Limerick Traffic

Cookiemunster

Mc Love wrote: »

Thats to get people to use the tunnel and not use town as a rat run.

If you're trying to travel from Corbally to Roxboro (as an example) you have to travel through town. Not everyone is using the city centre as a rat run to avoid the tunnel. A lot of people have no choice.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

OfTheMarsWongs

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If you're trying to travel from Corbally to Roxboro (as an example) you have to travel through town. Not everyone is using the city centre as a rat run to avoid the tunnel. A lot of people have no choice.

Yep. Had to go Corbally to Raheen today. Fastest route was straight through town. Think I was only stopped at two lights from Hunt Musuem to Punches.

zulutango

The easy solution is to turn Henry Street into a two way. You'll still have a route through town then and can work on improving the other streets.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

The easy solution is to turn Henry Street into a two way. You'll still have a route through town then and can work on improving the other streets.

Easy? Probably

Will it help traffic? Absolutely not.

yrreg0850

djsim101 wrote: »

I had the poor misfortune of nearly getting knocked down while crossing these pedestrian crossings on Roches Street on Saturday. The car on the first lane stopped but car on the right lane literally drove on, don't think she even seen me as she was looking down , I perume at her phone. The tyre of the car touched the the front of my runners it was that close.
Be careful crossing guys.

That was my original point.

The first car had to break the law by stopping in the yellow box, while the second broke the law by driving through a pedestrian crossing while people were crossing.
Because of the location of the crossing , it was impossible for either to avoid breaking the law !

zulutango

You're not breaking the law if you stop in a yellow box to give way to pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing.

Cordell

You do actually, the only exception is for turning right, and only if there is no obstruction once you clear the junction. Strictly speaking.

yrreg0850

zulutango wrote: »

You're not breaking the law if you stop in a yellow box to give way to pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing.

There would be no need to stop in the box in the first place if the road planners knew what they were doing, and, placed the crossing at least two car lenghts beyond the box and, not adjacent to it.

On two occasions recently I had to stop in the box and the result, I was blasted out of it by irate motorists travelling down catherine street.
Who maintained I was just blocking for selfish reasons.

osarusan

If the pedestrian crossings were in a less convenient place, most pedestrians would cross where they want to anyway. And the less convenient you make it, the less likely they are to be used.

zulutango

Surely you should be able to see pedestrians approaching the crossing long before you enter the yellow box?

yrreg0850

zulutango wrote: »

Surely you should be able to see pedestrians approaching the crossing long before you enter the yellow box?

You have obviously never driven down Roaches Street.
Pedestrians just seem to cross without taking any notice as to the position of oncoming cars.
It is quite possible for the car to be moving in the box when the pedestrian decides to cross.

Again there would be no problem if the crossing and the box were a distance apart.

zulutango

I've driven down it thousands of times. Your solution doesn't seem like a great one, to be honest. How about just slowing down and being ready to stop in case pedestrians step onto the crossing?

John_Mc

You're so self-righteous zulutango. A know it all for everything it seems

zulutango

Calm down, John.

John_Mc

zulutango wrote: »

Calm down, John.

I'm perfectly calm, zulutango.

Comhrá

yrreg0850 wrote: »

You have obviously never driven down Roaches Street.
Pedestrians just seem to cross without taking any notice as to the position of oncoming cars.
It is quite possible for the car to be moving in the box when the pedestrian decides to cross.

Again there would be no problem if the crossing and the box were a distance apart.

I also have experienced issues with pedestrians at that Roches St. crossing. When driving down Roches St in heavy traffic, if I'm stopped short of the yellow box, waiting for the traffic ahead to start moving, just when there's enough space to allow me to drive on, someone comes rushing up to the crossing just as I enter the yellow box, forcing me to brake as I begin to enter the yellow box.

Then, when the pedestrian is clear, before I can move, regularly a car coming down Catherine St. will assume I'm allowing them to enter the junction, leaving me sitting stationary in the yellow box.

When I'm walking in that area, I've watched it happen to other motorists regularly, no just to myself. It's a poor choice of location for a ped. crossing alright.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

You're not breaking the law if you stop in a yellow box to give way to pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing.

I would think you are.

zulutango wrote: »

Surely you should be able to see pedestrians approaching the crossing long before you enter the yellow box?

Not all the time and it's a busy junction with traffic/pedestrians and a crossing closer to you so the driver has a lot going on in their peripheral vision.

zulutango wrote: »

I've driven down it thousands of times. Your solution doesn't seem like a great one, to be honest. How about just slowing down and being ready to stop in case pedestrians step onto the crossing?

How many times have you driven down there since they installed the new pedestrian crossings?

zulutango

Maybe traffic lights would be a better solution then?

geotrig

I think the solution would be best to take away one of them ,preferably the one after the junction maybe move it so you have to cross catherine street which isnt any extra effort really (from onestop to fitos or whatever is there these days ) ,having 2 zebra /pelican crossing one after the other is a bit mad really.

geotrig

scratch that ,they should just go all out and do this !

http://www.motionelements.com/stock-video-8991685-shibuya-crossing-in-timelapse-tokyo-japan

keane2097

geotrig wrote: »

I think the solution would be best to take away one of them ,preferably the one after the junction maybe move it so you have to cross catherine street which isnt any extra effort really (from onestop to fitos or whatever is there these days ) ,having 2 zebra /pelican crossing one after the other is a bit mad really.

Yeah baffled why this isn't what was done. The current configuration is one I haven't seen replicated in too many other places and it really doesn't work.

It's a fairly difficult spot for drivers to get through - I've made a minor mess of it a couple of times myself, and as a pedestrian I don't feel safe crossing there in the least when it's busy. The confusion and indecision around it is palpable.

Would be 10X better for everyone if there was one across Catherine Street and one across Roches Street.

Berty

There's something different between what the council think and the "user experience". If the council go to the effort of watching people before they install anything they will consider what people want to do rather than forcing them to do something that isn't natural to them.

Then there's the contradiction. The council decided that people should cross between Penneys and McDonalds illegally with no lights, zebra crossing or anything else. In this case they decided people are going to cross there anyway so instead of stopping them(like they did before with potted plants) they'd just let them Jaywalk instead of walking a few metres left or right to cross safely and legally.

zulutango

Berty wrote: »

There's something different between what the council think and the "user experience". If the council go to the effort of watching people before they install anything they will consider what people want to do rather than forcing them to do something that isn't natural to them.

Isn't that pretty much what they did at the corner of Catherine Street and Roches Street? It's probably the best designed crossing in the city because it makes life easier for pedestrians. The Council are legally required to take pedestrians considerations first when carrying out street upgrades.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

Maybe traffic lights would be a better solution then?

Put barriers at the corners of Catherine Street and Roches St to prevent people crossing at the lower section of the junction

Berty wrote: »

Then there's the contradiction. The council decided that people should cross between Penneys and McDonalds illegally with no lights, zebra crossing or anything else. In this case they decided people are going to cross there anyway so instead of stopping them(like they did before with potted plants) they'd just let them Jaywalk instead of walking a few metres left or right to cross safely and legally.

Some time back I saw a person on Twitter engage with the council about that "crossing" they wanted the council to install a 3rd pedestrian crossing in that location.

Simple solution revert back to blocking the exit with potted plants.

zulutango wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much what they did at the corner of Catherine Street and Roches Street? It's probably the best designed crossing in the city because it makes life easier for pedestrians. The Council are legally required to take pedestrians considerations first when carrying out street upgrades.

Pedestrians are well catered for there with the crossing at the upper side of the junction and I assume a single crossing would cover the council's legal requirement.

zulutango

phog wrote: »

Pedestrians are well catered for there with the crossing at the upper side of the junction and I assume a single crossing would cover the council's legal requirement.

Not sure if they would. The whole thrust of the guidelines is to give priority to pedestrians, bikes and public transport. It's the reason that the Council is in such a bind with any road upgrade that it does. It can't legally look after the needs of car users ahead of the other modes, even though it probably wants to.

Whether we like it or not, this is the way things are going unless we vote for political parties that change the regulations back the other way, and none of them appear to want that. Not even sure if a total change in political leadership would result in such a revision anyway, because this is very much driven by European standards. We could follow the Brits out of Europe but they're not even considering ditching the EU standards and we're unlikely to if we left Europe.

So, the choice is do nothing, and get left behind by other cities, or embrace the changes and get on with things, although that will undoubtedly upset many people.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

Not sure if they would. The whole thrust of the guidelines is to give priority to pedestrians, bikes and public transport. It's the reason that the Council is in such a bind with any road upgrade that it does. It can't legally look after the needs of car users ahead of the other modes, even though it probably wants to.

Whether we like it or not, this is the way things are going unless we vote for political parties that change the regulations back the other way, and none of them appear to want that. Not even sure if a total change in political leadership would result in such a revision anyway, because this is very much driven by European standards. We could follow the Brits out of Europe but they're not even considering ditching the EU standards and we're unlikely to if we left Europe.

So, the choice is do nothing, and get left behind by other cities, or embrace the changes and get on with things, although that will undoubtedly upset many people.

Jaysus, you don't half dramatise stuff at times to suit a particular view point.

zulutango

You should try putting together a half-decent counter argument sometime instead of attacking the poster.

Mc Love

Jaysus Zulu, you seem to be getting a rough ride of it lately

phog

zulutango wrote: »

You should try putting together a half-decent counter argument sometime instead of attacking the poster.

I did but you discounted it with nonsense.

Fwiw, I didn't attack the poster, if you feel I did report it and let a mod decide.