Driving on the footpath - Threadneedle Road junction

charlie_says

This drives me insane when people do this.

You know the junction at the top of Threadneedle Road, Taylors Hill and Kingston Road? The left had filter lane coming from Kingston Road onto the junction - some people constantly drive up on the footpath due to the stupid road markings which aren't wide enough for two cars to fit in at the beginning of them.

People who do this drive me nuts. I saw one of those massive Audi 4x4 (Q8 I think) with a Luxemburg registration do this yesterday at about 25mph. I was not happy in my **** Mondeo.

Not only is it illegal, it's extremely dangerous for pedestrians, and if a cyclist was coming around the corner on the footpath at speed (I know that is technically wrong too but it doesn't seem as dangerous) and turns around the corner we have another road death.

GRRRRR! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

/rant

?Cee?view

charlie_says wrote: »

This drives me insane when people do this.

You know the junction at the top of Threadneedle Road, Taylors Hill and Kingston Road? The left had filter lane coming from Kingston Road onto the junction - some people constantly drive up on the footpath due to the stupid road markings which aren't wide enough for two cars to fit in at the beginning of them.

People who do this drive me nuts. I saw one of those massive Audi 4x4 (Q8 I think) with a Luxemburg registration do this yesterday at about 25mph. I was not happy in my **** Mondeo.

Not only is it illegal, it's extremely dangerous for pedestrians, and if a cyclist was coming around the corner on the footpath at speed (I know that is technically wrong too but it doesn't seem as dangerous) and turns around the corner we have another road death.

GRRRRR! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

/rant

I agree with you but I think a more serious problem is the speed that people drive on Kingston Road. It's a residential area for Gods sake!

Of course, if the Green muppets, and the Labour and ex-Labour councillors had worked for the people of Galway instead of their narrow fanatical agendas, we'd have a Galway bypass that would take most traffic off this road. They've screwed things up so royally that we'll have to put up with overcrowded junctions on this road for many years to come.

JohnCleary

If it really concerns you, write to the council/papers about it - nothing is gonna be done about it by posting on an internet forum

(I agree with you though)

?Cee?view

JohnCleary wrote: »

If it really concerns you, write to the council/papers about it - nothing is gonna be done about it by posting on an internet forum

(I agree with you though)

...and if you do you could suggest some of those barriers that they've put on Bridge Street to stop the taxis parking on the path. Some of that at this junction would stop cars mounting it.

JohnCleary

churchview wrote: »

...and if you do you could suggest some of those barriers that they've put on Bridge Street to stop the taxis parking on the path. Some of that at this junction would stop cars mounting it.

It'd increase traffic there though, as the lights going on the direction of Taylors/Kingston only stay green for a silly amount of time

?Cee?view

JohnCleary wrote: »

It'd increase traffic there though, as the lights going on the direction of Taylors/Kingston only stay green for a silly amount of time

Fair point, but I don't think it would be significant as not that many people mount the footpath.

The real solution would be to take a piece from the front of the Fort Lorenzo development and create two wider lanes. Can't see that happening though.

biko

Yeah I've seen it lots of times (I'd be in the other lane, going straight towards Ardilaun) but has anyone ever been hurt?
Maybe a stationary camera and a few fines would sort it.

JohnCleary

biko wrote: »

Yeah I've seen it lots of times (I'd be in the other lane, going straight towards Ardilaun) but has anyone ever been hurt?
Maybe a stationary camera and a few fines would sort it.

Don't think there's ever been an incident. Majority of the time cars just crawl up along, and the footpath gets quite wide towards the traffic lights. The example above (ie. speeding 4x4) was an isolated example I reckon

snubbleste

JohnCleary wrote: »

Don't think there's ever been an incident. Majority of the time cars just crawl up along, and the footpath gets quite wide towards the traffic lights. The example above (ie. speeding 4x4) was an isolated example I reckon

You obviously have'nt seen mummies ferrying precious cargo to school in their chelsea tractors.
I've seen this numerous times going back over a decade. Next time you are there, have a look at the footpath and note how damaged it is at that point.

galah

it's weird though, cause the road (including the footpath) would be wide enough to widen the actual lanes - noone needs such a huge footpath, so why not widen the road up there. and allow for more traffic to queue for the left turn.

The whole junction is a disaster though - it's lethal when the lights are not working. I'd say a roundabout would actually be beneficial there.

Bob_Harris

JohnCleary wrote: »

If it really concerns you, write to the council/papers about it - nothing is gonna be done about it by posting on an internet forum

(I agree with you though)

Nonsense, he needs to start a Facebook group. Those things get the job done.

?Cee?view

galah wrote: »

The whole junction is a disaster though - it's lethal when the lights are not working. I'd say a roundabout would actually be beneficial there.

Oh Christ NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Not another roundabout!

galah

teeheehee.

well, obviously the lights aren't really working very well (especially when the schools are back and all those mammies start to drive little fat Chloe and Kevin those 500 meters to their place of education again), so I can't think of anything else they could do to improve that junction...

(apart from more cycle lanes, proper public transport even for *shockhorror* villages beyond Barna, and generally making the roads safer so that people would actually be encuraged not to use the car...)

siltirocker

Was hit there last summer. Wrote to O'Cuiv and a few others about putting a rail up ala Westside/Renton Road junction. Haven't heard back.

charlie_says

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Nonsense, he needs to start a Facebook group. Those things get the job done.

I poked Galway County Council and left a message on their wall :rolleyes:

In seriousness though I will write a brief letter about it. The Kingston Road takes a huge amount of traffic, there is plenty of space of footpath on both sides of the road to widen it significantly*. When the schools are back on it becomes a major bottleneck junction, which really encourages people to drive on the footpath out of sheer frustration, just wanting to be clear of it.

Due to the short timing of the lights coming from the other direction (Talyors Hill to Kingston Road) a jam can build up there very quickly when one car who is turning right towards Westside doesn't move out enough (muppets) for the cars going to the Kingston Road to go around it. I have seen the lights change there and only one car per change actually gets through the junction.

You would wonder what the traffic engineers in the council are on, or have they even looked at that at all?

All this and more will be included in my official rant

* There is a little lay-bye there that isn't a bus stop and all it seems to serve is for people to park for a for GAA matches nearby. I have also seen the entire other side of the road (the bit where people drive on mentioned in the original post) full of curbed cars on match days. Crazy.

snubbleste

charlie_says wrote: »

This drives me insane when people do this.

I have a strong urge relating to producing a thread on the highly illicit activity of deliberately illegally abandoned vehicles with particular reference to designated pedestrian throughfares.

Sponge Bob

When the corpo gave permission for the fort lorenzo complex behind that wall they should have told them to take the wall back 1m and a tad more right on the corner and that would have left room for a decent lane

brianthebard

churchview wrote: »

Oh Christ NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Not another roundabout!

Agreed, galway drivers don't know how to use them. In fact the majority of galway drivers barely know how to drive. I propose the whole town be made into a one way system, it would fix a lot of problems....

jkforde

since this is still an on-going issue I thought I'd resurrect this...

just noticed that someone has placed a few traffic cones along the outside of the Kingston Rd. footpath exactly where left-turning drivers habitually mount the footpath. no Garda markings on them so it must have been a local resident taking matters into their own hands. fair play, that particular section of footpath is very narrow anyhow without this bloody carry on.

?Cee?view

jkforde wrote: »

since this is still an on-going issue I thought I'd resurrect this...

just noticed that someone has placed a few traffic cones along the outside of the Kingston Rd. footpath exactly where left-turning drivers habitually mount the footpath. no Garda markings on them so it must have been a local resident taking matters into their own hands. fair play, that particular section of footpath is very narrow anyhow without this bloody carry on.

Fair play my eye.

There's a lunatic out taking photographs of traffic for the last few mornings. He was there yesterday and again this morning. I think these cones may belong to that guy but can't be sure. One wonders if he would claim ownership of the cones if someone tripped over them?

My wife phoned me yesterday as he was pointing his camera at her car and our child. From her description, it's the same guy who I've seen. She was a bit worried at first but agreed with me that it's obviously someone with a sad fixation; it's a bit sad really.

I was in to the guards over lunchtime for something else and mentioned it to them. Let's just say, they seemed aware of the guy...

snubbleste

Was you wife driving on the footpath? If she phoned you yesterday, does this mean she was holding a telephone in her hand whilst in control of a car?

?Cee?view

snubbleste wrote: »

Was you wife driving on the footpath? If she phoned you yesterday, does this mean she was holding a telephone in her hand whilst in control of a car?

No, and No.

Yesterday he was near the turn up to Rahoon cemetery. This morning he was at the Kingston crossroads.

snubbleste

Fair play to him I say.
I'm sure he makes people think twice about their driving or endangering lives.
Please ensure that when your wife goes past any camera (cctv or otherwise) at anytime that you mention this to the Garda.

?Cee?view

snubbleste wrote: »

Please ensure that when your wife goes past any camera (cctv or otherwise) at anytime that you mention this to the Garda.

That's bit trite and insulting. Walking past a cctv or random camera is entirely different to having an individual who is loitering, specifically point a camera at you in circumstances which are somewhat unusual to say the least. You might be alright with men making your family uncomfortable. I'm not.

connemara man

If someone took a picture of me driving when I was doing nothing wrong I wouldn't be impressed, I believe CCTV should be used in all realms of aiding the Gardaí in prosecuting people but he seems to me to be taking matters into his own hands as CCTV has to have certain data protection criteria i think, this man can not guarantee to me as I am driving that it wont be used in any way that would shine me in a bad light.

Re that section of road the amount of people that don't hold out into the outer lane is head-wrecking. it stops cars actually being able to turn left, I am not talking about the kerb jump early on but the second car from the lights taking up almost half the left hand lane.

zarquon

So basically what we have now is a debate about what is the greater breach of the law, driving up on footpaths or taking pictures and video of drivers performing this action? Seems to me that the person in question would only actually be taking a picture or video of car that was infact up on the footpath whilst driving. If the wife in question was snapped she was most likely performing the deed in question or alternatively he may have snapped her for being on the phone to her husband while driving seeing as it was admitted that the she phoned while the anonymous person pointed the camera at her. As she was at the juction there was no way she stopped the car to make a call.

I'm not saying either person is in the right or wrong, but there does seem to be an element of the pot calling the kettle black here.

?Cee?view

zarquon wrote: »

So basically what we have now is a debate about what is the greater breach of the law, driving up on footpaths or taking pictures and video of drivers performing this action? Seems to me that the person in question would only actually be taking a picture or video of car that was infact up on the footpath whilst driving. If the wife in question was snapped she was most likely performing the deed in question or alternatively he may have snapped her for being on the phone to her husband while driving.

I'm not saying either person is in the right or wrong, but there does seem to be an element of the pot calling the kettle black here.

Quite a few presumptions there.

Who knows whether she was snapped or not?; she didn't stop to ask. He did point the camera at her (and me incidentally later in the morning).

Neither she, nor I were on the path.

She phoned me later from home, when she was sitting in the kitchen as opposed to driving. If she had phoned me when driving, it is likely that she would have used the car kit rather than handling her phone.

There's no pot, kettle, black to this.

zarquon

Fair enough but you did change your story:

?Cee?view wrote:

My wife phoned me yesterday as he was pointing his camera at her car and our child

?Cee?view wrote:

She phoned me later from home, when she was sitting in the kitchen

You are contradicting yourself now which doesn't help give you any credence in the matter. If she was on bluetooth, then fair enough but you stated she did not call you from the car but also stated the man in question was pointing the camera at her as you were on the phone to your wife.

If you cannot get your story straight on such a simple matter you'll have to excuse me if i take any other statement on the situation from you with a pinch of salt.

If she wasn't doing anything wrong, he wouldn't be taking any pictures so there is no real issue. If he did take pictures it would only be to capture something he would deem as illegal and if this was the case it would be a bit rich for someone to go crying about a breach of privacy if they were breaching the rules of the road.

Are you saying that a persons privacy is more important that the rules of the road?

?Cee?view

zarquon wrote: »

Fair enough but you did change your story:





You are contradicting yourself now which doesn't help give you any credence in the matter. If she was on bluetooth, then fair enough but you stated she did not call you from the car but also stated the man in question was pointing the camera at her as you were on the phone to your wife.

If you cannot get your story straight on such a simple manner you'll have to excuse me if i take any other statement on the situation from you with a pinch of salt.

Substitute the word "because" for "as" and climb down off your horse :rolleyes:

zarquon wrote: »

If she wasn't doing anything wrong, he wouldn't be taking any pictures so there is no real issue. If he did take pictures it would only be to capture something he would deem as illegal.

Are you reading his mind now, or do you know him?

?Cee?view

zarquon wrote: »

Are you saying that a persons privacy is more important that the rules of the road?

That's a false equivalence.

zarquon

?Cee?view wrote: »

Are you reading his mind now, or do you know him?

I'm just making a logical assumption, i do not know him. As a bipartisan observer in this case i am far more equipped to form an objective opinion than you.

Regardless of what happened, the only people who would be really concerned by this are people who are kerb driving this stretch while caught on camera doing so. I personally would have no issue of a camera in my vicinity if i wasn't doing something wrong.

?Cee?view

zarquon wrote: »

I'm just making a logical assumption, i do not know him. As a bipartisan observer in this case i am far more equipped to form an objective opinion than you.

Regardless of what happened, the only people who would be really concerned by this are people who are kerb driving this stretch while caught on camera doing so. I personally would have no issue of a camera in my vicinity if i wasn't doing something wrong.

No, you're positing a logical fallacy.

You are not equipped to form an objective opinion as you are premising your opinion on misunderstanding and an assumption which is untrue.

You assume that the person only takes pictures of people who he deems to be breaking the law. We cannot know this to be true.

You assumed my wife phoned me when she was driving which she didn't (she phoned "because" not "as").

You assume that only those who are "kerb driving" would be concerned that there is a man taking pictures of people in traffic. This is clearly not true as at least I and my wife are concerned. For your assumption on this to have an element of truth, you resort to accusing me (and my wife by implication) of lying.

Finally, do you not think it's a least a bit strange that there is a random man taking pictures of cars and people in cars?

inisboffin

It's legal to take pictures in public places. If the guy goes on to use your image for sell profit, I believe that is a different issue.

People can photograph license plates etc perfectly legally whether we like it or not.

Redhairedguy

Okay guys. This thread has gotten kinda silly with the 'I said... You said' crap. Stop the sniping, trolling and other malarky, and focus on the ACTUAL discussion on hand. The cops are aware about the budding motoring enthusiast and his snap happy locations thanks to ?Cee?view. Equally whether his wife was doing anything illegal is at this stage hearsay and will only go in circles.

Or as my dear old grandpappy used to say:

LESS MOANING, MORE (kerb) MOUNTING!!!

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

It's legal to take pictures in public places. If the guy goes on to use your image for sell profit, I believe that is a different issue.

People can photograph license plates etc perfectly legally whether we like it or not.

I would of thought that it could be viewed as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

If a lone female were involved it has the likely effect of causing fear or at least concern.

If someone believes that others are breaking the law there should report it to the Guards & not try to act as vigilantes.

Redhairedguy

Discodog wrote: »

If someone believes that others are breaking the law there should report it to the Guards & not try to act as vigilantes.

Careful about throwing that word around here... You may not yet realise its connotations in these parts. :pac:

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

I would of thought that it could be viewed as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

If a lone female were involved it has the likely effect of causing fear or at least concern.
.

Under the law, no afaik. However a lone female would have every right in turn to ring the Guards if she felt the behaviour threatening in some additional way, other than someone just photographing the car. IE if the same person photographed her in a number of locations etc.

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

Under the law, no afaik. However a lone female would have every right in turn to ring the Guards if she felt the behaviour threatening in some additional way, other than someone just photographing the car. IE if the same person photographed her in a number of locations etc.

I would of thought that behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace would be very much up to interpretation.

If the Council thought that the matter was serious they could easily install a few bollards. If the Guards had any concerns they could patrol at the lights.

The fact that neither has happened suggests that it's storm in a teacup.

dloob

Probably a member of that Knocknacarra vigilante gang that was setting up on boards :pac:

inisboffin

Taking pics in a public place is not illegal. Morality and manners are different conversations. Selling those pics without permission from the subject is wher legality comes back in.

Discodog

If, for example, an emergency vehicle is trying to pass it's common for cars to mount the pavement. No one would ever be prosecuted for this unless it endangered pedestrians. It's a matter of common sense. The same would apply to someone briefly mounting the pavement to release a line of traffic.

I heard that there are plans to revise that junction.

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

If, for example, an emergency vehicle is trying to pass it's common for cars to mount the pavement. No one would ever be prosecuted for this unless it endangered pedestrians. It's a matter of common sense. The same would apply to someone briefly mounting the pavement to release a line of traffic.

I'd agree totally with the first part but not the second part. Releasing a line of traffic isn't necessarily an emergency.

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

I'd agree totally with the first part but not the second part. Releasing a line of traffic isn't necessarily an emergency.

I agree but it is a helpful thing to do. Driver frustration is recognised as a cause of accidents.

The cones are still there and they are blocking the path to the same degree as two wheels.

There is also a bike chained to a post & blocking the path. I didn't have time to photograph it :-)

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

I agree but it is a helpful thing to do. Driver frustration is recognised as a cause of accidents.

We'll have to agree to differ. I've seen 'driver frustration' cause a car mount the footpath at speed when a pedestrian was coming around a corner!

(disclaimer: I didn't put the cones there!:P)

Re the bike, this wasn't a move that showed much common sense, if it is blocking the path.

What's the legality about
a) cars driving on footpath
b) bikes tied to poles on paths in general

I'd imagine a) is illegal unless an emergency (though unlikely enforced) but what about b) - anyone know? Most bikes are grand with room to pass if they are tied to a tree rail etc, but the odd time there are the ones that block narrow streets.

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ. I've seen 'driver frustration' cause a car mount the footpath at speed when a pedestrian was coming around a corner!

Exactly. So if, by mounting 10 yards of totally empty pavement, one can ease driver frustration that's a good thing.

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

Exactly. So if, by mounting 10 yards of totally empty pavement, one can ease driver frustration that's a good thing.

Not sure if I follow you, isn't this junction at a corner. How do drivers see around corners?

biko

The spot where drivers mount the footpath for maybe 10 meters is 50 meters (give/take) away from the corner, where road from Joyce's towards Taylor's divide into two lanes before the junction. Aprox where the white van is here
When mounting you can see all the way to the corner.
No-one stays mounted as there is a light pole at the pedestrian crossing.

inisboffin

Thanks Biko. I haven't seen the cones but assumed it was up at the top, where cars also cut up on that path.

If that's a house entrance there, I wouldn't be surprised if a resident put the cones there though, particularly if they have kids.

Discodog

I have only seen drivers mounting the pavement well before the bend & only to gain access to the left lane.

anamara86

Town planning in Galway is a bit of a joke in my opinion. Like a few others have mentioned, most people just mount the curb when there is space ahead to move up and I have yet to see any one mount a curb and remain on it when there is no space ahead!

I also have a problem with the filter lights at this junction. People coming from the Knocknacarra end turning right tend to hold up loads of traffic because there is no right filter. Same can be said for people turning right from the Taylors Hill end. It seems to me that it would make far more sense for the lights to be changed so that for example only lights from Knocknakarra end go, then only lights from Taylors hill end go etc etc. There would be no reason for cars to mount the curb if that was the case.

Eeden

It's a pretty bad junction, that's true. I think there are plans to change it somehow, but I think I heard that the plans involve allowing no right turns at all? Not sure about that but if true, it could make things pretty awkward generally.