Pedestrian fatalities

niloc1951

After a number of pedestrian deaths on our roads in recent days Minister Varadkar rightly says
“We’ve lost a lot of people on the roads, pedestrians in particular, and for the families of those affected, Christmas will never be the same again,”

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-confirms-new-penalty-points-offences-for-2012-534062.html#ixzz1i7lGnI00

So, why oh why are we not following the lead elsewhere in the EU and make the wearing of Hi-Vis vests compulsory for pedestrians or vehicle users (when out of their vehicle) on all unlighted roads.

After all they are only about the price of a pint

corktina

you can lead a horse to water......

dubhthach

How many pedestrian deaths were during hours of darkness? Likewise for number of pedestrians killed while walking on hardshoulders (during both day/night). I know from driving around Dublin that some pedestrians don't seem to understand the concept of a redlight.

galwaycyclist

I have just put a comment on hi viz here in this thread on lighting of cyclists.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76257567&postcount=38

Its not at all a straightforward issue.

Encrypted Pigeon

Surely its going to take more than Hi Viz vests to solve this. I think it is attitudes both from drivers and pedestrians that need to be looked at.

dubhthach

Sintel wrote: »

Surely its going to take more than Hi Viz vests to solve this. I think it is attitudes both from drivers and pedestrians that need to be looked at.

Indeed, one could hope that with mandatory driver testing (12(?)hours with an instructor) that at least the standard of driving should improve somewhat going into the future. However I think in general in Ireland all road users be they drivers, pedestrians, cyclists or bikers often have a Laissez-faire attitude to the rules of the road.

I do think that a proper TV campaign is needed that targets each segment of road users. They've recently started showing adds regarding driving on motorways (breakdowns, middle-lane hogs, overtaking etc.). It would make sense to have a set for each road using "demographic".

Personally from driving around an urban area I do notice a large increase in numbers of pedestrians/cyclists wearing high-viz vests. Of course there's a lot more in way of "passive light sources" (street lighting etc.) but I do think it's an improvement on several years ago.

niloc1951

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I have just put a comment on hi viz here in this thread on lighting of cyclists.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76257567&postcount=38

Its not at all a straightforward issue.

I wasn't thinking of cyclists who are supposed to have lights, back and front, a Hi-Vis would be an wise extra.
I was thinking more of the individual walking or working on their broken down vehicle on the roadside outside of urban areas where traffic speeds are hight and reaction distances are longer.
It's interesting that such a safety measure is accepted, even required, in other hazardous environments where fatalities and serious injury can be less common.

Niles

When walking/cycling in the dark I generally wear a hi-viz myself. But as for making it mandatory, wouldn't that be rather hard to enforce? I mean, in some cases you'd effectively be isolating people to their own homes if they didn't have such a garment (for the right reasons granted, but doesn't sound very good). In saying that I've heard of cases where Guards have picked up nighttime walkers and delivered them to their destination.

I don't disagree with the principle behind the idea, I just don't think it's that practical to enforce. Though I'd be all for the likes of the RSA continuing and strengthening their awareness campaigns.

Jayuu

niloc1951 wrote: »

I wasn't thinking of cyclists who are supposed to have lights, back and front, a Hi-Vis would be an wise extra.
I was thinking more of the individual walking or working on their broken down vehicle on the roadside outside of urban areas where traffic speeds are hight and reaction distances are longer.
It's interesting that such a safety measure is accepted, even required, in other hazardous environments where fatalities and serious injury can be less common.

Also interesting to note the relative disappearance of reflective armbands which we use to get regular advertising about when I was growing up, especially during winter months. I would have though these were more practical and therefore more likely to be used than a hi-vis jacket.

Ken.

I was raise in the Curragh Camp(the army base). I can recall that while in first class the entire class was brought out to the road and thought the safe cross code. Did any other schools do this then or now.

Niles

lucyfur09 wrote: »

I was raise in the Curragh Camp(the army base). I can recall that while in first class the entire class was brought out to the road and thought the safe cross code. Did any other schools do this then or now.

When I was in primary school (1990s) we were thought basic stuff, I think as part of the "Stay Safe" program. But we certainly didn't have any "practical lessons" (of course the school being situated at the end of a cul de sac probably didn't help). Would certainly be a good idea though.

I vaguely remember a road safety add aimed at kids in the late 90s. It involved "Clever Cat", part of the rhyme went "a word to all those people on bikes, always wear a helmet and have two lights. That's the Clever Cat Safety Code, keeping us safe, on our roads!". It was sponsored by Centra. Don't really watch tv during "childrens' hours" these days but I'm sure ads of this type wouldn't go amiss.

hmmm

I went looking for some armbands for club members off the RSA recently and was told to go buy them myself. The cost of one of their TV ads would probably pay for an armband to be sent to every person in the country.

I drive quite a bit along dark country roads in Wicklow at this time of year, and I can't get over the number of people I meet strolling along in dark clothes, and often walking along the left hand side of the road. Do they have no sense whatsoever of self preservation?

loyatemu

hmmm wrote: »

The cost of one of their TV ads would probably pay for an armband to be sent to every person in the country.

they do hand out hi-vis vests from time to time, to cyclists, school children etc.

it might be worth their while doing a joint campaign with the guards - have patrol cars carrying a supply of vests and they can hand them out to any dark-clothed idiots pedestrians they come across. I'm also amazed at the lack of self-preservation instinct among many people walking on country roads - have they never been in a car? Do they not realise that they are literally invisible?

loyatemu

hmmm wrote: »

The cost of one of their TV ads would probably pay for an armband to be sent to every person in the country.

they do hand out hi-vis vests from time to time, to cyclists, school children etc.

it might be worth their while doing a joint campaign with the guards - have patrol cars carrying a supply of vest and they can hand them out to any dark-clothed idiots pedestrians they come across.

don't agree with making it mandatory though, enforcement would be difficult, its already fairly haphazard for unlit cyclists which is a much more clear-cut offence.

niloc1951

loyatemu wrote: »

................don't agree with making it mandatory though, enforcement would be difficult...............

Should be easier than a lot of regulations, after all there would be no grey area , it would be black and white or should that be yellow/orange and white.
A vest would either be being worn or not.

KevR

About a month ago, I saw a guy walking in the median strip (i.e. - the 1 metre wide strip in the central reservation between the overtaking lane and the concrete crash barrier) of the unlit Athlone Bypass. He was wearing dark clothes and it was night!

The Athlone Bypass carries more than 30,000 vehicles per day, most of these travel at 100kmh. I wouldn't walk in the hard shoulder with a high-vis vest during a perfectly bright day, even if you paid me. Nevermind the median strip at night with dark clothes!!

flazio

hmmm wrote: »

I went looking for some armbands for club members off the RSA recently and was told to go buy them myself. The cost of one of their TV ads would probably pay for an armband to be sent to every person in the country.

I drive quite a bit along dark country roads in Wicklow at this time of year, and I can't get over the number of people I meet strolling along in dark clothes, and often walking along the left hand side of the road. Do they have no sense whatsoever of self preservation?

And yet I went into an Advanced Pitstop and there was a stand with complimentary vests from the RSA in reception.

loyatemu

niloc1951 wrote: »

Should be easier than a lot of regulations, after all there would be no grey area , it would be black and white or should that be yellow/orange and white.
A vest would either be being worn or not.

I was more thinking of where the law would apply - would every pedestrian everywhere have to wear one? - obviously not, you can't force pedestrians walking down O'Connell St to wear luminous vests.

But then you do have grey areas over what is an unlit road, what is a footpath - a pedestrian sets out on the footpath on a well-lit road but a mile later finds himself walking on unlit hard-shoulder - should every pedestrian be required to carry a reflective vest just in case? What constitutes a reflective vest anyway - I have a cycling jacket with reflective piping on it, is that sufficient? (the yellow vests btw are designed to make the wearer more visible in daylight - only the reflective strips are for night-use).

The law on bike-lights is clear-cut, you have to have them. But its still rarely enforced because the guards don't have the resources and its difficult to get a prosecution, I don't see the point in introducing more laws that would be largely unenforced. Educate people and supply the vests in appropriate situations (e.g. supply them to rural pubs).

donkey balls

As someone who would clock up a fair few miles every year average about 6/8k a month;) what I,ve noticed is that people in and around country towns are the ones who mainly wear the reflective vests/carry tourches etc,On two other occasions I saw people hitch hike on the M6 just pass the toll with no reflective markings another occasion I saw some youths scoot down the M1 on their push bikes with no lights etc.
Imo it's not a case of blaming one certain road user we have the anti truck brigade the cars v cyclists v pedestrian etc the RSA should have videos sent to schools about the blind spots on certain vehicles mainly trucks&busses or even show them on the tv.
I don't know how many times that people have walked out in front of me when the lights are green for me to go and yet be so close to the truck that its nearly impossible to see them,Thats why I stay a good 10ft away from pedestrian crossings so I have a clear veiw of the road.
From memory while living in Oz the local state govt use to produce videos on road safety especially concerning HGV and the space they need to turn etc me thinks the RSA should do something similar.

niloc1951

loyatemu wrote: »

I was more thinking of where the law would apply - would every pedestrian everywhere have to wear one? - obviously not, you can't force pedestrians walking down O'Connell St to wear luminous vests.

But then you do have grey areas over what is an unlit road, what is a footpath - a pedestrian sets out on the footpath on a well-lit road but a mile later finds himself walking on unlit hard-shoulder - should every pedestrian be required to carry a reflective vest just in case? What constitutes a reflective vest anyway - I have a cycling jacket with reflective piping on it, is that sufficient? (the yellow vests btw are designed to make the wearer more visible in daylight - only the reflective strips are for night-use).

The law on bike-lights is clear-cut, you have to have them. But its still rarely enforced because the guards don't have the resources and its difficult to get a prosecution, I don't see the point in introducing more laws that would be largely unenforced. Educate people and supply the vests in appropriate situations (e.g. supply them to rural pubs).

Regarding the 'where' part of your post.
A sensible definition could be, for example, outside urban speed limit areas.

The 'what' part could be a garment conforming to ANSI/ISEA Class 2, defined as follows 'a vests with two 5 cm bands of reflective material around body or on one 5 cm band around body and braces to both shoulders. This is the garment required in other EU countries where reflective vest are required.

As regards leaving the issue to 'education' it appears the the extreme educational method of publicising the very real risk of death for non-observance of the practice has shown itself to be a failure, as a not insignificant proportion of our road deaths continue to be those of pedestrians on unlit roads..

Is it not time we learned from our neighbours in France, Spain, Norway and elsewhereothers

galwaycyclist

donkey balls wrote: »

Imo it's not a case of blaming one certain road user we have the anti truck brigade the cars v cyclists v pedestrian etc the RSA should have videos sent to schools about the blind spots on certain vehicles mainly trucks&busses or even show them on the tv.

I don't know how many times that people have walked out in front of me when the lights are green for me to go and yet be so close to the truck that its nearly impossible to see them,Thats why I stay a good 10ft away from pedestrian crossings so I have a clear veiw of the road.

+ 1 on the HGV videos
Here are two examples
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jhcz5qLm-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jH_8jsLTNk

Re the pedestrians crossing - part of the problem in Ireland is that our design standards/engineering practices are arguably negligent and place stop lines at traffic lights so that even pedestrians on the crossing will be in a blind spot for HGV drivers.

This, pedestrian safety issue, is one of the reasons for putting ASLs or Bike boxes at traffic lights. Although the videos above indicate why this might be problematic for the cyclists.

dubhthach

galwaycyclist wrote: »

+ 1 on the HGV videos
Here are two examples
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jhcz5qLm-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jH_8jsLTNk

Re the pedestrians crossing - part of the problem in Ireland is that our design standards/engineering practices are arguably negligent and place stop lines at traffic lights so that even pedestrians on the crossing will be in a blind spot for HGV drivers.

This, pedestrian safety issue, is one of the reasons for putting ASLs or Bike boxes at traffic lights. Although the videos above indicate why this might be problematic for the cyclists.

Good video's, with regards to pedestrians, even if the crossing was designed correctly many pedestrians will still attempt to cross when they have a red man. In general apart from providing proper education to all road users there needs to be a general crackdown on all red-light breaking. Be it by:

• Motorvehicle users
• Pedestrians
• Cyclists

Carawaystick

niloc1951 wrote: »

Regarding the 'where' part of your post.
A sensible definition could be, for example, outside urban speed limit areas.

What would then happen in the case of a car user getting from the car to pay or pump diesel in a fuel station?

Or if a bus broke down and passengers had to transfer to the following bus?

etc.


How many motor vehicle users were injured by pedestrians crashing into them?
If you're driving too fast to see the way ahead clearly, then you're driving too fast.

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

Good video's, with regards to pedestrians, even if the crossing was designed correctly many pedestrians will still attempt to cross when they have a red man. In general apart from providing proper education to all road users there needs to be a general crackdown on all red-light breaking. Be it by:

• Motorvehicle users
• Pedestrians
• Cyclists

I disagree. Irish practice has historically been to attempt to manage pedestrians and cyclists for the benefit of motorised traffic. You can see this in the locations and types of crossings that are frequently well away from the actual desire lines and which force walkers to wait by default regardless of traffic density.

You see this in the ridiculously short green man times.

You see this in the grotesque Irish practice at traffic lights of forcing walkers to wait for turning traffic instead of forcing turning traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians.

You see it where people are forced to wait twice to cross the same road.

In a system where the state chooses to treat one group of road users with contempt so as to preferentially benefit another group there is no "moral" obligation on the first group to obey such restrictions. Its a bit like telling people of a certain skin colour to sit at the back of the bus because "its the law".

niloc1951

Carawaystick wrote: »

What would then happen in the case of a car user getting from the car to pay or pump diesel in a fuel station?
Or if a bus broke down and passengers had to transfer to the following bus?
etc.
How many motor vehicle users were injured by pedestrians crashing into them?
If you're driving too fast to see the way ahead clearly, then you're driving too fast.

Not sure if you are taking the mick, but.
A fuel station is private property and I expect a bus operator would have a 'safety statement' to cover the safe transfer of passengers in the event of a breakdown which might well include the provision of safety vests, after all in the situation you describe they would be fare paying passengers still en-route and under the direction of the driver(s) any injury resulting from actions directed by and under the control of the driver could have costly consequences in court..

As regards your last two points, I'm at a loss

Carawaystick

Ah, I was being a bit contrary. But a fuel station without gates is a public road, and one that is gated shut after it closes is a public place; all the usual rta's apply like drink driving etc.

Re. the bus thing, it's hardly any improvement in safety in the case of parking a second bus directly behind a broken down bus on a hard shoulder and transferring passengers to the second bus. The passengers'd hardly be visible from the mainline, and if you couldn't see the two busses......

I was pointing out the difficulties of having a blanket pedestrians must have reflective vests.

I'm not saying that they aren't a good idea, but considering the industry drink driving lawyering is, imposing a compulsion on a person walking off their own property would be fraught with loopholes, contention, resentment, hard cases etc.

Driving is by permission of the govt, as there is a clear danger to others; trying to convince that walking imposes the same dangers would be a hard sell, and a fight not worth fighting.

I'd be in favour of the rsa making it compulsory to include hi-viz/reflective jackets with every motor industry sale ( maybe start with new cars/ move to all sales the year after/ get to the nct needing two high viz jackets inside the car after year 3 and making it compulsory in year 4 to have one while driving on motorway.
Or even making a point of it being a good idea to have one in your car in case of breakdown ( or pandering to the 'I've a good car i'll never break down brigade') in case you need to stop to help a damsel/motorist in distress.

similarily w.r.t a breakdown triangle and some instructions regarding how far back to place one.

ardmacha

Why am I not suprised that galwaycyclist advocates breaking the law when it doesn't suit him. How many pedestrian injuries are caused by cyclist thugs cycling in pedestrian areas, even where cycle facilities have been provided?

dubhthach

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I disagree. Irish practice has historically been to attempt to manage pedestrians and cyclists for the benefit of motorised traffic. You can see this in the locations and types of crossings that are frequently well away from the actual desire lines and which force walkers to wait by default regardless of traffic density.

You see this in the ridiculously short green man times.

You see this in the grotesque Irish practice at traffic lights of forcing walkers to wait for turning traffic instead of forcing turning traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians.

You see it where people are forced to wait twice to cross the same road.

In a system where the state chooses to treat one group of road users with contempt so as to preferentially benefit another group there is no "moral" obligation on the first group to obey such restrictions. Its a bit like telling people of a certain skin colour to sit at the back of the bus because "its the law".

Two wrong's do not make a right, even still where there's fairly standard length crossings times you see people breaking their relevant red light.

tbh bringing "Jim Crow" into it is an outrageous trivialisation of what African-Americans had to live through. There is no comparison between people respecting the red light as well as it been completely off topic, next thing we know someone will be invoking Godwin's law. If you want to discuss "moral obligations" when it comes to following the laws of land perhaps you should take it up in the legal forum where it would be more relevant.

galwaycyclist

ardmacha wrote: »

Why am I not suprised that galwaycyclist advocates breaking the law when it doesn't suit him. How many pedestrian injuries are caused by cyclist thugs cycling in pedestrian areas, even where cycle facilities have been provided?

Ah your problem there is that in Ireland it has been the cycle campaigns that have by default been the primary advocates for, and defenders of, pedestrian rights. It is the cycle campaigns who have exposed and highlighted state policies and practices that lead to the endangerment and inconvenience of pedestrians. This includes criticising and rejecting the inappropriate, and in many cases offensive, attempts to mix bicycle traffic and pedestrians - such as on roadside footpaths.

It also includes pointing out, at the time, the futility of planting ill-considered pedestrian schemes - such as in Galway - on streets that historically were the key cross-city cycle route. Streets that historically had among the highest levels of cycle traffic in the city and were a key link for schoolchildren crossing the city to reach the secondary schools concentrated on the Eastern side of the Corrib.

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

Two wrong's do not make a right, even still where there's fairly standard length crossings times you see people breaking their relevant red light.

tbh bringing "Jim Crow" into it is an outrageous trivialisation of what African-Americans had to live through. There is no comparison between people respecting the red light as well as it been completely off topic, next thing we know someone will be invoking Godwin's law. If you want to discuss "moral obligations" when it comes to following the laws of land perhaps you should take it up in the legal forum where it would be more relevant.

With respect, I am afraid I must reject your instructions regarding these being matters for the legal forum. The title of this thread is pedestrian fatalities. This is a public forum. It is entirely reasonable to expect that in a public forum, advocates for pedestrian rights will take an interest in such a thread and seek to ensure that the walkers perspective is stated and respected.

In a situation where the state is engaged in demonstrable, institutionalised, discrimination against a particular group it is entirely reasonable to draw qualified parallels with the experience of other groups in similar situations. In my view your apparent outrage is unwarranted. Further is not clear to me if your outrage is driven by special regard for African-Americans or whether your "outrage" it is driven by a special disregard for the rights of pedestrians?

It is a common experience that some members of the car lobby react with rage to suggestions that measures be taken to improve the safety and convenience of pedestrians - such as enforcing speed limits, introducing 30kph zones, traffic calming etc. With regret in that established context your outrage might invite other interpretations.

As for the accusations of trivialisation, I would point out that at the turn of this century Ireland had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe

As a society, we solved the issue by putting as many children into cars as possible for as many trips as possible. The result among other things is massive rush-hour traffic congestion during school term and an explosion of obesity and related conditions.

To succesfully tackle pedestrian safety and restore walking as a form of transport involves a multifactorial approach taking in aspects of town planning, traffic management, road design, traffic law, law on liability, traffic calming, road user education, policing policies and so on. It is a much wider issue than safe-cross codes or red lights.

dubhthach

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With respect, I am afraid I must reject your instructions regarding these being matters for the legal forum. The title of this thread is pedestrian fatalities. This is a public forum. It is entirely reasonable to expect that in a public forum, advocates for pedestrian rights will take an interest in such a thread and seek to ensure that the walkers perspective is stated and respected.

In a situation where the state is engaged in demonstrable, institutionalised, discrimination against a particular group it is entirely reasonable to draw qualified parallels with the experience of other groups in similar situations. In my view your apparent outrage is unwarranted. Further is not clear to me if your outrage is driven by special regard for African-Americans or whether your "outrage" it is driven by a special disregard for the rights of pedestrians?

It is a common experience that some members of the car lobby react with rage to suggestions that measures be taken to improve the safety and convenience of pedestrians - such as enforcing speed limits, introducing 30kph zones, traffic calming etc. With regret in that established context your outrage might invite other interpretations.

As for the accusations of trivialisation, I would point out that at the turn of this century Ireland had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe

As a society, we solved the issue by putting as many children into cars as possible for as many trips as possible. The result among other things is massive rush-hour traffic congestion during school term and an explosion of obesity and related conditions.

To succesfully tackle pedestrian safety and restore walking as a form of transport involves a multifactorial approach taking in aspects of town planning, traffic management, road design, traffic law, law on liability, traffic calming, road user education, policing policies and so on. It is a much wider issue than safe-cross codes or red lights.

you advocated breaking the law in your previous post:

In a system where the state chooses to treat one group of road users with contempt so as to preferentially benefit another group there is no "moral" obligation on the first group to obey such restrictions. Its a bit like telling people of a certain skin colour to sit at the back of the bus because "its the law".

If you wish to have a debate about refuting the law of the land take it to the Legal forum. It's not relevant in Infrastructure. My outrage is your trivalisation of the "Jim Crow" laws. No doubt you will start using the Nuremberg Laws as an example next. Likewise taking it completely out of it's historic context.

What I find funny about your accusation about been in the "car lobby" is your rant started when I said that there needs to be a crackdown on all red-light breaking by all road users (Motorists/Pedestrians/Cyclists). In general there is poor enforcement of road traffic laws in this state.

Either or if you continue to openly advocate breaking the law you will be banned from this forum.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To succesfully tackle pedestrian safety and restore walking as a form of transport involves a multifactorial approach taking in aspects of town planning, traffic management, road design, traffic law, law on liability, traffic calming, road user education, policing policies and so on. It is a much wider issue than safe-cross codes or red lights.

Yes - starting with cyclists and pedestrians.

We have to make pedestrians responsible for their actions - it shouldn't automatically be the motorists fault if a pedestrian walks out onto the road without looking where they're going leaving no reaction time.

We really need to educate cyclists and pedestrians, as well which is seriously lacking. Motorists are legally required to be passed fit to use the roads. The only test I ever passed to walk along the road was my dad saying stay as tight to the verge as possible and walk on a footpath if it's there (things that many city pedestrians seem to think are decorations to me admired from the road). The same test applied to my ability to cycle on the road - can you cycle straight enough and stay within 3' of the verge?

As for cycling, I've seen cyclists do the most stupid things and blame motorists for it. A good example of this is the woman I saw a few months back who was cycling along the footpath in woodquay. She cycled off the footpath straight into the side of a car who was turning left at the plots (the car was almost fully off woodquay at this stage, so she hit the rear door).

Seasoft

It is a shame that this thread has been somewhat sidetracked by discusions on cycling and issues not related tp the topic of Pedestrian deaths.

On continental Europe pedestrian crossings (simple zebra style) are about 100m apart in urban areas, are at every junction and demonstrate that pedestrians are considered when road markings, layout etc. are planned.

Here, many Irish towns have no pedestrian crossings. Problem seems two-fold. Firstly, council planners do not give enough priority to pedestrians, (e.g. Ennis U.C removed pedestrain crossings recently so now it's a "take your chances" scenario). But also, we base our roadmarkings mainly on the UK models (expensive pelican, traffic signal crossings) rather than plain zebra with flashing orange lights. These latter are so rare now that many drivers fail to observe them. If they were as common as they are on Continent (where they don't even use amber lights) drivers would be aware and pedestrians would be safer, kids could walk to school, etc.

antoobrien

Seasoft wrote: »

Here, many Irish towns have no pedestrian crossings. Problem seems two-fold. Firstly, council planners do not give enough priority to pedestrians, (e.g. Ennis U.C removed pedestrain crossings recently so now it's a "take your chances" scenario).

I wouldn't necessarily agree that they don't given enough priority to pedestrians, I think it's that they make a mess of where and when they do it.

GCC decided a number of years ago to pedestrianize one side of Eyre Sq. there used to be pelican crossings at the 4 corners. When it was redeveloped they moved/removed the crossing points at 3 of the corners and converted the 4th to be push button pedestrian lights. Then they put barriers up to stop pedestrians from crossing at the natural points (Victoria place), while putting one crossing in a dangerous place (near the corner with Forster St) - it's far too close to the corner (instead of putting a set of traffic lights there - like Courthouse Sq).

In the example given an attempt to give pedestrians greater priority was done badly, making more problems for everyone.

lucernarian

dubhtach wrote:

you advocated breaking the law in your previous post:

galwaycyclist wrote:

In a system where the state chooses to treat one group of road users with contempt so as to preferentially benefit another group there is no "moral" obligation on the first group to obey such restrictions. Its a bit like telling people of a certain skin colour to sit at the back of the bus because "its the law".

I'm not sure if your post above was as an individual poster or also as a moderator (I have no wish to challenge mod decisions in public) but I completely reject the conclusion you drew from the quoted paragraph. Had the poster said there is no obligation to obey such restrictions, there would be a problem. I think it's quite fine however to say that there is no moral reason to comply while still implicitly respecting the greater principle that we must obey the country's basic/constitutional provisions. I.e. that one should essentially obey the law "under protest". Even taking into account the context of civil disobedience by Rosa Parks and many others, I do not see it as an explicit call to break the law.

Furthermore, to say it's a bit like the Jim Crow laws is at least in some respect justified, if not completely fundamentally sound. I believe it is indeed "a bit like" those laws. Nowhere was there real and substantive comparisons made other than with the principle behind both. Clearly the consequences of the "segregated but equal" laws were more profound in reality than what happens with pedestrian road safety in Ireland. The point may have been hyperbolic but not completely groundless.

Fuinseog

niloc1951 wrote: »

After a number of pedestrian deaths on our roads in recent days Minister Varadkar rightly says
“We’ve lost a lot of people on the roads, pedestrians in particular, and for the families of those affected, Christmas will never be the same again,”

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-confirms-new-penalty-points-offences-for-2012-534062.html#ixzz1i7lGnI00

So, why oh why are we not following the lead elsewhere in the EU and make the wearing of Hi-Vis vests compulsory for pedestrians or vehicle users (when out of their vehicle) on all unlighted roads.

After all they are only about the price of a pint

I used to walk country road by day with a high vis and the amount of times I nearly met my maker.
drivers do not expect to find pedestrians walking along roads that have no footpaths, especially not at night. roads are narrow, divers are going fast. walking such roads even with a high vis and flashing lights is a no brainer.

Fuinseog

dubhthach wrote: »

How many pedestrian deaths were during hours of darkness? Likewise for number of pedestrians killed while walking on hardshoulders (during both day/night). I know from driving around Dublin that some pedestrians don't seem to understand the concept of a redlight.

I cycle with four lights and a high vis and I had a motorist run me over as I was in the cycle lane and he was turning left. he accused me of under cutting him.

having said that any cyclist without a light should be stopped by the guards and fined, but thats something should be lobbied.

galwaycyclist

dubhthach wrote: »

Either or if you continue to openly advocate breaking the law you will be banned from this forum.

I am afraid I must reject your apparent assertion that questioning the application of legal controls by the state is equivalent to advocating the breaking of the law. I deem your argument to be disingenuous, spurious and unsupportable. The questioning of the manner in which state controls are applied is a central part of normal debate and discourse in any democracy in peacetime.

Indeed rather than being advocacy for "breaking the law", the opposite is the case. Analytical criticism of state controls is more often in my view an "appeal to reason" and an appeal for the application of such controls in a manner that invites and rewards compliance and engenders respect for the law.

Would anyone who questioned the application of particular speed limits in this forum be accused, by that fact, of advocating the breaking of the law and be threatened with banning?

Would anyone who questioned the application of a particular type of road marking this forum be accused, by that fact, of advocating the breaking of the law and be threatened with banning?

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree that they don't given enough priority to pedestrians, I think it's that they make a mess of where and when they do it.

GCC decided a number of years ago to pedestrianize one side of Eyre Sq. there used to be pelican crossings at the 4 corners. When it was redeveloped they moved/removed the crossing points at 3 of the corners and converted the 4th to be push button pedestrian lights. Then they put barriers up to stop pedestrians from crossing at the natural points (Victoria place), while putting one crossing in a dangerous place (near the corner with Forster St) - it's far too close to the corner (instead of putting a set of traffic lights there - like Courthouse Sq).

In the example given an attempt to give pedestrians greater priority was done badly, making more problems for everyone.

Ok I am arguably biased as I was intimately involved in the campaign to stop the Eyre Square proposals. The claim that this was about attempting to give pedestrians greater priority is not, in my view, supportable. The way the ES redevelopment played out is a useful illustrator of official attitudes to pedestrian access.

My analysis is that the ES scheme was about the systematic removal of priority from pedestrians so as to facilitate motor traffic. What the traffic engineers wanted to do was create what was in effect a large roundabout comprising, Prospect hill, Forster St, and the East side of Eyre Square.

Before the scheme, the square had sets of Zebra crossings that were located on the pedestrian travel desire lines and kept the pedestrians moving through the square. The square's most important transport function was as a transit point for walkers and as a hub for public transport services. Over the years the Zebra crossings had been neglected to the point that most of the beacons were gone and the markings worn away - but they still worked.

Community volunteers even went out one morning and repainted the white stripes themselves. This sparked a funny incident where the Guards showed up and threatened to arrest people - but couldn't figure out what for.

The officials backing the scheme claimed it was about promoting pedestrians and public transport. However I recall at the time being told by a Bus Eireann official that the City officials had declined to meet them to discuss the fact that they were rearranging their bus stops for them. On the pedestrian issue - at the Bord Pleanala Oral hearing it transpired at the city council had not actually bothered to count the number of people crossing the road until that week. In a flagship pedestrian scheme no analysis had been done of who crossed the road, where, or why?

As already stated the existing crossings - which matched the pedestrians desire lines and gave them priority - were removed and traffic light or pelican-type crossings put in instead. So now the pedestrians would have to wait by default. As already indicated, some locations were changed so that pedestrians now had to make awkard detours to locations where they also could not easily see what traffic was coming.

This scheme was demonstrably about trying to control pedestrians for the greater convenience of motorists. Funnily enough to this day many people ignore the crossings and continue to cross the road where they always did.

I recall John Henry the DTO chief giving a talk in Galway where he remarked at the way traffic had been allowed to dominate the Square and this being the first thing that strikes a visitor as they leave the bus/train station.

Appropos the tendentious "enforcement" issue. I once stood and watched two tourists waiting to cross at the lights opposite the Bord Failte office on Forster St. As I recall the lights went through three full cycles - for the cars - and they still hadn't gotten a green man. The locals were just going in the gaps and yes buttons had been pressed. I think I moved on myself at this point.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok I am arguably biased as I was intimately involved in the campaign to stop the Eyre Square proposals. The claim that this was about attempting to give pedestrians greater priority is not, in my view, supportable. The way the ES redevelopment played out is a useful illustrator of official attitudes to pedestrian access.

That doesn't make sense to me because from a motorists point of view the layout was better the way it was. Not that I was driving at the time, but this is my analysis of the new situation:
There was no crossing/merging traffic - trying to get from the Vic to Prospect Hill can be hairy when nobody wants to let you in (happens a fair bit), causing tailbacks back around the bottom of the square
you didn't have to drive away from the square to go around it (e.g coming from Eglinton st)
You could see where the pedestrians were going to cross - the corner at Foxes is set up idiotically no matter what way you look at it (motorist & pedestrian).

So I really can't see where the supposed support of traffic flow is coming from.

Anyhow this is bringing us o.t.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

That doesn't make sense to me because from a motorists point of view the layout was better the way it was.

I would go further I believe it is was better for everybody the way it was previously; but I agree 100% with galwaycyclist

This scheme was demonstrably about trying to control pedestrians for the greater convenience of motorists.