Cycling/Walking around the city

Redhairedguy

It really seems like a temporary inconvenience, and not even massively inconvenient at that. I honestly don't see the big deal...

Crumbs868

Redhairedguy wrote: »

It really seems like a temporary inconvenience, and not even massively inconvenient at that. I honestly don't see the big deal...

Neither did joe Duffy when he rang

galwaycyclist

Redhairedguy wrote: »

It really seems like a temporary inconvenience, and not even massively inconvenient at that. I honestly don't see the big deal...

Death by a thousand cuts - each individual cut is not a big deal but they add up to a particular outcome.

In the case of Galway, the pernicious and systematic endangerment and inconveniencing of people on foot adds up to avoidable traffic (jams)

- and demands for bypasses etc.

galwaycyclist

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

Amazing how man managed to sail the earth hundreds of years ago but some cant walk around a sign in 2015, you dont even have to walk on the road as there is a big cycle lane to walk on (which is really just an extension of the footpath anyway).

I don't know if you have noticed, but the city council have put tactile paving at intervals along the bridge.

This indicates that they are assuming blind people as "design users"* of the footpath that they have just obstructed.

* and obtained and spent taxpayers money on that basis.

?Cee?view

snubbleste wrote: »

This is a Walking thread.

It's a Cycling/Walking thread.

No reason that cyclists or walkers with even a modicum of intelligence and even a smidgen of spatial awareness should be anything but very slightly inconvenienced by that temporary and well highlighted sign.

ben.schlomo

?Cee?view wrote: »

It's a Cycling/Walking thread.

No reason that cyclists or walkers with even a modicum of intelligence and even a smidgen of spatial awareness should be anything but very slightly inconvenienced by that temporary and well highlighted sign.

He has form for this going back a couple of years, he posted a very similar photo, probably in this thread, some people love attention.

pmasterson95

snubbleste wrote: »

This is a Walking thread.
The point is that the authorities supposed to safeguard our safety view us as expendable - less important than vehicular traffic in this instance. Why refer to it is a footway at all, why not just call it a mixed-use bit of concrete?
If the footway is viewed by relevant authorities as a depository for such signs and assorted street furniture, it is clear that pedestrian navigation is something to pay lip service to.

Ah here are you actually serious? Was it that much of a traumatic event to encounter a sign? If you find a sign this troubling and horrifying you must be a bag of nerves leaving the house. Wouldn't take me a half a minute to navigate a sign AND not get flattened by traffic AND have forgot it after 20 seconds and got on with my day. Are you actually this traumatised or taking the piss?

dilallio

Reminds me of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU

Iwannahurl

The attitudes displayed by some in this thread appear to mirror those of the people responsible for placing the temporary obstructions in the public footway. It's all about maximising the convenience of motorised traffic, while expecting, for example, vision-impaired people and elderly pedestrians to adapt. This is why footpaths are routinely used for the placing of temporary signage -- the aim is to alert motorists ("the people that matter") to the works taking place, while ensuring that traffic is not held up for a moment longer than necessary. It happens everywhere all the time, not just on the Q Bridge. And if it's not signage obstructing the footpath it's construction vehicles, equipment, rubble or whatever.

The people obstructing footpaths in this manner either have not been educated properly or else have received the training and are ignoring it.

According to the National Disability Authority, people with impaired vision are particularly at risk from temporary obstruction, and when work is being carried out on the built environment it is necessary to ensure that footpaths are not blocked and/or there is a safe alternative route for people with disabilities. Shunting people out into the path of cyclists, some of whom may be travelling at speed, does not constitute a "safe alternative route".

Which part of the NDA's guidelines do people have difficulty comprehending?

The emphasis should be on universal access: what works for a vision-impaired person or a mobility-impaired elderly person will work for able-bodied road users. The converse is not true.

Redhairedguy

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Ah here are you actually serious? Was it that much of a traumatic event to encounter a sign? If you find a sign this troubling and horrifying you must be a bag of nerves leaving the house. Wouldn't take me a half a minute to navigate a sign AND not get flattened by traffic AND have forgot it after 20 seconds and got on with my day. Are you actually this traumatised or taking the piss?

Attack the post, and not the poster guys.

Asmodean

This thread is why I love the Internet sometimes.

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The people obstructing footpaths in this manner either have not been educated properly or else have received the training and are ignoring it.

Did you see the picture posted? Surely you didn't as I can't see what that 1000 word reply above has to do with it.

Go back a few pages and check it out. Workers applied common sense.

L'Enfer du Nord

This isn't a fallen tree. It is a sign deliberately placed there by the local authority. It blocks the footpath completely. It demonstrates either incompetence or a disregard for pedestrians. Looked at in isolation it may seem like a small deal, however I think its emblematic.

Crumbs868

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

This isn't a fallen tree. It is a sign deliberately placed there by the local authority. It blocks the footpath completely. It demonstrates either incompetence or a disregard for pedestrians. Looked at in isolation it may seem like a small deal, however I think its emblematic.

I'd imagine the workers had to place an electronic sign to warn of a road closure (yes a road closed to all patrons) and after assessing the situation anf taking into account the raised cycle path came to their logical solution

The biggest mistake that they made was forgetting about the Galway anti motorists forum where the situation would be analysed and taken out of context and whey will now be up in front of the EU Supreme Court on human rights charges

pmasterson95

They should have hired a fleet of drones to levitate the sign above the ground.

Iwannahurl

Crumbs868 wrote: »

I'd imagine the workers had to place an electronic sign to warn of a road closure (yes a road closed to all patrons) and after assessing the situation anf taking into account the raised cycle path came to their logical solution.

When assessing the situation and arriving at their "logical" solution, what regard did they have to the NDA's guidelines, do you think?

And do you think the DTTAS guidelines might have some relevance?

The preferred width for a temporary footway is 1.8m and for a one-way cycle track is 1.5m but, where possible, the width provided should be suitable to accommodate expected volumes. The absolute minimum width allowed for pedestrians is 1.2m and for a one-way cycle track is 1.25m.

If a shared facility is to be provided then a minimum width of 3m should be provided.

Temporary Traffic Measures and Signs for Roadworks, 2010

From the UK Code of Practice:

Placing signs in the footway is permitted, but they must be positioned so as to minimise inconvenience or hazard to pedestrians, with particular consideration given to those with visual impairments, pushchairs, wheelchairs and mobility scooters.

If your work is going to obstruct a footway or part of a footway, you must provide a safe route for pedestrians that should include access to adjacent buildings, properties and public areas where necessary. This route must consider the needs of those with small children, pushchairs and those with reduced mobility, including visually impaired people and people using wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

You should always try to enable pedestrians to remain safely on the footway if at all possible. Ideally, the footway should be a minimum of 1.5 metres wide for temporary situations but if this cannot be achieved, the existing footway can be reduced to an absolute minimum of 1 metre unobstructed width.

Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice, 2013

When I was in Melbourne in 2012, I noticed that construction work requiring temporary road closures or access restrictions typically engaged specialist contractors to manage traffic and pedestrian movements. I had a chat with one of the supervisors, and he told me that they used to do things Irish-style, ie making it up as they went along and assuming it would just be grand, like. It was no coincidence that some of their employees were Irish: no similar work available for them at home, that's for sure.

L'Enfer du Nord

Crumbs868 wrote: »

I'd imagine the workers had to place an electronic sign to warn of a road closure (yes a road closed to all patrons) and after assessing the situation anf taking into account the raised cycle path came to their logical solution

The biggest mistake that they made was forgetting about the Galway anti motorists forum where the situation would be analysed and taken out of context and whey will now be up in front of the EU Supreme Court on human rights charges

The context is footpaths and cycle lanes are regularly blocked unnecessarily. Post one example you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, post several examples and you need to get a life. I note that many of the responses to the OP resort to mockery. Which is typical of the bad mannered knee jerk reactions of many posters.

what_traffic

snubbleste wrote: »

How am I supposed to walk through this? Footpath closed to facilitate motorists.

They could have put it here at entrance to the Terryland Forrest Park.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.282867,-9.054352,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9nWdsHXZgW8dua1bNZQUFA!2e0?hl=en

but then I suppose it would block the tiny 50km/h speed limit sign that is already been ignored on QCB

Iwannahurl

Or could they even shove it in a bit more, onto the grassed area? That might leave the bare minimum 1-1.5 metres of footway.

And yes, the speed is a sick joke. I was cycling over the QB with a child a couple of weeks ago, and the speed of the traffic was shocking. I reckon some motorists -- more than a few -- were doing 100 km/h, if not more. It certainly looked and felt like they were doing speeds more suited to an open non-urban road. By chance there was a Garda in a squad car stopped at the lights. I asked him was he aware of the sheer scale of the speeding right beside him. He muttered something about that being the job of the Traffic Corps. The last time I encountered them on the QB was several years ago. Which is not to say they haven't been doing speed checks since. It's just that it's so rare there is self-evidently no deterrent effect.

Padkir

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And yes, the speed is a sick joke. I was cycling over the QB with a child a couple of weeks ago, and the speed of the traffic was shocking. I reckon some motorists -- more than a few -- were doing 100 km/h, if not more. It certainly looked and felt like they were doing speeds more suited to an open non-urban road.

If only there was an open non-urban route they could use instead... A "bypass" perhaps??

Iwannahurl

It was a Saturday, in heavy traffic.

But speeding is endemic on the QB, and is a daily occurrence. If the speeds typically seen there are way in excess of the posted limit, does that suggest to you a road that has constant traffic-flow problems? Wouldn't it be the opposite, ie free speeds way below the posted limit?

galwaycyclist

Crumbs868 wrote: »

I'd imagine the workers had to place an electronic sign to warn of a road closure (yes a road closed to all patrons) and after assessing the situation anf taking into account the raised cycle path came to their logical solution

There is one lane for pedestrians, one lane for cyclists and two lanes available for motorists.

How then does blocking the only lane for pedestrians become a "logical" solutiion?

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It was a Saturday, in heavy traffic.

But speeding is endemic on the QB, and is a daily occurrence. If the speeds typically seen there are way in excess of the posted limit, does that suggest to you a road that has constant traffic-flow problems? Wouldn't it be the opposite, ie free speeds way below the posted limit?

Well the posted limit is painfully slow on a wide open dual-carriageway with very good visibility and no entry or exit roads.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

How then does blocking the only lane for pedestrians become a "logical" solutiion?

When they can walk around it with such ease as to not even notice the path is blocked.

galwaycyclist

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

When they can walk around it with such ease as to not even notice the path is blocked.

Sorry but in my view your argument is silly. You cannot make any assumptions about the abilities, whether in terms of senses or physical ability, of a person going about their lawful daily business on foot.

On the other hand motorists who drive while impaired are committing an offence, for instance if they are on certain types of anti histamines, or if they are driving while very tired and so on. Therefore there must be an assumption that motorists are in the full of their health and better able to perceive, and react to (by changing lanes) any electronic signs or other obstacles in their path.

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When assessing the situation and arriving at their "logical" solution, what regard did they have to the NDA's guidelines, do you think?

And do you think the DTTAS guidelines might have some relevance?



From the UK Code of Practice:



When I was in Melbourne in 2012, I noticed that construction work requiring temporary road closures or access restrictions typically engaged specialist contractors to manage traffic and pedestrian movements. I had a chat with one of the supervisors, and he told me that they used to do things Irish-style, ie making it up as they went along and assuming it would just be grand, like. It was no coincidence that some of their employees were Irish: no similar work available for them at home, that's for sure.

Serious question, considering your hatred(I've never seen a positive post from you in relation to Ireland / Galway) of Galway and her people and your very very low opinion of us why do you live here? From your posts you see us as lazy fools who interfere in your daily chores.

Solely for your health maybe a move to one of your Eutopia cities like Melbourne / Amsterdam would be good?

Redhairedguy

Once more ladies and gentlemen. Attack the post, and not the poster. Subsequent arsery will be frown upon, and the good wooden spoon will be unveiled.

*involuntary hand twitch*

Mrs OBumble

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Serious question, considering your hatred(I've never seen a positive post from you in relation to Ireland / Galway) of Galway and her people and your very very low opinion of us why do you live here? From your posts you see us as lazy fools who interfere in your daily chores.

Solely for your health maybe a move to one of your Eutopia cities like Melbourne / Amsterdam would be good?

Classic "arh, shure and it's grand"-ism: if someone says "this place should be better than this", they are told to feck off.

I would assume that someone who's name is "Iwannahurl" is here because they love the unique sporting life that Ireland offers.

I'm here because I love the vibrant musical and cultural scene. But that's not going to stop me from speaking out about things in the city and country which I believe are wrong.

Redhairedguy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I would assume that someone who's name is "Iwannahurl" is here because they love the unique sporting life that Ireland offers.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hurl

Urban Dictionary wrote:

hurl
1. (n) Vomit
2. (v) To vomit

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but in my view your argument is silly. You cannot make any assumptions about the abilities, whether in terms of senses or physical ability, of a person going about their lawful daily business on foot.

If a person is capable of walking across the QCB which is a decent walk length wise and involves road crossings on both ends, gets quite windy etc then deviating their path by a yard walking for three yards around a sign and the back another yard back onto the path is insignificant.

It really is as ridiculous as the video posted with the toll, it's laughable people are actually making a big deal about it.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

On the other hand motorists who drive while impaired are committing an offence, for instance if they are on certain types of anti histamines, or if they are driving while very tired and so on. Therefore there must be an assumption that motorists are in the full of their health and better able to perceive, and react to (by changing lanes) any electronic signs or other obstacles in their path.

Blocking a lane of one of the busiest routes in galway for motorised traffic would cause major disruption. Partially blocking a footpath on a route with low pedestrian and cycle traffic causes absolutely no disruption to anyone whatsoever.

Iwannahurl

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

If a person is capable of walking across the QCB which is a decent walk length wise and involves road crossings on both ends, gets quite windy etc then deviating their path by a yard walking for three yards around a sign and the back another yard back onto the path is insignificant.

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

the posted limit is painfully slow

So now driving at or below the speed limit inflicts pain on motorists?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Classic "arh, shure and it's grand"-ism: if someone says "this place should be better than this", they are told to feck off.

I would assume that someone who's name is "Iwannahurl" is here because they love the unique sporting life that Ireland offers.

I'm here because I love the vibrant musical and cultural scene. But that's not going to stop me from speaking out about things in the city and country which I believe are wrong.

Interesting that this should come up at this point, four years and seven months after I signed up to Boards. As for the origins of my username, the primary clue is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68844853&postcount=70

I guess you also love the vibrant traffic and transportation scene in Galway, hence your excellent website and Twitter page.