Pedestrians made to wait as cars get the green light

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I've no problem with people using motor vehicles as long as they do not injure, poison or obstruct others.

So you want a limited number of electric cars (leaving aside the point that you will have to cause polution somewhere to generate the electricity) with speed limiters (say about 20kph), and probably a man walking in front waving a flag to warn everyone that it is coming :rolleyes:

seamus

Victor wrote:

A very few pedestrian crossing have instant response to a pedestrian request and htese are probably th best crossings in the city.Pollution levels are are generally higher inside vehicles than at the kerbside (soot aside perhaps).

Lucky me so

I refuse to accept that that there can be any justification for unfairly discriminating against pedestrians.

No-one's asking you to accept it. Nobody has yet pointed out how pedestrians are unfairly discriminated against.

sliabh

seamus wrote:

Lucky me so
No-one's asking you to accept it. Nobody has yet pointed out how pedestrians are unfairly discriminated against.

Well one area where we are is that there are a lot of junctions with heavy pedestrian traffic where there are no pedestrian lights at all. So pedestrians have to take their chances with the traffic.

Examples of this are where Ranelagh road crosses the canal or where Leeson street crosses the canal. The last one is a disgrace. It is very heavliy used by pedestrians and there is pretty much no concession made to them. Every morning you see dozens of pedestrians running between cars or standing in the middle of the road hoping for a gap in the traffic to finish their dash to the far side.

In other cases there is a crossing but only on one side of the road, or as you walk along a street the crossings at each junction are at alternate sides of the street. By Holles St Hospital is an example of this. Walking towards the IFSC the 2 pedestrian crossings put you at the wrong side of the road to cross Pearse street just 50m further on.

This is a far bigger problem than slow timing sequences on the existing lights.

seamus

sliabh wrote:

This is a far bigger problem that slow timing sequences on the existing lights.

Agreed.

cyclopath2001

sliabh wrote:

So you want a limited number of electric cars (leaving aside the point that you will have to cause polution somewhere to generate the electricity) with speed limiters (say about 20kph), and probably a man walking in front waving a flag to warn everyone that it is coming :rolleyes:

When did I say this?

If you're going to make a contribution to this discusssion, please be careful to properly quote the views you're criticising.

Don't make things up.

cyclopath2001

Alun wrote:

So that's buses out of the picture too then ?

Nope, they're much less pollutant than the equivalent number of cars, they take up far less space and are driven by trained, qualified drivers with full licenses. Taken as an average, their safety is quite superior to cars.

There will always be vehicles on our streets. We just need to use the space more efficiently.

I hope you find this helpful.

C:/

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

When did I say this?

The quote that I provided "I've no problem with people using motor vehicles as long as they do not injure, poison or obstruct others" was yours.

All I did was try and imagine a scenario that could meet this.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

If you're going to make a contribution to this discusssion, please be careful to properly quote the views you're criticising.

I think I did. You should be more careful about thinking through your statements to their logical conclusion.

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Nope, they're much less pollutant than the equivalent number of cars, they take up far less space and are driven by trained, qualified drivers with full licenses. Taken as an average, their safety is quite superior to cars.

Do you have any stats on that, because I seem to remember that there is very strong argument that Diesel is a more dangerous polutant than petrol, taking into account the lower volume of polutants emitted. Especially if the filters are not very regularly maintained.

What average figures are you referring to when you talk about their safety is superior to cars. Especially when you consider theres no safety features on buses, like seat belts and airbags.

cyclopath2001

sliabh wrote:

The quote that I provided "I've no problem with people using motor vehicles as long as they do not injure, poison or obstruct others" was yours.

All I did was try and imagine a scenario that could meet this.

I think I did. You should be more careful about thinking through your statements to their logical conclusion.

The fact is that I made no such statements.

Everyone should have a problem with harm to others.

The logic is yours not mine. There are other logical outcomes, you chose one that you could ridicule. It's a parliamentary ploy, known as an 'Aunt Sally'.

Do you have a contribution to make to this discussion?

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Do you have any stats on that, because I seem to remember that there is very strong argument that Diesel is a more dangerous polutant than petrol, taking into account the lower volume of polutants emitted. Especially if the filters are not very regularly maintained.

What average figures are you referring to when you talk about their safety is superior to cars. Especially when you consider theres no safety features on buses, like seat belts and airbags.

Documents, such as this one present relevant arguments: http://www.cpt-uk.org/documents/E&R0.1Buses%20and%20Coaches%20the%20Transport%20Solution%20_full%20version_.pdf which agree with this.

It would be true to say that diesel fumes are more poisonous, but is one diesel engine more poisonsous than the emissions of 70 cars, some of which are diesel?

The lack of safety features on buses is probably compensated for by the standard of the driving. The document suggests that buses are 7 times safer than cars.

Sorry for going off-topic, but you did ask.

If buses were used more & the volume of traffic entering the city were to be controlled (such as in London) maybe then more time and space could be allocated to pedestrians.

Maintaining the status-quo is not an option.

[Victor]Broken link fixed[/Victor]

RicardoSmith

That link doesn't work for me. What is it a bus company? No spin on that then is there. Can you fix the link?

So are buses also guilty of all of these crimes against pedestrians?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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?

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.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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

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

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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

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.

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.

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The fact is that I made no such statements.

I suggest you check back to post 60.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

That link doesn't work for me. What is it a bus company? No spin on that then is there. Can you fix the link?

So are buses also guilty of all of these crimes against pedestrians?

Be specific, what criminal offences are you referring to?

cyclopath2001

sliabh wrote:

I suggest you check back to post 60.

I have checked, there is no absolutely no mention in that message of :

1: a limited number of electric cars
2: with speed limiters (say about 20kph),
3: a man walking in front waving a flag to warn everyone that it is coming

If you have a problem with something I actually did say, quote it, tell me why you disagree and I will respond.

I do not need to answer for things that I did not say.

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Be specific, what criminal offences are you referring to?

The ones I quoted. Don't be pedantic about the word crime.

JP Mulvano

Look forget about arguing between each other the fact is that it is better to cycle/walk/take public transport to work. No one can argue with that.

Also the fact is that far too many people unnecesarily drive to work when it would be far easier to use one of the above options or at least split the journey.

For example if you have to drop the kids to school or whatever drop them off and then drive home or to the closest bus stop/dart/luas line and park the car there and take public transport the rest of the way. or alternativley drive the kids into school and then drive home and cycle to work. this way at least you cutting down on the cars in the city and the pollutants in the air.

Cyclo has a fair point that 1 bus certainly not only carries more people but causes less pollution/space than the eqilavalent of if every person on the bus took a car to work. Its completely ludicrious the amount of people that drive unnecessarily to work.

Its a Circle guys, a vicous circle and all people motorisits/cyclists/pedestrians all have to work together to make it better. I myself am off the opinion that the problem begins with the amount of people driving to work. If less people drove to work then public transport would be faster and more reliable and theu more people would be happy to use this. So I would agree that a system such as londons taxation would be a good idea. But ONLY in say a 2 or 3 mile radius of the city centre.

RicardoSmith

JP Mulvano wrote:

Look forget about arguing between each other the fact is that it is better to cycle/walk/take public transport to work. No one can argue with that.

Also the fact is that far too many people unnecesarily drive to work when it would be far easier to use one of the above options or at least split the journey.

Its one thing to suggest avoiding unnecesary car journeys. Its another to suggest that we revert back 100yrs, and completely ignore the advantages of motor transport, make sweeping generalisations that ignore the fact that everyone personal situation is very different and ignore the fact that the public transport system is woefully inadequate for many people.

If you have a problem with walking to work in the city. Move to the country and get a job there that you can walk to. Thats the solution being suggested for people who need to drive. So it should apply both ways.

JP Mulvano wrote:

.... I myself am off the opinion that the problem begins with the amount of people driving to work. .....

Most people hate driving to work, and would take any better option if it was available to them. So obviously for most people driving is more attractive. If public transport was more attractive to use. Then they'd use it.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Its another to suggest that we revert back 100yrs, and completely ignore the advantages of motor transport

When was this suggested & by whom?

Victor

RicardoSmith wrote:

That link doesn't work for me. What is it a bus company? No spin on that then is there.

CPT are "The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT) is the voice of the road passenger transport industry in the UK, representing bus, coach and light rail operators. Our members also include businesses which supply and service the operational sector. CPT is officially recognised by Government and is the principal consultative body on national, local and EU legislative and regulatory matters. It is also the industry's main link with the media and is regularly approached for comments and facts on topical issues. " http://www.cpt-uk.org

RicardoSmith wrote:

Can you fix the link?

Link fixed.

RicardoSmith

The homepage you could see. The doc that was linked to is what you can't get to. I don't consider that an un biased source. Obviously.

Theres no point in continuing if c keeps selectively ignoring questions hes being asked about what hes posted and ignoring one side of the argument. He appears to want to post sweeping generalisations which is pointless IMO. Its not a disscusion its a tirade.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

The homepage you could see. The doc that was linked to is what you can't get to. I don't consider that an un biased source. Obviously.

Theres no point in continuing if c keeps selectively ignoring questions hes being asked about what hes posted and ignoring one side of the argument. He appears to want to post sweeping generalisations which is pointless IMO. Its not a disscusion its a tirade.

If I've ignored some questions, it's to avoid congesting the board with repetitions of my opinions. As you know, I'm not a fan of wasting space.

The document link was posted in response to a question you asked me. I didn't ignore the question, but you appear to be ignoring the answer. It loads fine in Mozilla.

When you say that you consider it biased, you've just made a sweeping genralisation yourself.

What in the document do you disagree with & why?

If you quote a document that contradicts it. I'll read it.

If you have a problem with walking to work in the city. Move to the country and get a job there that you can walk to. Thats the solution being suggested for people who need to drive. So it should apply both ways.

This is more 'Aunt Sally', I'm afraid.

Who suggested that people should "move to the country and get a job that you can walk to" & when was this suggested? Please quote the exact words, and the posting number.

While you're reading the older posts, remember that we're still waiting for the source of your reference: "Its another to suggest that we revert back 100yrs, and completely ignore the advantages of motor transport". I have been able to find any such suggestion in this thread.

There certainly will be no point in continuing if you respond to things that have not been said.

I have no doubt that some people hate driving to work, it probably explains why they're so mean to others.

Victor

Yawn.

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

.....Who suggested that people should "move ...and get a job that you can walk to" & when was this suggested? Please quote the exact words, and the posting number.
...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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

100yrs approx the length of time we've had motor transport??? and that people have been using it. Come on do I have to draw a picture for petes sake!!!! :eek:

Agreed Victor. Its too boring to debate with someone who "appears" to comprehend only the literal meaning of words and nothing beyond that. Either its a boorish tactic or they genuinely can't extrapolate the implied. :rolleyes:

Victor

/me yawns more directly at RicardoSmith

RicardoSmith

Victor wrote:

/me yawns more directly at RicardoSmith

Sorry can you quote the line post where I talked about sleep...

Victor

RicardoSmith wrote:

Sorry can you quote the line post where I talked about sleep...

Morning!