Jaywalking crackdown

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It would be a strange pedestrian signal that set off one of those timers automatically, regardless of whether someone pushed the button or not.

The majority of pedestrian crossings in Copenhagen are timed only, with no buttons to press at all. You would have noticed this, I imagine

Resultingly, they cycle constantly, whether there is anyone waiting or not.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The majority of pedestrian crossings in Copenhagen are timed only, with no buttons to press at all. You would have noticed this, I imagine

Resultingly, they cycle constantly, whether there is anyone waiting or not.

Yep, never had a problem crossing, even with kids in tow.

I believe part of the reason their traffic signal system runs better than ours is that they have successfully reduced traffic volumes. By way of a small example, we stayed on the Norrebrogade, and IIRC part of that was closed to cars a few years ago.

Copenhagen could have gone the way of other cities and choked their streets with cars. Instead they pursued policies that have maintained their reputation as a cycling city. If most of those ubiquitous bikes were replaced with cars the pedestrian crossing experience would be quite different.

So yes, "cycling constantly" in more ways than one...

L1011

The S-tog is likely a bigger contributor to people being able to avoid using cars than cycling is. Extensive, rapid and cheap (by Danish standards anyway) trains to the suburbs in each and every direction with multiple city centre stations.

While there are obviously more cyclists than here, it is absolutely nowhere near Dutch levels.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The S-tog is likely a bigger contributor to people being able to avoid using cars than cycling is. Extensive, rapid and cheap (by Danish standards anyway) trains to the suburbs in each and every direction with multiple city centre stations.

While there are obviously more cyclists than here, it is absolutely nowhere near Dutch levels.

Cycling to work or education has a modal share of 36% in Copenhagen. That translates into, for instance, 145,000 people cycling <10km to work or education, versus 48,000 travelling by car and 42,000 by bus or train.

This compares favourably to the Dutch experience IMO.

By the way, that Danish cycle strategy also says that no city in the Western world has a modal share for cycling to work or education that is higher than 40%. Their target for 2015 is 50%.

Compare the Danish and Dutch situations to Ireland, where IIRC the 2006 census showed that, for example, something like 40,000 schoolchildren nationwide were being driven 1km or less to school. No wonder us pedestrians and cyclists are made to wait...

L1011

Are they counting the large number of people who do the vast majority of their journey in the bike carriage of the S-Tog as solely "cycling" in that? Because that is about the only thing that can explain the significantly lower number of bikes on the actual roads compared to any Dutch city I've been in.

Iwannahurl

No idea, tbh.

I am aware, however, of a certain amount of Dutch-Danish rivalry in this area...

JuliusCaesar

I was told most pedestrian crossings in Dublin have buttons that are actually functionless - the reason they are there is so that the impatient pedestrian can push them multiple times, under the erroneous impression that he or she will change the lights faster.

On a lot of crossings, the green man stays for only a very short period so that any slow people (the aged, for example) will have difficulty crossing in time.

They are also very badly synchonised with traffic lights, as I found when out with a small child. Trying to teach the child to cross only on the green man, I found myself standing there while all the traffic lights were red! On another junction, the pedestrian crossing was split in two: the first green man got you to a traffic island in the middle of the road, the second from the island to the other side of the road - BUT they weren't synchronised with each other, leading to a pile-up of pedestrians on the island. :rolleyes:

There's one particular junction (ironically at Kevin St Garda Station) where, if you are coming from Camden St and want to get to the Garda Station legally, you actually have to cross FIVE pedestrian crossings: Two to cross Kevin St near the college, one to cross New Bride St, and two more to cross over to the Garda Station. (Illegally, you just cross one road - there's no pedestrian crossing across it.)

I did raise this with the Council, but their answer was that the City Engineer had looked into it, but any other way of facilitating the pedestrian would impede the flow of traffic. :eek: And then they wonder why people jaywalk!

Iwannahurl

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I was told most pedestrian crossings in Dublin have buttons that are actually functionless - the reason they are there is so that the impatient pedestrian can push them multiple times, under the erroneous impression that he or she will change the lights faster.

On a lot of crossings, the green man stays for only a very short period so that any slow people (the aged, for example) will have difficulty crossing in time.

They are also very badly synchonised with traffic lights, as I found when out with a small child. Trying to teach the child to cross only on the green man, I found myself standing there while all the traffic lights were red! On another junction, the pedestrian crossing was split in two: the first green man got you to a traffic island in the middle of the road, the second from the island to the other side of the road - BUT they weren't synchronised with each other, leading to a pile-up of pedestrians on the island. :rolleyes:

There's one particular junction (ironically at Kevin St Garda Station) where, if you are coming from Camden St and want to get to the Garda Station legally, you actually have to cross FIVE pedestrian crossings: Two to cross Kevin St near the college, one to cross New Bride St, and two more to cross over to the Garda Station. (Illegally, you just cross one road - there's no pedestrian crossing across it.)

I did raise this with the Council, but their answer was that the City Engineer had looked into it, but any other way of facilitating the pedestrian would impede the flow of traffic. :eek: And then they wonder why people jaywalk!

At least that engineer was honest about their real priorities.

You'll notice the large amount of "guard-rail" (aka sheep pens) installed at your example location. Supposedly guard-rail is for pedestrian safety, but given the explicit priority put on keeping the traffic flowing, it is evident that its primary purpose is to deter pedestrians from taking the most direct and convenient route.

The Mayor of London and Transport for London are moving in the opposite direction, and at this stage all of the guard-rail in the TfL's catchment area has been reviewed and about a third of it has been removed.

Here's an example of those short-lived green men that I know of in Salthill, Galway. When crossing with kids the light is often flashing by the time we're half-way across, and this does not inspire confidence. The StreetView image also shows two "jay-walkers", a car that appears to be going through a red light, and another car parked on double-yellow lines right beside the pedestrian crossings. And that's just when the Google Maps camera car happened to be passing.

Further down the road there's this arrangement, right in the middle of Salthill 'village'. There's a roundabout with no crossing points, a raised median with no crossing points and a traffic lane that has been given over to parking (there used to be double-yellow lines but the City Council gave in and turned the section into a parking area). There are pelican crossings in the area, but require a bit of a detour. Guess which is the handiest route to the shops etc -- that's right, park the car alongside the median and dash across the road.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

At least that engineer was honest about their real priorities.

You'll notice the large amount of "guard-rail" (aka sheep pens) installed at your example location. Supposedly guard-rail is for pedestrian safety, but given the explicit priority put on keeping the traffic flowing, it is evident that its primary purpose is to deter pedestrians from taking the most direct and convenient route.

The Mayor of London and Transport for London are moving in the opposite direction, and at this stage all of the guard-rail in the TfL's catchment area has been reviewed and about a third of it has been removed.

Here's an example of those short-lived green men that I know of in Salthill, Galway. When crossing with kids the light is often flashing by the time we're half-way across, and this does not inspire confidence. The StreetView image also shows two "jay-walkers", a car that appears to be going through a red light, and another car parked on double-yellow lines right beside the pedestrian crossings. And that's just when the Google Maps camera car happened to be passing.

Further down the road there's this arrangement, right in the middle of Salthill 'village'. There's a roundabout with no crossing points, a raised median with no crossing points and a traffic lane that has been given over to parking (there used to be double-yellow lines but the City Council gave in and turned the section into a parking area). There are pelican crossings in the area, but require a bit of a detour. Guess which is the handiest route to the shops etc -- that's right, park the car alongside the median and dash across the road.

Have to agree with you on the point that the green light for pedestrians is too short at a lot of junction. A lot of the frail and elderly find it difficult to actually make it across the road in time.

Anyways. Here's a little summary of what I think of the whole pedestrian access debate in Ireland.

1. Where footfall is low, pelican crossings should always be used. You can't really use pelican crossings in an area where football is high as it could cause traffic chaos.
2. In the case of 1, I would have as many roundabouts with pelican crossings on each arm as possible. This of course will only work where motorised traffic isn't very high. This soluation is good as car will generally only have to stop for pedestrians crossing and of course, pedestrians won't have to stop at all.
3. In the case of of higher footfall, lights are still the best solution. It would be interesting though if more intelligent systems can be used to balances pedestrian vs car times at these junctions.

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Have to agree with you on the point that the green light for pedestrians is too short at a lot of junction. A lot of the frail and elderly find it difficult to actually make it across the road in time.

Anyways. Here's a little summary of what I think of the whole pedestrian access debate in Ireland.

1. Where footfall is low, pelican crossings should always be used. You can't really use pelican crossings in an area where footfall is high as it could cause traffic chaos.
2. In the case of 1, I would have as many roundabouts with pelican crossings on each arm as possible. This of course will only work where motorised traffic isn't very high. This soluation is good as car will generally only have to stop for pedestrians crossing and of course, pedestrians won't have to stop at all.
3. In the case of of higher footfall, lights are still the best solution. It would be interesting though if more intelligent systems can be used to balances pedestrian vs car times at these junctions.

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that pedestrian request lights (Pelican crossings) are better where there is low footfall, and standard (though possibly smart) signals are better for high footfall crossings?

On the issue of low versus high footfall, I would suggest that it needs to be asked why footfall is low on a given street. Is it because it's not a pedestrian route, or do pedestrians avoid it because it's dangerous and/or inconvenient?

Personally I don't see why more zebra crossings aren't used, including on certain roundabouts. The fact that they aren't is an indication that the free flow of cars is the priority.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that pedestrian request lights (Pelican crossings) are better where there is low footfall, and standard (though possibly smart) signals are better for high footfall crossings?

On the issue of low versus high footfall, I would suggest that it needs to be asked why footfall is low on a given street. Is it because it's not a pedestrian route, or do pedestrians avoid it because it's dangerous and/or inconvenient?

Personally I don't see why more zebra crossings aren't used, including on certain roundabouts. The fact that they aren't is an indication that the free flow of cars is the priority.

Sorry. Meant to say that zebra crossings should be used in all situations where footfall is low. No justifications for lights at these sort of crossings.

Areas with higher footfall might require intelligent signalised crossings for the simple reason that a constant flow of people crossing on a zebra crossing would block all traffic from driving through it. WOuld be traffic chaos.

Iwannahurl

Perhaps every individual situation needs it own solution.

One possibility is the Shared Space concept (favoured by Hans Monderman and still being developed by Hamilton-Baillie in the UK and elsewhere).

I am intrigued by the idea, but I have to admit that I'm doubtful it could work in Ireland. I'd like to see such a development here, though, and I'd love to be proved wrong.

Spot the "jaywalkers" in these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35yJShA_go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-6OSCnHA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn2NfUH0G-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-O5o4aqcs

JuliusCaesar

Hmmm. Thanks for the videos. I really like the allowing of diagonal pedestrian crossings: I think this is what the 4 greenman crossings at a junction allows, but unofficially here.

I'm not sure if the last one (getting rid of any kind of traffic signal or sign) would work in the anarchic traffic of Ireland (anarchic compared to Germany).

I know if I ever come to a broken traffic light in a car here in Dublin, and need to go straight on or turn right, it's really nerve-wracking.

jack presley

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I was told most pedestrian crossings in Dublin have buttons that are actually functionless - the reason they are there is so that the impatient pedestrian can push them multiple times, under the erroneous impression that he or she will change the lights faster.

On a lot of crossings, the green man stays for only a very short period so that any slow people (the aged, for example) will have difficulty crossing in time.

They are also very badly synchonised with traffic lights, as I found when out with a small child. Trying to teach the child to cross only on the green man, I found myself standing there while all the traffic lights were red! On another junction, the pedestrian crossing was split in two: the first green man got you to a traffic island in the middle of the road, the second from the island to the other side of the road - BUT they weren't synchronised with each other, leading to a pile-up of pedestrians on the island. :rolleyes:

There's one particular junction (ironically at Kevin St Garda Station) where, if you are coming from Camden St and want to get to the Garda Station legally, you actually have to cross FIVE pedestrian crossings: Two to cross Kevin St near the college, one to cross New Bride St, and two more to cross over to the Garda Station. (Illegally, you just cross one road - there's no pedestrian crossing across it.)

I did raise this with the Council, but their answer was that the City Engineer had looked into it, but any other way of facilitating the pedestrian would impede the flow of traffic. :eek: And then they wonder why people jaywalk!

At the junction of St. Stephen's Green and Dawson Street, the pedestrian lights are red for about 90 seconds (seems a lot longer when you're standing there) then go green for about 5-6 seconds so i agree with you 100%

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps every individual situation needs it own solution.

One possibility is the Shared Space concept (favoured by Hans Monderman and still being developed by Hamilton-Baillie in the UK and elsewhere).

I am intrigued by the idea, but I have to admit that I'm doubtful it could work in Ireland. I'd like to see such a development here, though, and I'd love to be proved wrong.

Spot the "jaywalkers" in these videos.

Oxford Circus seems to be a very interesting solution for that junction.

SeanW

I like the diagonal crossing idea, I've done it many times at 4 way green man crossings in Dublin and Cork.

Regarding the road in Bern, I doubt that this is a main road - as you can clearly see its carrying only very small amounts of traffic at very low speeds, and even at that it's stop-and-go because pedestrians have ABSOLUTE priority throughout. The Irish equivalent would be to have zebra stripes covering the entire road.

Even you can surely see that this would be impractical for all but the least trafficed laneways.

As to the implementation in Germany, it doesn't seem all that safe to me, when I'm out walking, I like to have my raised footpath, zebra crossings and all the rest.

In fact, when I walk on really good footpaths like these:
http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.73678,-7.779374&spn=0.002383,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.73678,-7.779374&panoid=tpPYS_a76-a1JvNMSDQUuA&cbp=12,179.12,,0,9.46

or

http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.361399,-6.591196&spn=0.009617,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.362794,-6.591224&panoid=0fHaQJda2l40nZsNSXQi9g&cbp=12,348.19,,0,7.41

I don't really care what speed the cars are going at, within reason.

But despite their faults, these schemes do actually benefit someone, unlike some of that other nonsense you've been promoting over the years like the Essex design of housing estates, which serve no purpose at all whatsoever except to irritate the residents with some bizarre anti-car statement.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

Regarding the road in Bern, I doubt that this is a main road - as you can clearly see its carrying only very small amounts of traffic at very low speeds, and even at that it's stop-and-go because pedestrians have ABSOLUTE priority throughout. The Irish equivalent would be to have zebra stripes covering the entire road.

Even you can surely see that this would be impractical for all but the least trafficed laneways.

Some European countries may not be directly comparable to Ireland, for reasons to do with legislation, culture and other factors.

Pedestrians may not have absolute priority, although it's possible they have much better legal protection than we do (as is the case with cyclists in the Netherlands, for example).

Famously, Hans Monderman claimed not to be bothered about such details:

"Who has the right of way?" he asked rhetorically. "I don't care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains."

Another important consideration is that reduction in traffic and an improved pedestrian environment are synergistic. The Irish way is to justify lack of pedestrian priority because of the volume of car traffic, which misses the point that pedestrian numbers might well be greater if there were fewer (and slower) cars.

SeanW wrote: »

In fact, when I walk on really good footpaths like these:
http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.73678,-7.779374&spn=0.002383,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.73678,-7.779374&panoid=tpPYS_a76-a1JvNMSDQUuA&cbp=12,179.12,,0,9.46

Since the thread is about alleged "jaywalking" it's worth recalling that this fabricated concept generally refers to crossing the road. Walking along a particular stretch of footpath doesn't usually qualify.

However, your StreetView link above does prompt a little musing about what the walking environment can be like in a culture where the car is king and where "planning" decisions are made accordingly.

Let's say you work in Abbott just off the N4 near Longford, and just a stone's throw from the spot you link to above.

Let's also say, for the sake of illustration and argument, that you rent or own a house in an estate called The Brickfield.

As the crow flies The Brickfield is little more than 1km from Abbott, which would be a very easy walk or cycle if Irish "planning" was set up to properly accommodate such quaint (or should that be new-fangled?) notions. However, because The Brickfield is just one of several similar cul-de-sac estates plonked down in the middle of some fields with only a single access route provided (unless of course there's some handy shortcut through the fields that only the locals know about) those who wish to walk or cycle have to follow a roundabout route -- literally, there being three such junctions to negotiate on the journey illustrated -- that's approximately three times as long.*

Of course 3.5 km or thereabouts is only about a 15-minute cycle (or a 45-minute walk, for the dedicated) but I'm prepared to bet that most Abbott employees, if they lived in The Brickfield or neighbouring estates, would choose to drive.

The fundamental point I'm trying to make with this hypothetical exercise is: environments that are not walkable promote car-dependence, and roads that are not easily 'crossable' promote "jaywalking" (as well as car-dependence).

In my locality there are several cul-de-sac estates where the only authorised access is via busy roads where speeding is endemic and there is a total lack of traffic calming or pedestrian-priority crossings. The "jaywalking" I see every morning consists of schoolchildren climbing over a 2.5 metre high wall in order to shave 30 minutes of their walk to secondary school, ie to avoid an hour extra walking every day. Meanwhile some of my neighbours are driving their children 800 metres to the local primary school, and there's even a few who drive 300 metres to a creche (the last 20 metres or so up on the footpath!).

SeanW wrote: »

But despite their faults, these schemes do actually benefit someone, unlike some of that other nonsense you've been promoting over the years like the Essex design of housing estates, which serve no purpose at all whatsoever except to irritate the residents with some bizarre anti-car statement.

For those who don't get the Essex Design reference, it has to do with Fairgreen in Portlaoise, where "parking courts" are provided a few metres from people's houses, but where an epidemic of idiopathic lower limb atrophy seems to have occurred to the extent that many people are apparently no longer able to walk that distance from their designated parking space to their front door.

Then again, it may not be a lower limb problem at all. It seems car-dependence narrows our minds as well as widening our waists.








*EDIT: This looks like a better route, though a bit longer and still indirect, which is the (hypothetical) point.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Pedestrians may not have absolute priority, although it's possible they have much better legal protection than we do (as is the case with cyclists in the Netherlands, for example).

Maybe you should review your own video - pedestrians can waltz out onto the road wherever and whenver they feel like, without even looking, and are yielded to by traffic which is moving extraordinarily slowly and in a stop-and-start fashion.

Even you should be able to see that this is not very efficient.

Famously, Hans Monderman claimed not to be bothered about such details:

"Who has the right of way?" he asked rhetorically. "I don't care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains."

Well, if Hans Monderman doesn't care, that changes everything :pac:

Since the thread is about alleged "jaywalking" it's worth recalling that this fabricated concept generally refers to crossing the road.

There's nothing fabircated about it - a pedestrian is bound to comply with the Rules of the Road just like any other road user.

Walking along a particular stretch of footpath doesn't usually qualify.

I used those google street view pics as a basis for my disapproval for the idea of flattening footpaths for the "Shared Space" approach - as a pedestrian I find the idea highly questionable.

Re: your points about planning, to some extent I agree because every time I drive past the Gleann Riada (sp?) estate I'm reminded of just how little actual "planning" was done, here in Longford and most likely elsewhere.

For those who don't get the Essex Design reference, it has to do with Fairgreen in Portlaoise, where "parking courts" are provided a few metres from people's houses, but where an epidemic of idiopathic lower limb atrophy seems to have occurred to the extent that many people are apparently no longer able to walk that distance from their designated parking space to their front door.

My bringing up the Essex design thing was a contextual warning to anyone who might take you seriously not realising that you have a certain continent sized chip on your shoulder about motorists.

The Essex design, of that estate and any other, serves no purpose except to make some bizarre anti-car statement.

Reading your latest piece about it brings to mind one question - why should someone HAVE to park their cars perhaps 2 properties over from where they live? What's wrong with people having driveways, on-street parking etc? Your take on the whole thing casts you in the light of a motorist basher blided by some hardline ideology.

For context, I first became aware of IWHs motorist bashing position when he started a thread stating that town bypasses were no good unless accompanied by car-hostile measures in the towns in question, which he then followed in thread by some bizarre rant about how Irish motorists were unique among the world for being law-breaking scum, and pointed to this particular housing estate in Portlaoise where those horrible evil residents (you know, the people who have had to live with the consequences of this insanity) dared to park their cars by their houses instead of using this ridiculous "parking court" setup.

AugustusMinimus

That shared space conecept looks absolutely crazy btw and looks like it is incredibly inefficient for traffic flow.

Looks like multiple accidents just waiting to happen. That and a potential haven for fraudulent insurance claims.

Helix

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm thinking about ways that these people could be dis-incentivised from doing this.

make them 100% responsible for any accidents caused, any damage to vehicles caused, any hospital bills run up etc by their jaywalking. basically if you get hit by a car or cause an accident crossing anywhere but the traffic lights, you pay the bill

monument

Helix wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm thinking about ways that these people could be dis-incentivised from doing this.

make them 100% responsible for any accidents caused, any damage to vehicles caused, any hospital bills run up etc by their jaywalking. basically if you get hit by a car or cause an accident crossing anywhere but the traffic lights, you pay the bill

Jaywalking in Ireland is confined to 15m away from a ped crossing.

Maybe there should be a focus on getting motorists and cyclists to obay the law and yield to pedestrians at non-signaled junctions, at signaled junctions which lack pedestrians crossings, and elsewhere where pedestrians have stated crossing way in advance of the motorist or cyclist approaching.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

There's nothing fabircated about it - a pedestrian is bound to comply with the Rules of the Road just like any other road user.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81053998&postcount=6

SeanW wrote: »

My bringing up the Essex design thing was a contextual warning to anyone who might take you seriously not realising that you have a certain continent sized chip on your shoulder about motorists.

"Anti-car" is the standard jibe from people with a certain mindset who are unable or unwilling to back up their opinions with reference to evidence, policy or other authoritative source. I'm a car owner and I drive on roads -- make of that what you will. Car ownership has some rights, but it also has responsibilities. Cars have benefits, but also disadvantages. "The car is an individualising technology, which encourages us to make self-interested choices and adopt self-centred values" (Lynn Sloman).

SeanW wrote: »

The Essex design, of that estate and any other, serves no purpose except to make some bizarre anti-car statement.

Reading your latest piece about it brings to mind one question - why should someone HAVE to park their cars perhaps 2 properties over from where they live? What's wrong with people having driveways, on-street parking etc? Your take on the whole thing casts you in the light of a motorist basher blided by some hardline ideology.

For context, I first became aware of IWHs motorist bashing position when he started a thread stating that town bypasses were no good unless accompanied by car-hostile measures in the towns in question, which he then followed in thread by some bizarre rant about how Irish motorists were unique among the world for being law-breaking scum, and pointed to this particular housing estate in Portlaoise where those horrible evil residents (you know, the people who have had to live with the consequences of this insanity) dared to park their cars by their houses instead of using this ridiculous "parking court" setup.

Clearly you have not read, understood or appreciated the Essex Design concept, which is self-evidently not a "hardline ideology" but a coherent architectural and spatial planning vision with professional credentials.

The Dutch also have their woonerven, but I imagine that might not translate well to the Irish context either, for similar cultural reasons. This is a country where, for another example, you are often likely to be met with objections to doing things that seem to be taken for granted elsewhere, such as constructing a playground.

As for those downtrodden Portlaoise motorists who were asked to walk as much as two house widths away from their designated car parking space, well I'm all broken up about this gross violation of their human rights.

While we're waiting for the OHCHR and Amnesty International to investigate, it's worth recalling that there's nothing fabricated about the Rules of the Road - a motorist is bound to comply with the law that clearly states parking on footpaths is illegal. I would have thought the RoTR was still quite fresh in your mind.

Re the bit in bold above, can you provide a link to the thread that I allegedly started, and can you show definitively where it indicates that I started it?

Iwannahurl

Helix wrote: »

make them 100% responsible for any accidents caused, any damage to vehicles caused, any hospital bills run up etc by their jaywalking. basically if you get hit by a car or cause an accident crossing anywhere but the traffic lights, you pay the bill

These measures would work even better, and would have wider societal benefits as well:

• Make 30 km/h the default speed limit in city centre areas
• Make pedestrian-priority (eg Zebra) crossings the default standard
• Maximise the pedestrian/cyclist/bus user capacity at every junction and on every street
• Make motorists 100% responsible for any injury caused to pedestrians
• Introduce a zero-tolerance policy (eg tow-away) towards motorists who drive and/or park on footpaths, crossings and other pedestrian facilities
• Introduce road pricing to deter unnecessary car use and reduce traffic volumes
• Introduce "performance pricing" for car parking, in order to reduce traffic congestion, free up road space for congestion-busting 'active commuters' and provide a funding stream for street improvements to attract people rather than vehicles
• Make motorists 100% responsible for other 'external' costs of their car use, eg CO2 emissions, air pollution, noise, effects on local businesses, public health impacts etc.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81053998&postcount=6

Yes, you mentioned something about motor company lobbying in New York City 90-odd years ago.

You then went on to post a video from Bern about a street where pedestrians have absolute priority at all points and at all times, suggesting that this is something that should be copied on a wide basis elsewhere.

Not exactly balanced.

"Anti-car" is the standard jibe from people with a certain mindset who are unable or unwilling to back up their opinions with reference to evidence,

I don't need to provide evidence that you are an anti-car hardliner - you do that for me practically every time you hit "Submit Reply"

"The car is an individualising technology, which encourages us to make self-interested choices and adopt self-centred values" (Lynn Sloman).

Clearly you don't have a chip on your shoulder about motorists :pac:

Clearly you have not read, understood or appreciated the Essex Design concept, which is self-evidently not a "hardline ideology" but a coherent architectural and spatial planning vision with professional credentials.

Only it is a "hardline ideology" and in the context of the Portlaoise development, a pathetic joke. The only reason you can't see that is because of that rather large chip on your shoulder.

you are often likely to be met with objections to doing things that seem to be taken for granted elsewhere, such as constructing a playground.

I had a look over those cases and in the main these were not objections to the idea of a playground, but concerns about location (on main roads, not near the people who needed them, not enough parking for those visiting from outside walking distance) or other specific concerns like the local authority proposing to move public toilets to the centre of the proposed playground where the previous location had caused anti-social behaviour. Hardly damning evidence that Irish people are unusually whingy NIMBYs.

As for those downtrodden Portlaoise motorists who were asked to walk as much as two house widths away from their designated car parking space, well I'm all broken up about this gross violation of their human rights.

Well, good for you. But it doesn't answer my question: why should housing developments not be built to serve the needs of the residents and not pinhead planners? Because that is what your advocating - imposing an inferior design on people who have to live with the consequences and then demonising them for not doing what they're "told."

I would have thought the RoTR was still quite fresh in your mind.

Quite a bizarre statement for someone who calls jaywalking a "fabricated concept" and seems to believe that the ROTR does not or should not apply to pedestrians in any way. If you're going to lecture me about the ROTR, I suggest that someone who lives in a glass house should give careful consideration to throwing stones.

Re the bit in bold above, can you provide a link to the thread that I allegedly started, and can you show definitively where it indicates that I started it?

Here. The good stuff (when it first dawned on me what an extremist you are) starts at Post 115.

From the pictures you posted, it was clear to me that the design was a joke that had not only accomplished nothing, but had caused infinietly more problems than it solved. It was also crystal clear to me that it could never have accomplished anything except making a bizarre anti-car statement and maybe helping the developer stuff more houses (and more profit) into the space.

You saw the same pictures and took from them that those horrible evil residents were lawbreakers (virtually all of them) and this was a sign that Irish motorists were selfish scum and needed to be punished more.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

These measures would work even better, and would have wider societal benefits as well:

• Make 30 km/h the default speed limit in city centre areas
• Make pedestrian-priority (eg Zebra) crossings the default standard
• Maximise the pedestrian/cyclist/bus user capacity at every junction and on every street
• Make motorists 100% responsible for any injury caused to pedestrians
• Introduce a zero-tolerance policy (eg tow-away) towards motorists who drive and/or park on footpaths, crossings and other pedestrian facilities
• Introduce road pricing to deter unnecessary car use and reduce traffic volumes
• Introduce "performance pricing" for car parking, in order to reduce traffic congestion, free up road space for congestion-busting 'active commuters' and provide a funding stream for street improvements to attract people rather than vehicles
• Make motorists 100% responsible for other 'external' costs of their car use, eg CO2 emissions, air pollution, noise, effects on local businesses, public health impacts etc.

I misjudged you - clearly you don't have a chip on your shoulder about motorists :rolleyes: :pac:

So let me see if I get this straight: motorists don't pay enough with VRT, fuel duty, carbon taxes, VAT, car taxes, the Quinn levy on motor insurance, NCT costs, parking charges, speeding fines, road tolls, etc. Aparently you'd like to try squeezing more blood out of already highly taxed motorists.

Aparently also the regulations (ever more difficult licensing laws, annual NCTs etc) are not severe enough, you want speed limit reductions en-masse, Zebra crossings everywhere, zero-tolerance policies en-masse for various things etc.

And finally making motorists pay for all accidents with pedestrians regardless of actual cause (including kamikaze pedestrians who run into the road drunk or without looking etc).

:pac: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Just keep saying

Iwannascrewmotorists wrote:

I'm not an anti-car extremist

Someone might actually believe you!

Helix

Iwannahurl wrote: »

These measures would work even better, and would have wider societal benefits as well:

• Make 30 km/h the default speed limit in city centre areas
• Make pedestrian-priority (eg Zebra) crossings the default standard
• Maximise the pedestrian/cyclist/bus user capacity at every junction and on every street
• Make motorists 100% responsible for any injury caused to pedestrians
• Introduce a zero-tolerance policy (eg tow-away) towards motorists who drive and/or park on footpaths, crossings and other pedestrian facilities
• Introduce road pricing to deter unnecessary car use and reduce traffic volumes
• Introduce "performance pricing" for car parking, in order to reduce traffic congestion, free up road space for congestion-busting 'active commuters' and provide a funding stream for street improvements to attract people rather than vehicles
• Make motorists 100% responsible for other 'external' costs of their car use, eg CO2 emissions, air pollution, noise, effects on local businesses, public health impacts etc.

not a single thing listed there would stop people crossing the road without using pedestrian crossings. is that not what the thread is about?

SeanW

Helix wrote: »

not a single thing listed there would stop people crossing the road without using pedestrian crossings. is that not what the thread is about?

But IWH seems to think that laws shouldn't apply to pedestrians. Only punishingly severe laws to screw with motorists.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

These measures would work even better, and would have wider societal benefits as well:

• Make 30 km/h the default speed limit in city centre areas
• Make pedestrian-priority (eg Zebra) crossings the default standard
• Maximise the pedestrian/cyclist/bus user capacity at every junction and on every street
• Make motorists 100% responsible for any injury caused to pedestrians
• Introduce a zero-tolerance policy (eg tow-away) towards motorists who drive and/or park on footpaths, crossings and other pedestrian facilities
• Introduce road pricing to deter unnecessary car use and reduce traffic volumes
• Introduce "performance pricing" for car parking, in order to reduce traffic congestion, free up road space for congestion-busting 'active commuters' and provide a funding stream for street improvements to attract people rather than vehicles
• Make motorists 100% responsible for other 'external' costs of their car use, eg CO2 emissions, air pollution, noise, effects on local businesses, public health impacts etc.

Ridiculous. You have to be the most anti-car person on boards.

In fact, your post is almost beyond laughable it is so bias.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And finally, like the carrot, there are many jackasses associated with it.

I am reminded of what I said before about people in glass houses throwing stones ...

SeanW

Well, that's a very informative post. Much like all your others.

I take it that you aren't in favour of a crackdown on jaywalking, which was the subject of this thread before ... it got hijacked.

uberalles

Jay walker caused my OH to lightly glance off mr Magoo on a motor bike at slow speed. He did a pirouette landed on his arse and got 37k. The insurance went up about 300% and the bike had to be sold.