Pay parking Maynooth

Rathkenny

I see from the Maynooth Notice Boards Facebook group that pay parking is starting on 27th May.

http://www.kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/PressReleasesAdverts/CommencementofMaynoothPayParkingByeLaws.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Moonbeam

It is pinned there now.
As much as I hate paid parking ,it is near impossible to get parking in Maynooth during the day and people park everywhere and anywhere incl in yellow boxes so hopefully it makes a difference.

ixus

There goes my entire driving lifespan of parking wherever I damn chose in the town!

Atomic Pineapple

Is it 8:30 to 6:30 for the operational hours of the pay parking? I had a quick look through the documents but couldn't confirm this is correct, only that it is what they define as "business hours".

Maynooth definitely needs pay parking as its a disaster zone for cars abandoned everywhere for hours on end. Limiting it to 1 hour max stay in some places seems a bit excessive though does it? One the main attractions to the town would have been its restaurants I thought and 1 hour might be cutting it close for people coming in to get food during the day?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Finally. This was the reason they introduced permit parking on the college campus 4 years ago. Maynooth is pretty small, if people don't want to pay they can park up at tesco and walk down town. Though I'd say it will make the train station car parks a disaster from now on as lots of people parked on the main street and walked to the station in the morning.

L1011

Tesco will inevitably go 2 hour or CCTV enforced no leaving

Raminahobbin

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Limiting it to 1 hour max stay in some places seems a bit excessive though does it? One the main attractions to the town would have been its restaurants I thought and 1 hour might be cutting it close for people coming in to get food during the day?

I dunno, the one hour limit seems to only be on the main street, which I think is fine. That should only be for people popping in to specific shops, and will keep the changeover of cars reasonable.

Everywhere else is longer, so people going for food can just park somewhere off the main street, like they're prob doing already, at a supermarket car park or in one of the 3 hour spots.

Lastblackdog

This will be a disaster for the small, residential streets near the town centre. They will either be flooded with commuters from morning to night or they will be included in the parking pay or permit scheme.

My view is that it would be enough to introduce a time limit and to police it.

Raminahobbin

They're mostly included in it, from what I can see. They have 3 hour parking limits.

I'd imagine the residents will be able to apply for permits, especially the ones facing directly on to roads like the little cottages by Charter House. Only guessing at that though

L1011

They're all included and residents can get permits

Graham

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Is it 8:30 to 6:30 for the operational hours of the pay parking? I had a quick look through the documents but couldn't confirm this is correct, only that it is what they define as "business hours".

Yes

"Business Hours" means the following period:

from 8.30 am to 6.30 pm (08.30 to 18.30) on each day other than Sunday or a Public Holiday

Lastblackdog

I just checked on line and the street I live on is just outside the controlled area. To return to my original point, we will now see a surge of people parking here in order to avoid the parking charges. We already have parents using the street when dropping of and collecting the kids. This will only get worse.

For every action there is an equal and opposite worse outcome.

HonalD

Lastblackdog wrote: »

I just checked on line and the street I live on is just outside the controlled area. To return to my original point, we will now see a surge of people parking here in order to avoid the parking charges. We already have parents using the street when dropping of and collecting the kids. This will only get worse.

For every action there is an equal and opposite worse outcome.

Unfortunately, residents don't own a public road or street. Anyone is allowed park there, unless there are restrictions.

If it was me, I'd get before and after information pictures etc. to prove a point, if there is one to make.

Lastblackdog

HonalD wrote: »

Unfortunately, residents don't own a public road or street. Anyone is allowed park there, unless there are restrictions.

If it was me, I'd get before and after information pictures etc. to prove a point, if there is one to make.

Understood and agreed. However is a bit of a downer when you select a place to live because is quiet only to find it is overrun with cars due to a council decision.

L1011

You could have requested it to be included when the plans went on display years ago

If the estate isn't taken in charge they can't include it

Lastblackdog

L1011 wrote: »

You could have requested it to be included when the plans went on display years ago

If the estate isn't taken in charge they can't include it

The plans predate my arrival in Maynooth.

The issue could be avoided if the council were to provide decent of street parking. Sorry, I just realised just how stupid that sounds. Next I will be asking for them deliver a viable bypass for the town. Now that's funny.

L1011

They're going to charge for off-street also so that won't defer freeloaders

A ~200 space carpark should be open on doctors lane soon and the one at the roost never fills up.

If you want the area extended, make representations to councillors for the next review

Lastblackdog

L1011 wrote: »

They're going to charge for off-street also so that won't defer freeloaders

A ~200 space carpark should be open on doctors lane soon and the one at the roost never fills up.

If you want the area extended, make representations to councillors for the next review

Good point. Thank you.

nicknackgtb

On the plans, it says that new car park on doctors lane is a private car park, is this going to be left private or will it be public eventually once completed?

L1011

nicknackgtb wrote: »

On the plans, it says that new car park on doctors lane is a private car park, is this going to be left private or will it be public eventually once completed?

Remain private - its connected to some extent to the Oak Alley / Mroz building development.

ixus

They'll all be around the same price for the day in the big carparks. Supervalue public space will also be a charge.

If you want yellow lines put down, ask your councillor. It can be done outside review I believe, which isn't for 3yrs. Once they're there, they won't be moves though.

You could always chance a bit of white paint with a P for private.

Apcoa are the ticket issuers and they make their money by issuing tickets.

I know residents of various estates are up in arms about it Rail Park, Lyreen, Pebble Hill and the back lanes. Understand the estates as people who dodge payment will go there. Back lanes, I get their concerns but it should free things up for them and they get a permit for 5€ per annum.

lordgoat

nicknackgtb wrote: »

On the plans, it says that new car park on doctors lane is a private car park, is this going to be left private or will it be public eventually once completed?

a 200 space car park on a one way narrow street - yes that's a well thought out idea.

ixus wrote: »

They'll all be around the same price for the day in the big carparks. Supervalue public space will also be a charge.

If you want yellow lines put down, ask your councillor. It can be done outside review I believe, which isn't for 3yrs. Once they're there, they won't be moves though.

You could always chance a bit of white paint with a P for private.

Apcoa are the ticket issuers and they make their money by issuing tickets.

I know residents of various estates are up in arms about it Rail Park, Lyreen, Pebble Hill and the back lanes. Understand the estates as people who dodge payment will go there. Back lanes, I get their concerns but it should free things up for them and they get a permit for 5€ per annum.

ya it's a pain in the hole. I am looking forward to some of the comical notes one of my neighbours will be leaving on cars in my estate.

L1011

It's meant to also have entry/exits via the council carpark at SuperValu

ghostdancer

hopefully they do something about the light sequence coming out of there so, as there's already cars snaking all the way around Supervalu and the down behind the Leisure Club building in the evenings....

brian_t

Rathkenny wrote: »

I see from the Maynooth Notice Boards Facebook group that pay parking is starting on 27th May.

Fines for illegal parking wont start until 2 weeks later.

For the first fortnight offenders will only get a warning notice.


Pay for the parking or settle for a warning notice - hmm - decisions decisions.

shoehorn

ghostdancer wrote:

hopefully they do something about the light sequence coming out of there so, as there's already cars snaking all the way around Supervalu and the down behind the Leisure Club building in the evenings....

I believe there is a plan for a left turning filter coming out of glenroyal, when traffic from Straffan direction are turning in.

L1011

shoehorn wrote: »

I believe there is a plan for a left turning filter coming out of glenroyal, when traffic from Straffan direction are turning in.

Yes, its a condition of the impending hotel expansion due to McGinley submitting it.

Orion

shoehorn wrote: »

I believe there is a plan for a left turning filter coming out of glenroyal, when traffic from Straffan direction are turning in.

About bloody time. I wrote to the council years ago about putting that. The response I got was pure comedy. They wouldn't put in a left filter because:
1) it would entail traffic turning left into oncoming traffic. My response that this would only be the case if people turned on the wrong side of the road went unanswered.
2) That the entire traffic light system in the town would need to be recalibrated to cater for it. I called bull on that too - it would just involve the left turn light going on when the right turn light came on - no recalibration required. Also went unanswered.

Traffic management in this town is a joke. At current count there are 10 sets of pedestrian/traffic lights between Maxol and the college. Ridiculous.

lordgoat

Orion wrote: »

About bloody time. I wrote to the council years ago about putting that. The response I got was pure comedy. They wouldn't put in a left filter because:
1) it would entail traffic turning left into oncoming traffic. My response that this would only be the case if people turned on the wrong side of the road went unanswered.
2) That the entire traffic light system in the town would need to be recalibrated to cater for it. I called bull on that too - it would just involve the left turn light going on when the right turn light came on - no recalibration required. Also went unanswered.

Traffic management in this town is a joke. At current count there are 10 sets of pedestrian/traffic lights between Maxol and the college. Ridiculous.

You can drive from maynooth to Belfast/Westport/Cork with less traffic lights that to drive from moygalre to maxol.

lordgoat

Double yellows went up on the dunboyne road last night, i wonder if it will help people with their inability to not park in the middle of the road.

nicknackgtb

lordgoat wrote: »

Double yellows went up on the dunboyne road last night, i wonder if it will help people with their inability to not park in the middle of the road.

No, they're still invisible yellows! Schools traffic still parks there, doesn't help for traffic as blind corner, and bad esp at school times when kids could just walk onto the road unknowingly. Dangerous spot. Sometimes I wonder why there are spots around that area also as sometimes there is only enough room for one car at some sections of that stretch of road!

Dolbert

The traffic light system is non-existent! The nightmare of a right turn from Straffan Wood onto Straffan Road would so easily be solved by just syncing the lights on either side. All you need is a few seconds to get out, but no, that'd be too easy...

HonalD

lordgoat wrote: »

You can drive from maynooth to Belfast/Westport/Cork with less traffic lights that to drive from moygalre to maxol.

Whilst that is valid, what point are you making? County Leitrim has no signals and County Roscommon has 2-3. Are you planning on moving there over the issue?

Should there be no traffic lights in Maynooth? Less? Where would you remove them? What will pedestrians do if lights are removed? What will people with disabilities do? What will motorists do trying to exit side roads?

Please also consider the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Maynooth, the attractors for journeys and the need for parents of children to drive to the gates of schools twice a day.

If you can find any current Government guidelines or standards that back up your thoughts then feel free to post. (Memo to self, after drinking bottle of wine, must try not to post on boards)

HonalD

Dolbert wrote: »

The traffic light system is non-existent! The nightmare of a right turn from Straffan Wood onto Straffan Road would so easily be solved by just syncing the lights on either side. All you need is a few seconds to get out, but no, that'd be too easy...

I don't understand how "syncing" the lights at Lidl and Maxol is possible? And if you are asking to hold up traffic on the Straffan Road to the benefit of a side road then run for the hills, I don't see too much support coming on this thread.

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

Whilst that is valid, what point are you making? County Leitrim has no signals and County Roscommon has 2-3. Are you planning on moving there over the issue?

Should there be no traffic lights in Maynooth? Less? Where would you remove them? What will pedestrians do if lights are removed? What will people with disabilities do? What will motorists do trying to exit side roads?

Please also consider the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Maynooth, the attractors for journeys and the need for parents of children to drive to the gates of schools twice a day.

If you can find any current Government guidelines or standards that back up your thoughts then feel free to post. (Memo to self, after drinking bottle of wine, must try not to post on boards)

There is a stupid number of traffic lights in Maynooth for the size of the town. I'd remove plenty of them - starting with the ones at the Glenroyal. There was never a problem entering or exiting there until the lights went in - people used common decency to allow traffic in and out.

Get rid of all traffic lights from Lidl to Manor Mills - just leave the pedestrian lights which are triggered by pedestrians actually wanting to cross the road rather than timed traffic lights which cause congestion. That would leave demand-controlled lights at Kingsbry, Maxol, train station, Glenroyal, Main St. - BoI, Main St. - Roost, Mill St - Manor Mills. Half the amount there currently are and only activated on button press. Tbh if people weren't such blind assholes in cars you could even replace some of them with pelican crossings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/12118903/Four-in-every-five-sets-of-traffic-lights-should-be-removed-report-claims.html
http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-free-zone-The-German-town-scrapped-traffic-lights-road-signs.html

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

I don't understand how "syncing" the lights at Lidl and Maxol is possible? And if you are asking to hold up traffic on the Straffan Road to the benefit of a side road then run for the hills, I don't see too much support coming on this thread.

Straffan Wood is actually supposed to be a link road to divert traffic from the town - not a side road. But joined up thinking is not part of Kildare's traffic management.

Dolbert

HonalD wrote: »

I don't understand how "syncing" the lights at Lidl and Maxol is possible? And if you are asking to hold up traffic on the Straffan Road to the benefit of a side road then run for the hills, I don't see too much support coming on this thread.

It's the only way through for anyone on that side of town apart from Bond Bridge. I'm talking about sequencing a few seconds where the lights at Lidl and the lights at Kingsbry are red at the same time. But yeah, I probably won't find much support given that you wouldn't be aware of the extent of the issue unless you live on that side of town and need to use that junction daily.

L1011

Dolbert wrote: »

It's the only way through for anyone on that side of town apart from Bond Bridge. I'm talking about sequencing a few seconds where the lights at Lidl and the lights at Kingsbry are red at the same time. But yeah, I probably won't find much support given that you wouldn't be aware of the extent of the issue unless you live on that side of town and need to use that junction daily.

KCCs (previous?) traffic engineer took away any form of non-pedestrian activation of the Kingsbry lights giving an absolutely wittery response about safety that made no sense to anyone but himself and despite councillor demands to revert to what was there before. So they're unlikely to change.

Dolbert

L1011 wrote: »

KCCs (previous?) traffic engineer took away any form of non-pedestrian activation of the Kingsbry lights giving an absolutely wittery response about safety that made no sense to anyone but himself and despite councillor demands to revert to what was there before. So they're unlikely to change.

It's silly, if done right it wouldn't need to disrupt traffic at all.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

There is a stupid number of traffic lights in Maynooth for the size of the town. I'd remove plenty of them - starting with the ones at the Glenroyal. There was never a problem entering or exiting there until the lights went in - people used common decency to allow traffic in and out.

Get rid of all traffic lights from Lidl to Manor Mills - just leave the pedestrian lights which are triggered by pedestrians actually wanting to cross the road rather than timed traffic lights which cause congestion. That would leave demand-controlled lights at Kingsbry, Maxol, train station, Glenroyal, Main St. - BoI, Main St. - Roost, Mill St - Manor Mills. Half the amount there currently are and only activated on button press. Tbh if people weren't such blind assholes in cars you could even replace some of them with pelican crossings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/12118903/Four-in-every-five-sets-of-traffic-lights-should-be-removed-report-claims.html
http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-free-zone-The-German-town-scrapped-traffic-lights-road-signs.html

Did you read my post? You seem to have ignored the bits that are unanswerable.

So there are no Government Guidelines or standards to back up mass removal of traffic lights in Maynooth. There are no guidelines or standards period in Ireland to back up this opinion. Given our legislation it is practically impossible to remove them.

You mention "common decency" regarding traffic exiting the Glen Royal Hotel. I'm sorry but, exceptions apart, that phrase couldn't be applied to motorists in Ireland. But how would it work? So I'm waiting to turn right towards the Square from the exit. I must spot a gap in the traffic going towards the Square, coming from the Square and traffic wanting to turn right into the hotel etc. (3 separate movements ) Oh, don't forget the pedestrians who will be permitted to cross the junction at any angle they please. Oh and cyclists and watch out for the man in the motorised wheelchair or the lady with the double buggy.......how can anyone think that this is a safe arrangement? And then we repeat this at every junction.

I'm sorry to burst the bubble but Traffic lights serve a number of purposes:

1. Provide priority (to a side road when the main road does not permit gaps in the traffic) and (to the main road but providing extra green light times at peak times).
2. Allow orderly movement of traffic movements (the opposite of a free for all at priority junctions)
3. Are safer than priority junctions
4. Provide safe facilities for vulnerable road users
5. When sited close together, provide the progression of traffic through an area (e.g. Turning left from Straffan Road and turning right towards Moyglare Road junction.)

Populist horse manure is just that.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

Straffan Wood is actually supposed to be a link road to divert traffic from the town - not a side road. But joined up thinking is not part of Kildare's traffic management.

It is a side road currently, is it not?

HonalD

Dolbert wrote: »

It's the only way through for anyone on that side of town apart from Bond Bridge. I'm talking about sequencing a few seconds where the lights at Lidl and the lights at Kingsbry are red at the same time. But yeah, I probably won't find much support given that you wouldn't be aware of the extent of the issue unless you live on that side of town and need to use that junction daily.

The distance between the two lights is too far to link. Also, pelican lights (at Kingsbury) do not go red unless the button has been activated.

I have sympathy for residents in this area, my point was that others want to remove all lights and the problems for motorists and pedestrians currently at this junction would be replicated at all the other "removed" locations.

HonalD

L1011 wrote: »

KCCs (previous?) traffic engineer took away any form of non-pedestrian activation of the Kingsbry lights giving an absolutely wittery response about safety that made no sense to anyone but himself and despite councillor demands to revert to what was there before. So they're unlikely to change.

I may be pedantic but.....lights for pedestrians are for pedestrians and lights for traffic are for traffic. I'm not aware of any legal method of controlling traffic through pelican lights but I'm open to learning more about it.

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

I may be pedantic but.....lights for pedestrians are for pedestrians and lights for traffic are for traffic. I'm not aware of any legal method of controlling traffic through pelican lights but I'm open to learning more about it.

It is pedantic - they're all forms of traffic signal.

Traffic detector loops are used all over the world to set off a pedestrian set adjacent to the junction - it allows turns on the direction that the pedestrian aspect is not on.

HonalD wrote: »

It is a side road currently, is it not?

No. Signed route to Rathcoffey from much of the town. Was the sole route for ~2 years during the Bond Bridge replacement.

HonalD

L1011 wrote: »

It is pedantic - they're all forms of traffic signal.

Traffic detector loops are used all over the world to set off a pedestrian set adjacent to the junction - it allows turns on the direction that the pedestrian aspect is not on.



No. Signed route to Rathcoffey from much of the town. Was the sole route for ~2 years during the Bond Bridge replacement.

I'm not sure you're agreeing with my pedantic comment?

Take a look at the Traffic Signs Manual (DoE) and the Traffic Management Guidelines (DTO) and come back and show me where the provision of "false" red lights at pelican crossings to assist vehicular traffic from housing estates are permitted in Ireland.

The commentary that there are examples in other countries doesn't mean it's legally possible to do it in Ireland. (Or that we should do it).

With regard to the Link Road, it is a Local road and Straffan Road is a Regional road.........there is a priority junction so how can it not be a side road?

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

I'm not sure you're agreeing with my pedantic comment?

Take a look at the Traffic Signs Manual (DoE) and the Traffic Management Guidelines (DTO) and come back and show me where the provision of "false" red lights at pelican crossings to assist vehicular traffic from housing estates are permitted in Ireland.

The commentary that there are examples in other countries doesn't mean it's legally possible to do it in Ireland. (Or that we should do it).

With regard to the Link Road, it is a Local road and Straffan Road is a Regional road.........there is a priority junction so how can it not be a side road?

I was agreeing that you were being pedantic - nothing else.

Lack of presence in guidelines != illegal. You would need actual legislation (statue or statutory) for it to be illegal.

And you are now being about as pedantic as possible. It is a signed alternate route for an R road - most people would take your repeated use of "side road" to suggest it was a very minor (in terms of traffic before you have another pedantic-attack) road.

As it happens, the nonsense reason I was given was about safety, not legality. It would take only the intellect of a small child to work out that "it would be dangerous for people on the crossing" to realise that if that was the case, it would be dangerous for all people using the crossing. Never got a response after that, surprisingly.

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

County Leitrim has no signals

Only because they converted them to a beacon crossing, though

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.9433934,-8.0948231,3a,75y,99.89h,75.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s44YxZaSc2Y1vxv_brtTv8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (then change to the 2014 view)

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

Did you read my post? You seem to have ignored the bits that are unanswerable.

I did indeed and did answer it. However based on some of the below you obviously didn't read mine.

HonalD wrote: »

So there are no Government Guidelines or standards to back up mass removal of traffic lights in Maynooth. There are no guidelines or standards period in Ireland to back up this opinion. Given our legislation it is practically impossible to remove them.

Then why has it been done. In Leitrim, Longford, and other counties.

HonalD wrote: »

You mention "common decency" regarding traffic exiting the Glen Royal Hotel. I'm sorry but, exceptions apart, that phrase couldn't be applied to motorists in Ireland. But how would it work? So I'm waiting to turn right towards the Square from the exit. I must spot a gap in the traffic going towards the Square, coming from the Square and traffic wanting to turn right into the hotel etc. (3 separate movements ) Oh, don't forget the pedestrians who will be permitted to cross the junction at any angle they please. Oh and cyclists and watch out for the man in the motorised wheelchair or the lady with the double buggy.......how can anyone think that this is a safe arrangement? And then we repeat this at every junction.

It worked fine before the lights went in. In fact the first time lights went in they had to be removed because they were a bloody disgrace and caused much more problems than they solved. The second attempt was better but still nonsensical to not provide a left exit filter at the same time the right entry filter went on.

With lights there people just go by the lights. Before those lights went on there was never a tail inside the Glenroyal of people trying to get out - now there is. Nor was there a tail of traffic trying to get in - now there is. Without lights the traffic moves more smoothly and people actually let others in and out. This is not hypothetical - this was exactly the case before lights went there.

If you actually read my post I said that pedestrian crossings should be retained. They are demand operated not timed so would allow people to cross when required.

I should also point out that I am a cyclist and still would prefer these lights were removed. And as a cyclist the new cycle path put in on the Straffan Road is a joke. Perfect opportunity to put it on road instead of on the path ignored. I won't use it because it's unsafe - I stick to the road where it should be. Putting it on the path - where cyclists have to contend with pedestrians is not best practice and fails on two counts:
1. Contenting with pedestrians as already stated
2. Giving motorists the idea that bikes shouldn't be on the road and causing some to give abuse to cyclists who are perfectly legally using the road.

This is just another failure in traffic planning in Maynooth.

HonalD wrote: »

I'm sorry to burst the bubble but Traffic lights serve a number of purposes:

1. Provide priority (to a side road when the main road does not permit gaps in the traffic) and (to the main road but providing extra green light times at peak times).
2. Allow orderly movement of traffic movements (the opposite of a free for all at priority junctions)
3. Are safer than priority junctions
4. Provide safe facilities for vulnerable road users
5. When sited close together, provide the progression of traffic through an area (e.g. Turning left from Straffan Road and turning right towards Moyglare Road junction.)

Populist horse manure is just that.

They also serve to worsen traffic problems when designed by some bureaucrat in an office who doesn't travel through the town on a daily basis.

And calling it populist horse manure is just arrogance. When people who use the roads in the town think it's crap then they should be listened to not just dismissed as populist.

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

It is a side road currently, is it not?

Again not reading my post. I said it is supposed to be a link road. But common sense and initial plans disposed of as usual.

L1011

Anyone who things the Supervalu lights helped traffic doesn't live in or regularity come to Maynooth. Looking at the town from afar with derision might make you think that, though.

After the second installation (as above, the first one was turned off rapidly and left off for an age) they used to fail frequently enough and you could tell when they had - the town wasn't congested!

I also wonder why all the money was spent on traffic management software when clearly they don't know how to use it.

HonalD

L1011 wrote: »

I was agreeing that you were being pedantic - nothing else.

Lack of presence in guidelines != illegal. You would need actual legislation (statue or statutory) for it to be illegal.

And you are now being about as pedantic as possible. It is a signed alternate route for an R road - most people would take your repeated use of "side road" to suggest it was a very minor (in terms of traffic before you have another pedantic-attack) road.

As it happens, the nonsense reason I was given was about safety, not legality. It would take only the intellect of a small child to work out that "it would be dangerous for people on the crossing" to realise that if that was the case, it would be dangerous for all people using the crossing. Never got a response after that, surprisingly.

Ok, if you find this post condensending then it's not, it's the truth.

Look back at post 33 and following ones, if one reads them and the documentation referenced in them, then one would agree with the contents of my posts.

You are wrong to say that lack of presence in guidelines = illegal;
You are wrong to suggest I said anything was illegal- I said it is not legal to do it which means something completely different;
You are wrong to say that I referenced the Link Road as "a very minor road";

Sorry, I really don't understand your "intellect of a small child" analogy, is it aimed at me?

Finally, the thread has been high jacked by axe wielding traffic light hating (let's just take them away in the morning) spoofers - I thought it was about car parking.