Pedestrians made to wait as cars get the green light

chewy

PEDESTRIANS are forced to wait in Dublin city centre while motorists are given priority at every junction, the Green Party claimed last night.

true?

from the indo, i hate the way we have to recycle papers these days and have to pay for archived articles on the net, means you can never reference old articles

cyclopath2001

chewy wrote:

PEDESTRIANS are forced to wait in Dublin city centre while motorists are given priority at every junction, the Green Party claimed last night.
true?

It certainly is.

The average waiting time at junctions for pedestrians is 100 seconds, with some as long as 4 minutes, then just 15 seconds are allowed to cross the road (assuming the motorists have bothered to leave the crossing clear or take the trouble to stop for the red light.).

At the many junctions where there is no crossing signal, vehicles are obliged to give way to pedestrians and do not. I've never seen a anyone stopped for this offence.

MrPudding

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It certainly is.

(assuming the motorists have bothered to leave the crossing clear or take the trouble to stop for the red light.).

And lets not forget trying to dodge the cyclists who seem to think traffic lights don't apply to them.

MrP

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote:

And lets not forget trying to dodge the cyclists who seem to think traffic lights don't apply to them.
MrP

True, but the cars and trucks are much more dangerous.

RicardoSmith

So most people don't obey the rules of the road. Thats hardly news.

Theres also pedestrians who don't obey these rules either and cross the road in the worst possible location, like the middle of a busy junction or between buses and trucks, or just simply walk out into the road with no warning.

At the end of the day the guards should enforce the rules. If people (drivers and pedestrians) think they can ignore them, they will.

vibe666

it's a lot harder to clotheline someone in a truck too.

or stick an umbrella in their spokes.

Our man in Havana

vibe666 wrote:

it's a lot harder to clotheline someone in a truck too.

or stick an umbrella in their spokes.

Has this actually been done?

cyclopath2001

But, I think the point is that pedestrians are discriminatd against douby:

1: By unfair rules telling them where & when they can cross (and for how long).

2: By non-enforcement of rules protecting them from dangerous & selfish vehicle drivers.

C:\

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But, I think the point is that pedestrians are discriminatd against douby:

1: By unfair rules telling them where & when they can cross (and for how long).

2: By non-enforcement of rules protecting them from dangerous & selfish vehicle drivers.

C:\

Why is unfair to have crossing rules for pedestrians?

Why do you think that doesn't apply equally in reverse (to other roadusers) also?

dazberry

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The average waiting time at junctions for pedestrians is 100 seconds, with some as long as 4 minutes, then just 15 seconds are allowed to cross the road (assuming the motorists have bothered to leave the crossing clear or take the trouble to stop for the red light.).

4 minutes. That must be the one on George's Quay linking Custom House Quay (IFSC)... and after 4 minutes and the pedestrian lights finally going green - there's a 40 foot artic stopped right across it, with other forms of transport often ignoring the light and passing on the inside. Must actually time it the next time I think of it...

TBH I think the pedestrian lights with a countdown timers are great - when they work. I've observed that certain crossings work in different modes, and in the bad mode, they're blank for a ~while~ before the 30 second countdown begins. I guess if someone is seeing 99 seconds displayed they'll start moaning about it (if they did hex they could go over 4 minutes - but ppl would get confused with all the ABCs etc ). Then again - having experienced next Luas, next Bus and next Dart displays at different times which are completely fictional - why not apply it to the crossings

D.

RicardoSmith

Then you have the pedestrians, who wait until the traffic light goes green for the cars is green and then make a sudden dash across the junction, holding up all the traffic, so that instead of 4 or 5 cars get through only 1 or none get through. There are junctions that have lights that are only 5-10 secs on green. Or pedestrians who cross on the blind side of a driver pulling out at a junction, or side road.

Theres stupid people in both camps.

dazberry

RicardoSmith wrote:

Then you have the pedestrians, who wait until the traffic light goes green for the cars is green and then make a sudden dash across the junction, holding up all the traffic, so that instead of 4 or 5 cars get through only 1 or none get through. There are junctions that have lights that are only 5-10 secs on green. Or pedestrians who cross on the blind side of a driver pulling out at a junction, or side road.

Theres stupid people in both camps.

Can't disagree with that. It just amazes me the people that will just stroll across busy traffic - regardless of the state of pedestrian lights if in proximity. TBH it annoys me just as much as traffic ignoring pedestrian lights.

D.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Why is unfair to have crossing rules for pedestrians?

Why do you think that doesn't apply equally in reverse (to other roadusers) also?

Di I say thay it was unfair to have crossing rules? please quote me?

It is not unfair to have crossing rules.....it is unfair to have UNFAIR crossing rules.

Pedestrians are not treated equally to other road users. They are given less space, less time and less priority than other road users. Why should one person in a SUV have more priority than one person on foot?

chewy

yeah i dislike junctions which only have two sets of lights letting you cross onlyone side of the street but thats no good if you starting from the _other_ side of the street if you know what i mean like if you happen to get stuck on the liberty hall side of crossing the matt talbot bridge trying to cross the road to get to tara street or something like that...

sometimes i wonder how drivers ever get through at o'connel bridge and henry street, i love to see mass crowds just decide to walk out, but i hate it esp on college green when people rush out at the last minute with bus coming for them, for _everyones_ safety wait a few seconds...

pedestrians must get in the way of cyclist at places like that too?

i find the going across to the oconnell bridge from o connell street and back on the newsagent side horrible cos there no room for all those people, atleast on the other side the've put a an extra pedestrian crossing further down the street...

its funny thought the influence other people have you, something your not paying attention and when you fell others move you start to two , and suddenly u notice they've play chicken with a garbage truck, works the other way too by purposely not walking out otehrs won't either


you notice they tried sort out the problem about the o connell street plaza(wasteland) where you didn't know where european style plaza and road begins and ends by putting in line of metal discs embedded in the stone.

Alun

chewy wrote:

its funny thought the influence other people have you, something your not paying attention and when you fell others move you start to two , and suddenly u notice they've play chicken with a garbage truck, works the other way too by purposely not walking out otehrs won't either

Could you translate that paragraph (if you can call it that) into English please?

A Dub in Glasgo

Translated: Sometimes, people are lemmings

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Di I say thay it was unfair to have crossing rules? please quote me?....

Well you said its unfair (for pedestrians)

1) to tell them where & when they can cross (and for how long)...
2) By non-enforcement of rules

Now you've added it is unfair (for pedestrians) to

3) have UNFAIR crossing rules
4) less space, less time and less priority than other road users
5) less priority than a person in a SUV

The means of transport that is most used will be given priority. The method with the most potential for injury will be given priority. Its not unfair, its common sense.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

The means of transport that is most used will be given priority.

Since pedestrians are in the majority in the city, you agree that pedestrians should have the priority. Thanks.

I'm not sure if majorities are the way to go though. It might not work in the suburbs. How about 'first come first served' & equal priority for pedestrians and motorists at junctions?

RicardoSmith wrote:

The method with the most potential for injury will be given priority. Its not unfair, its common sense.

I'm glad we agree that pedestrians are very vulnerable & therefore have the most potential to be injured, so they need the most priority.

C:\

RicardoSmith

Theres pedestrian only areas in the city center.
Pedestrians already do have right of way.
But are "controlled" crossing points not "unfair" to pedestrians?
'first come first served' ...pedestrian lights ...Zebra crossing?
When was the last time you saw a 20min tailback of pedestrians trying to cross a junction?

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Theres pedestrian only areas in the city center.

But are "controlled" crossing points not "unfair" to pedestrians?
'first come first served' ...pedestrian lights ...Zebra crossing?

The are just few pedestrian zones, virtually nothing in comparison the the amount of roadspace provided to amply-proportioned vehicles and drivers.

Pedestrians already do have right of way.

Yes indeed, for example, pedestrians have priority at minor junctions, but vehicles drivers drive straight at them, horns blaring. This is illegal. Pedestrians also have priority once they'e started to cross the road & are frequently intimidated by motorists. Some incidents I've seen are tantamount to assault with a deadly weapon, but the road traffic acts protect all but the worst motorists from criminal prosecution.

Additionally, where there is no crossing, it is a rare sight to see a motorist show any courtesy to a pedestrian who is attempting to start crossing.

But are "controlled" crossing points not "unfair" to pedestrians?

Yes, he current ones are (except the one at Leinster House). This thread began by pointing out that pedestrian crossings discriminate against pedestrians by restricting them to a few seconds every so-often while allowing vehicles priority for most of the time. This is fact.

I'd also point out that the location of these crossings, where motorists so generously permit ungrateful pedestrians a few seconds to cross every once in a while, is determined by the convenience of motorists & not the needs of pedestrians.

Zebra crossings which are much more useful to pedestrians than traffic lights were phased out some time ago in favour of signal controlled junctions. This was partly because motorists refused to obey the rules at these crossings & just ran over any pedestrians who got in the way.

When was the last time you saw a 20min tailback of pedestrians trying to cross a junction?

Never: your point is?

Stark

I can't stand when you're at a crossroads, and there's no traffic lights for getting directly from one side of the road you're on to the other (you have to cross 3 roads instead with seperate traffic lights at each road). There was an especially bad one in Fairview where I lived where you had to cross 4 different sets of traffic lights just to cross one road.

RicardoSmith

Theres just too much crazy in there to respond to all that.

Seriously do you have that much trouble crossing the road?

A Dub in Glasgo

It can be quite cumbersome in Dublin city centre to cross some of the roads. The road traffic definitely gets a lot of priority over the crowds of pedestrians.

RicardoSmith

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It can be quite cumbersome in Dublin city centre to cross some of the roads. The road traffic definitely gets a lot of priority over the crowds of pedestrians.

So thats why you see those 20min tailbacks of pedestrians (not road traffic) all over the place.

Guy:Incognito

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Why should one person in a SUV have more priority than one person on foot?

Becaus ethe person in the SUV is paying A LOT of money to be on the road. Maybe pedestrians should have to pay road tax and insurance as well, then they can have equal priority.

A Dub in Glasgo

RicardoSmith wrote:

So thats why you see those 20min tailbacks of pedestrians (not road traffic) all over the place.

Actually, I have never stated there is 20min pedestrian tailbacks and I cannot see it mentioned here so where did you get that one from?

Victor

Stekelly wrote:

Becaus ethe person in the SUV is paying A LOT of money to be on the road. Maybe pedestrians should have to pay road tax and insurance as well, then they can have equal priority.

....and pedestrians are well known for causing pot-holes....

Gordon

Victor wrote:

....and pedestrians are well known for causing pot-holes....

Pesky Rastas.

RicardoSmith

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Actually, I have never stated there is 20min pedestrian tailbacks and I cannot see it mentioned here so where did you get that one from?

What? You've never seen all those pedestrians delayed in tailbacks because motor traffic gets priority? Where do you live dude? Where I live the're backed up all over the pavements waiting to cross the road.

Victor wrote:

....and pedestrians are well known for causing pot-holes....

SUV's cause pot holes? Usually its heavy stuff like trucks, buses and poor road drainage and poor road construction that causes pot holes. The standard of road building in this country is woeful.

BrianD3

Actually, I have never stated there is 20min pedestrian tailbacks and I cannot see it mentioned here so where did you get that one from?

He was being sarcastic. The point is that you don't see big queues of pedestrians waiting for long periods to cross the road at traffic light controlled junctions. Therefore the inital assertion that pedestrians are somehow being "discriminated against" and that the rules/priority governing pedestrians crossing the road are unfair is false.

As a pedestrian I have never had to wait more than 2-3 minutes to cross the road at a junction in Dublin. As a motorist, I have often waited an hour or more in a queue of traffic coming up to a junction waiting for my turn.

This is because when pedestrians get a "green man", even if it only lasts 10 or so seconds, you could easily get 150+ pedestrians safely across the road in that short time.

BrianD3

cyclopath2001

Stekelly wrote:

Becaus ethe person in the SUV is paying A LOT of money to be on the road. Maybe pedestrians should have to pay road tax and insurance as well, then they can have equal priority.

These are preposterous notions.

Everybody has the same rights regardless of how much tax & insurance they pay.

To follow your logic: What happens when the pedestrian is paying more tax than the SUV driver? What happens if the SUV is foreign, from a low-tax country?

What's insurance got to do with any of this?

If cars are stuck in traffic it's because they're wasting too much road space.

C:\

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

These are preposterous notions.......If cars are stuck in traffic it's because they're wasting too much road space.

Yeah you should fill that road space with pedestrians. That will get the city moving. Put pedestrian lanes along side the bus lanes, and ban all motor traffic within 1 mile of any pedestrians. Then you won't be able to legally walk to your car. Problem solved.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Yeah you should fill that road space with pedestrians. That will get the city moving. Put pedestrian lanes along side the bus lanes, and ban all motor traffic within 1 mile of any pedestrians. Then you won't be able to legally walk to your car. Problem solved.

There's no need to throw the toys out of the pram.

Why not be reasonable?

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

There's no need to throw the toys out of the pram.

Why not be reasonable?

Sorry 10 miles. Happy?

seamus

The "X pays road tax" argument point is moot. Do we start classifying who has rights on the road by how much tax they pay? Should HGV be allowed mow down motorycles because they pay more tax? Of course not.

Road tax in theory is based on how much a vehicle costs the country to be driven. Pedestrians (in the capacity of walking) have little or no immediate or medium-term effect on road surfaces and the environment. Besides, you can't really tax walking. that's like taxing air.

There is little to no biase against pedestrians in this country. 4 minutes (and this is the longest, 100 seconds average for christ sake) is not a long time to wait to cross a road, especially considering most of the rest of your journey is made unimpeded by junctions and other pedestrians. Road vehicles cannot say the same.

There is a need to rethink timings of lights. Especially in Dublin city centre, there are plenty of times when it would be safe to cross at a junction of one-way roads, but the lights don't turn green. That's not to say people don't cross, but it means people don't think it's safe to cross. As well as that, there are plenty of places where a left or right turn slip lane could be added in, so people can cross at least most of the road, then wait briefly to cross the slip lane.

But there's certainly no biase. Pedestrians have highest priority on our roads, legally. Once a pedestrian is on the road, he has right of way. Period.

The problem is not law, it's education and enforcement.
Pedestrians need to learn:
1. To cross a road where a pedestrian crossing exists is an offence.
2. Crossing the road in front of moving traffic is not only dangerous to themselves, but creates a danger for drivers and other pedestrians who may be hurt in the process of trying to avoid said pedestrian.
3. When you attempt to cross the road, you don't just go. Traffic cannot, nor should not attempt to, just stop on a penny.

Motorists need to learn:
1. Travelling through any junction, anywhere, increases the liklihood of coming upon a pedestrian on the road. Even if you see a green light way off, does not mean it's safe to continue through at 50mph.
2. Regardless of how much bigger you are, pedestrians are far more unpredictable, and any pedestrian within 5m of your driving path should be expected to run in front of your at the drop of a hat.

But none of this is any use without enforcement. Pedestrians crossing on a red light, or not crossing where a pedestrian crossing is provided, must be caught and charged. Drivers speeding in built-up (and I mean Westmoreland St/O'Connell St built-up) need to be caught and charged. Drivers failing to yield (given reasonable notice) to a pedestrian attempting to cross the road, and indicating their intention (one foot on the road), need to be caught and charged.

Ideally, the necessity for the last item would be eliminated by increasing the number of pedestrian crossings on busy roads, and making it an offence to walk down/attempt to cross more types of high-speed/high-volume roads, and not just motorways. The N4 between the main junction after Heuston Station and the next main junction (outbound), for example.

Victor

seamus wrote:

Pedestrians have highest priority on our roads, legally. Once a pedestrian is on the road, he has right of way. Period

Having been run over and killed is 9/10ths of the laws of physics.

1. To cross a road where a pedestrian crossing exists is an offence.

Surely you mean "To cross a road where a pedestrian crossing is available within 15m is an offence"?

Guy:Incognito

Who said anything bout rights depending on how much tax and insurance is paid, what i said was that cars pay tax and insurance and for petrol to be able to us ethe road therefore they should get preference over people who pay nothing and are only going to be on tthe road to cross it for say 5 seconds.


And if its causing you so much stress having to wait to cross the road, go live in the country.

A Dub in Glasgo

seamus wrote:

The "X pays road tax" argument point is moot. Do we start classifying who has rights on the road by how much tax they pay? Should HGV be allowed mow down motorycles because they pay more tax? Of course not.

Road tax in theory is based on how much a vehicle costs the country to be driven. Pedestrians (in the capacity of walking) have little or no immediate or medium-term effect on road surfaces and the environment. Besides, you can't really tax walking. that's like taxing air.

There is little to no biase against pedestrians in this country. 4 minutes (and this is the longest, 100 seconds average for christ sake) is not a long time to wait to cross a road, especially considering most of the rest of your journey is made unimpeded by junctions and other pedestrians. Road vehicles cannot say the same.

There is a need to rethink timings of lights. Especially in Dublin city centre, there are plenty of times when it would be safe to cross at a junction of one-way roads, but the lights don't turn green. That's not to say people don't cross, but it means people don't think it's safe to cross. As well as that, there are plenty of places where a left or right turn slip lane could be added in, so people can cross at least most of the road, then wait briefly to cross the slip lane.

But there's certainly no biase. Pedestrians have highest priority on our roads, legally. Once a pedestrian is on the road, he has right of way. Period.

The problem is not law, it's education and enforcement.
Pedestrians need to learn:
1. To cross a road where a pedestrian crossing exists is an offence.
2. Crossing the road in front of moving traffic is not only dangerous to themselves, but creates a danger for drivers and other pedestrians who may be hurt in the process of trying to avoid said pedestrian.
3. When you attempt to cross the road, you don't just go. Traffic cannot, nor should not attempt to, just stop on a penny.

Motorists need to learn:
1. Travelling through any junction, anywhere, increases the liklihood of coming upon a pedestrian on the road. Even if you see a green light way off, does not mean it's safe to continue through at 50mph.
2. Regardless of how much bigger you are, pedestrians are far more unpredictable, and any pedestrian within 5m of your driving path should be expected to run in front of your at the drop of a hat.

But none of this is any use without enforcement. Pedestrians crossing on a red light, or not crossing where a pedestrian crossing is provided, must be caught and charged. Drivers speeding in built-up (and I mean Westmoreland St/O'Connell St built-up) need to be caught and charged. Drivers failing to yield (given reasonable notice) to a pedestrian attempting to cross the road, and indicating their intention (one foot on the road), need to be caught and charged.

Ideally, the necessity for the last item would be eliminated by increasing the number of pedestrian crossings on busy roads, and making it an offence to walk down/attempt to cross more types of high-speed/high-volume roads, and not just motorways. The N4 between the main junction after Heuston Station and the next main junction (outbound), for example.

Some very valid points but it is almost impossible to stop 'jaywalking'. I done it plenty of times in Dublin city centre in the late 1980s/early 1990s when the traffic was not as busy as ir is now (hard to imagine considering it was very busy back then). It is totally impractical to haul everyone to the cells who 'jaywalk'. It is not right but I think the traffic police have much bigger fish to fry.

The one junction that really irritates me when crossing is Phibsboro Road and the North Circular Road (I stay in Phibsboro when I go to Dublin). The traffic light sequence for all sides at the junction is green for straight ahead and red for left filter. During this red filter time, the green man appears for pedestrians to cross. The amount of times I have been nearly run over by idiots who see the green light and turn left (without an indicator either) and ignore the red is unbelievable.

seamus

Victor wrote:

Surely you "To cross a road where a pedestrian crossing is available within 15m is an offence"?

Of course . Damn tiredness.

Stekelly wrote:

Who said anything bout rights depending on how much tax and insurance is paid, what i said was that cars pay tax and insurance and for petrol to be able to us ethe road therefore they should get preference over people who pay nothing and are only going to be on tthe road to cross it for say 5 seconds.

A person pays tax on a mode of transport, in principle for the cost of their mode of transport to the country. Cars pay a certain amount of tax, motorcycles less, trucks more. So everyone pays an equal amount, relative to their effect on the infrastructure/environment. Since pedestrians and cyclists have no real cost to the country (while using their chosen mode of transport), then in principle they're paying an equal amount of tax due compared to a motorist, relative to their net effect on the country, i.e. nil. That means that they pay their fair share, so why should motorists be given preference?

A Dub in Glasgo

Stekelly wrote:

Who said anything bout rights depending on how much tax and insurance is paid, what i said was that cars pay tax and insurance and for petrol to be able to us ethe road therefore they should get preference over people who pay nothing and are only going to be on tthe road to cross it for say 5 seconds.


And if its causing you so much stress having to wait to cross the road, go live in the country.

In a city centre environment, priorty should be given over to pedestrians. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Sorry 10 miles. Happy?

Listen, I know change is hard, but try to be part of the solution, not the problem.

pork99

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In a city centre environment, priorty should be given over to pedestrians. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Traffic in Dublin City Centre has become scelerotic - it's at a dysfunctional level. Thankfully I no longer work in the city centre but last week I had to go into town at 5 pm. The 46A took about 25 minutes to get from Stillorgan to Stephens Green (bus lanes). It then took 15 minutes to get from Stephens Green to Dame Street, at which point I got off and walked the rest of the way because at that rate it would have taken at least another 15 minutes at least to get to Parnell Square.

Laws enforcing pedestrian right of way should be aggressively enforced as one means of discouraging private car drivers from coming into the city centre.

When I worked in city centre I used to get the bus to work. One of my bosses who lives near me ALWAYS drove his Merc in. He lived near the same bus routes as me but never used public transport - it was as though it was a status thing - "I can't go on the bus like a peasant". People like that need to be penalised very harshly (give me a 2x4 and I'd happily punish him - and not only for his private car usage )

His superior (the CEO) lived further away and yet rarely used his car usually commuting by bus or motorbike. He was Swedish though. They are used to being able to afford nice cars AND have access to public transport and therefore probably don't have the same compulsion to display their nouveau riche social status by driving a Merc every day.

RicardoSmith

Its all very well to moan about car use if you don't HAVE to use one. Theres a lot of Dublin City and the rest of the country where public transport is not a practical option. So the attitude, its ok for me so its ok for everyone, is just being facile.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Its all very well to moan about car use if you don't HAVE to use one. Theres a lot of Dublin City and the rest of the country where public transport is not a practical option. So the attitude, its ok for me so its ok for everyone, is just being facile.

So, why MUST you use a car & why must the rest of us suffer because of your life choices?

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

So, why MUST you use a car & why must the rest of us suffer because of your life choices?

Its saves 2+ hours a day. Public transport is unreliable. The trains are dangerously overcrowded. Public transport is uncomfortable. Theres no public transport in certain areas. You have items you need that you can't carry. You have kids.

Theres lots of reasons.

Why should road users (the majority) suffer because of the minority? Besides I don't think those 20 minute pedestrian tailbacks are that much of hardship. Can you not read a book or something, or just jay walk for entertainment. Motorists get a kick of that at least.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Its saves 2+ hours a day. Public transport is unreliable. The trains are dangerously overcrowded. Public transport is uncomfortable. Theres no public transport in certain areas. You have items you need that you can't carry. You have kids.

These are all the consequences of choices YOU made. Move to a place with public transport.

Waiting at pedestrian crossings is also uncomfortable. The footpaths are dangerously overcrowded becauase cars take up too much space.

How big is your car? Why not ride a motorbike?

Why should road users (the majority) suffer because of the minority?

In the city centre, car-users are a minority.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

These are all the consequences of choices YOU made. Move to a place with public transport.

Like where?

All of the best serviced places are, how shall we put it, upper-middle class. Barring D4, D6W and along the Stillorgan dual carraigeway up to Blackrock, nowhere in this country has reliable, speedy, frequent public transport.

You cannot choose to move somewhere if you cannot afford it. Where I live, public transport is remarkably speedy for the distance, but in the mornings and evenings, it's a nightmare. It gets stuck in traffic and is always overcrowded. Not to mention that for some people in the area (Lucan) the closest bus into town can be a two mile walk away.

I drive a motorbike, but that's not for everyone. Frankly, there a lot of people driving cars, I'd prefer didn't drive motorbikes.

You can say that a person's problem with transport is down to a choice they've made, but that doesn't mean that our transport system shouldn't allow people to make these choices. Having children, buying a cheaper home, living a while away from work, these are all choices that people make, but why should transport be a hinderance? Why shouldn't they have a right to make these choices, and still have the benefit of reliable, decent, speedy(ish) transport, however they transport themselves?

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

These are all the consequences of choices YOU made. Move to a place with public transport..

Ah yes its more practical to spend 200k on living in the city center than it is to buy a 10k car. Its obviously very astute to pay more rent in the city center than you would on a mortgage elsewhere. Very sensible.

Oh course where I live does have public transport. And its everybit as dire as it was 10 years ago. But I didn't realise that I should move every time I'm working in a new location. Its not as if the rest of the family are important. No we should all move to suit me. Its so easy to move isn't. Sure you'd do it in a day. Doesn't cost anything either.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Waiting at pedestrian crossings is also uncomfortable. The footpaths are dangerously overcrowded becauase cars take up too much space.
..

How about we make all roads one lane wide. Yes that would be practical. Like you said earlier people need the same room as cars, trucks and buses. Dangerously overcrowded. Yes thats true. Standing on the pavement, is more overcrowded than a bus or train at peak time. How many times have I stood on a city center pavement stuck with my arms pinned to my side for 40 mins, thinking I must bring the kids next time. They'd love it.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

How big is your car? Why not ride a motorbike?

Yes a motorbike. Much safer and practical. The family love being strapped to the pannier on a icy morning, with the refreshing winter rain. Room for everything and safe as houses. Having the lower part of you legs shattered is nothing to the fun of making metal detectors go bing, and sure you get used to the broken collar bones after 2 or 3.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In the city centre, car-users are a minority.

Great the way the whole population can fit into a mile radius of the city center isn't it. Theres no trucks and buses so I guess that explains why is so roomy and why families are dying to live bang in the middle of all that night life.


Ah you have to laugh...

cyclopath2001

There go the toys out of the pram again.

I know many people who live within 30 miles of Dublin, not 1 mile, and who commute by public transport. I know people who cycle from 10 miles out.

Most of the cars I see in the city centre are empty: just a driver & a lot of wasted space, not a kid in sight.

You might be saving money by living where you do, but it is at expense of the wellbeing of others who have to give way to your car & breath your fumes.

You have choices, make good ones.

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

There go the toys out of the pram again..

What toys, prams take up too much room. Ban then. No problem.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I know many people who live within 30 miles of Dublin, not 1 mile, and who commute by public transport. I know people who cycle from 10 miles out.

Funny, you'd think you'd have persuaded them to move to somewhere where they can walk from by now. Why on earth live so far out?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Most of the cars I see in the city centre are empty: just a driver & a lot of wasted space, not a kid in sight.

Yeah. Since the majority of schools and school runs are in the city center thats kinda odd. You'd think at the end of the journey that the cars would be full since no one would get dropped off on the way. Its obviously more efficent to spend 2 hours on a bus than 20 mins in car, so its only the crazy people in the cars.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

You might be saving money by living where you do, but it is at expense of the wellbeing of others who have to give way to your car & breath your fumes.

Actually I have to give way to pedestrians. The law apparently. But you're right its obviously more healthly to live in the city center than not. Which is why all the health concious people and families live in the city center. The only way to have no fumes is to have no cars, buses or trucks. Another very practical suggestion.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

You have choices, make good ones.

Or just be crazy as a coot. Then you can spout any nonsense.

cyclopath2001

I can see that you're obviously very agitated that your way of life is under threat. It's natural to respond irrationally, I understand.

Or just be crazy as a coot. Then you can spout any nonsense.

Yes indeed.

Maybe sometime in the future you'll see that to solve the problem you need to be part of the solution.

In the meantime, we'll just have to breathe your fumes & stay out of your way.