Speed thing @ Whitfield Clinic

Jamie2k9

Anybody know if the speed sign which flashed at the clinic is just a warning for speeds or can fines be issued? Was going past earlier and was 21 km over.

saintchrisburg

As far as I know, it's only a warning. Frequently there's a speed van parked just down from it, right after the Holy Cross Bar (if you are heading out towards Kilmeaden from the city). I got caught out there once a couple of years ago...

rayr

It's so us cyclists can see how fast we're going ��

Wanderer78

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Anybody know if the speed sign which flashed at the clinic is just a warning for speeds or can fines be issued? Was going past earlier and was 21 km over.

warning for speed i believe

saintchrisburg wrote: »

Frequently there's a speed van parked just down from it, right after the Holy Cross Bar (if you are heading out towards Kilmeaden from the city).

that would be correct. thought i got caught myself one day. think my speedo is slightly out

rayr wrote: »

It's so us cyclists can see how fast we're going ��

hahaha you're hardly getting clocked on it are you?

i think the redesign of that section of road is a bit odd. do people think its working for both cyclists and motorists?

callaway92

Warning for speed.

I actually find them as a challenge to see how fast you can get going past them.

They are usually found outside schools/hospitals and the like.

Wanderer78

callaway92 wrote: »

I actually find them as a challenge to see how fast you can get going past them.

yea ive seen this behavior before which is kinna worrying

rayr

That section of road as far as Hillcrest is now a 50kph zone due to the number of entrances/exits. Main issue for cyclists on this section as far as Kilmeaden is the number of HGVs on it that could be using the bypass.

Wanderer78

rayr wrote: »

That section of road as far as Hillcrest is now a 50kph zone due to the number of entrances/exits. Main issue for cyclists on this section as far as Kilmeaden is the number of HGVs on it that could be using the bypass.

does it not go 60 to 50 to 60 again in a short distance?

whats preventing the hgv's from using the bypass?

rayr

Wanderer78 wrote: »

whats preventing the hgv's from using the bypass?

You'd have to ask them that.

Jamie2k9

callaway92 wrote: »

Warning for speed.

I actually find them as a challenge to see how fast you can get going past them.

They are usually found outside schools/hospitals and the like.

If they flash red, time to slow, orange is fine.

whats preventing the hgv's from using the bypass?

Big increase recently.

Wanderer78

rayr wrote: »

You'd have to ask them that.

i wonder is it the steepness of the descents and climbs on it?

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Big increase recently.

thats not good. not nice to have one of those passing you while cycling

Burning Bridges

The Council in their wisdom decided to force cyclists out onto the main traffic stream by filling in the hard shoulder to create a bus stop. Wont be long before someone is killed there.

Jamie2k9

thats not good. not nice to have one of those passing you while cycling

Quoted wrong line, there has being a big increase in bypass usage by HGVs in the last year.

Wanderer78

Burning Bridges wrote: »

The Council in their wisdom decided to force cyclists out onto the main traffic stream by filling in the hard shoulder to create a bus stop. Wont be long before someone is killed there.

yea this is what im thinking myself. i dont feel as safe as i did on that stretch since the work has been done.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Quoted wrong line, there has being a big increase in bypass usage by HGVs in the last year.

or maybe i misinterpreted what was being said. thats good to here. its a nice stretch of road would the descents and climbs be an issue for some hgv's on the bypass? theyre steep enough

Burning Bridges

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yea this is what im thinking myself. i dont feel as safe as i did on that stretch since the work has been done.

It is really dangerous because cyclists have to pullout into the traffic stream , so other drivers may not be aware of them and suddenly a cyclist has to move over 3 m to get around a kerb.
Madness.

Wanderer78

Burning Bridges wrote: »

It is really dangerous because cyclists have to pullout into the traffic stream , so other drivers may not be aware of them and suddenly a cyclist has to move over 3 m to get around a kerb.
Madness.

yea it is quite dangerous and i am waiting for a serious accident to happen there. was just talking to somebody earlier about urban planning or the lack of in parts of waterford. i have a funny feeling this might be another dangerous example. it just doesnt work for anybody

smaoifs

It has not one but two signs before the garage for 60 then drops to 50 at the pedestrian crossing before the next sign for 80 being beyond the Holy.
On they way back in you have the sign before the Holy dropping you to 60 then the crossing dropping you to 50 before the signs by the garage up you to 60 again.

Wanderer78 wrote:

does it not go 60 to 50 to 60 again in a short distance?

wellboytoo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

whats preventing the hgv's from using the bypass?

Food. Simple as that

Wanderer78

smaoifs wrote: »

It has not one but two signs before the garage for 60 then drops to 50 at the pedestrian crossing before the next sign for 80 being beyond the Holy.
On they way back in you have the sign before the Holy dropping you to 60 then the crossing dropping you to 50 before the signs by the garage up you to 60 again.

jasus tongue twister

wellboytoo wrote: »

Food. Simple as that

hahaha excellent

Mugser

Passed out that way a few weeks ago and there was a Guarda car parked, faced, looking that speed thingy, in the little lay-by type effort just the town side of it.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.!!
BTW, ism't the speed limit there is 60kph? but the sign shows red over 50

Wanderer78

Mugser wrote: »

BTW, ism't the speed limit there is 60kph? but the sign shows red over 50

see post 17

Mugser

Wanderer78 wrote: »

see post 17

I seem to recall it says 60kph on the actual detecting sign.

Wanderer78

Mugser wrote: »

I seem to recall it says 60kph on the actual detecting sign.

thought it was 50. i ll have to check it now

smaoifs

Mugser wrote:

I seem to recall it says 60kph on the actual detecting sign.

It says 50 on the detecting sign which is stupid since you have 2 regular sized speed signs within yards of each other saying 60 and then the detecting sign with 50 written so small that you're on it before you realise.

Burning Bridges

The whole thing is a mess, it was done in the run up to the end of year 2013, using tar macadam for the elevated footpath seems strange. als o having the footpath 20feet wide in places makes no sense.

Someone will be killed there. but by putting in the bizarre speed limits the council can blame the individual driver , not the engineering, if someone is killed.

Wanderer78

Burning Bridges wrote: »

The whole thing is a mess, it was done in the run up to the end of year 2013, using tar macadam for the elevated footpath seems strange. als o having the footpath 20feet wide in places makes no sense.

Someone will be killed there. but by putting in the bizarre speed limits the council can blame the individual driver , not the engineering, if someone is killed.

i think you could be spot on

Burning Bridges

smaoifs wrote: »

It says 50 on the detecting sign which is stupid since you have 2 regular sized speed signs within yards of each other saying 60 and then the detecting sign with 50 written so small that you're on it before you realise.

They have removed one of the 60kmph signs that was 20 yards before pedestrian crossing.