an inquest heard last night.

Witnesses told the Dublin City Coroner’s Court that James Healy from Cremona Road, Ballyfermot, had knelt known and placed his upper body under the wheels of the 40-foot long truck on Dublin’s Essex Quay on March 9, 2004.

Elaine O’Leary, a witness, told the court that the truck, which was driven by Graham Curry, was moving slowly away from a pedestrian crossing when the man ran up beside it.

“He went onto his side and lay in the path of the wheels to the rear of the lorry,” she said. “It just went straight over him.”

She said the lorry driver had no chance to see Mr Healy - which the driver also said.

“The man obviously knew exactly what he was doing, he positioned himself perfectly,” she said. There was no question of him staggering or falling.” Another witness to the incident around 5.30pm on March 9, 2004, Jim Kenny, told the court that the young man deliberately placed his head beneath the wheels.

Mr Healy’s sister, Bernie Harte, told the court her brother had been taking heroin and had been on a methadone programme at some stage.

Investigating officer Sgt Eamon Gleeson told the inquest that Mr Healy had left behind seven farewell letters for his family.

The jury passed a verdict of death by suicide.

© Irish Examiner, 2005, Thomas Crosbie Media, TCH
[/quote]