Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

What do people make of this overhanging [public] building?

124»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,924 ✭✭✭✭ GreeBo


    So why did it initially have not one but two warning posts on it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭ SC024


    Why should there be compensation? The yellow lines & kerb is clear as day in the photograph. OP still drove into it & burst 1 but not 2 tyres, No mean feat in itself.

    Next thing we'll be compensating people for walking into walls or cashing into parked cars "Your honor, there was no warning sign on that wall / stationary vehicle"



  • Registered Users Posts: 42 ahusband




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭ chooseusername



    And it's legally parked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (well, nearly)


    If op is to claim against co. council he better have all his ducks in a row re. uk reg. car in ireland,

    NCT/MOT, VRT, insurance, etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,489 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    I think that's a bad assumption. The overhang is minor, despite OPs claims.

    The right side is not parking at the island. If somebody can't see line marks they shouldn't be on the road.

    This is a narrow laneway. If they are driving at a suitable speed, it should be easy to see the island and navigate it. Roads change direction all the time. You are making out that the island appeared suddenly.

    It's a bad road layout. But OP not negotiating it safely is his fault. If he blew two tyres, he was absolutely going too fast



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,924 ✭✭✭✭ GreeBo



    Great, so then it would just have a minor impact with a truck, that'd be grand.


    A narrow laneway? Its two lanes wide other than the curb-island and the odd parking space. It cant be both narrow and the island be grand. There is zero need for that island, its poorly designed and wouldnt have been accepted if it was a private build.

    BTW you could easily blow two tires with a glancing blow that shreds the two side walls, its not necessary to Dukes of Hazard style right over the top.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,227 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    There are probably thousands of cars who drive down that lane every week and manage to not crash into that kerb and burst 2 tyres

    The op should take the chance to learn a valuable life lesson. Slow down, and watch where you're going when you're driving a 2 tonne hunk of steel around narrow town streets.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,828 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    a truck could just as easily avoid the overhand as a car would the kerb. the island is there because of the pedestrian entrance so it is needed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,489 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    It doesn't look like the overhand is significantly over the boundary, obviously limited photos to go off. But there is a wall between the building and the road. So if a truck is going hit the overhang, they'd be also crashing into the wall even if the overhang isn't there. So they hit the building either way.

    Trucks typically don't drive down laneways for obvious reasons.

    A narrow laneway? Its two lanes wide other than the curb-island and the odd parking space. It cant be both narrow and the island be grand. There is zero need for that island, its poorly designed and wouldn't have been accepted if it was a private build.

    Two lanes wide? You might need your eyes tested. It's a single one-way laneway.

    Here is the entry. Very narrow.

    This is the straight section up to the building. Also narrow with a terrible parking arrangement.

    The parking spaces stop at the building as there is and entrance opposite. There is only ever one lane with no parking at that point.

    I agree its badly designed. I said so on the first page. It was badly designed before the island. Encouraging the flow of traffic along a dwarf wall is terrible design, especially when they'll be taking a left at the end into a wall they can see. The single park spots are a hazard. They should have lost them, and the island been an usable path. The road is central away from the walls, the whole thing would be safer than current or previous.

    But we drive on roads as they are, not how they should be. And if you are driving down a laneway like that, between buildings and parked cars, you pay attention.

    BTW you could easily blow two tires with a glancing blow that shreds the two side walls, its not necessary to Dukes of Hazard style right over the top.

    Yup you could. But we're not talking about what could hypothetically happen. We're talking about what actually happened. OP drove over kerb, Dukes of Hazard style, as you put it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,828 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    I hadn't looked back up the lane to the entrance. it really is very narrow. No trucks going down there for sure, a van is the biggest thing you could get down there.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭ SC024


    In which case the risk of a truck / bus hitting the overhang is negligible. the issue here is the OPs lack of care & attention. ah sure lets blame the council anyways :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,954 ✭✭✭ Princess Calla


    I did make that point but you were too distracted by my mutes 😂😂😅😅



  • Registered Users Posts: 42 ahusband


    In the latest installment of "I can't drive but its someone else's fault"

    OP doing 120 kph on cruise on a motorway at 9pm, see's flashing amber lights ahead, mentions it being a road gritter, decides to look at waze on his phone for info, back seat passenger shouts at him to look out, he then see's a slow moving car that has moved into his lane from the overtaking lane that he didn't see due to it having dim tail lights and perhaps being distracted by the amber lights, accident avoided, apparently its a warning to us all that accidents happen easily.

    OP should be thankful that someone was paying attention in his car this time.

    The rest of us should be worried about the standard of driving involved, oh look, a potential hazard, I'll check an app, no fecking wonder he missed the side of the road when it jumped out in front of him from its stationary location.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭ SuperS54


    Would certainly be interesting to look at the planning files for that building! July 2009 there was a gateway at the overhang point. Sometime before October 2011 the gateway was removed, overhang added and temporary plastic dividers on the street. July 2018 and the concrete "path" is in place, parking spaces on the right have also been removed, there is a marker on the "path", there are marks in the concrete that indicate a marker may also have existing at the start of the "path". 2021 and both markers are missing, a No Parking cone lying toppled before the "path"...Rightly or wrongly I'd say the OP has good grounds to sue for compensation, it does appear to have been a known hazard, there were some attempts to address it but they have not been maintained. Certainly appears the OP is not the only one to have hit that "path" over the years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,667 ✭✭✭✭ Lumen


    This is a terrible piece of design

    Would have been much better to kink out the dwarf wall to give an accessible, safe side passageway and also protect the overhang. If access was needed from the street it could be on the far side of the kink to protect pedestrians waiting to cross.

    OP might have a claim but contributory negligence is a thing so the only winners will be the lawyers. Spend the money on driving lessons instead.

    These opinions are unqualified.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,206 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Sorry guys.

    I totally messed up by adding the element of the damaged car/tyres here.

    Initially the OP was intended to discuss the overhang to see what people thought etc.. I only threw in the bit about the damage towards the end.. and it unintentionally added bias and a distraction to my intended purpose.

    I also do apologise for confusing matters with my commentary on the overhang. It is neither here nor there on the kerb damage issue. The issue is, while I wasn't speeding and was paying attention I didn't notice the little traffic island. I'm not backing down and am adamant that the council be held accountable for this.

    There are elements of the road traffic act that say councils need to erect signage for dangerous parts of the road and complementary frameworks to outline routine inspection requirements to ensure damaged signage is repaired etc (I don't have time to find them now). That is a dangerous part of the road because there is an entry/exit to the aforementioned building. The danger comes into it, when the person exists the building and is exposed to traffic.

    To the naysayers and to the people saying I am reckless and should be charged with negligent driving. I will propose the following hypothesis to you: The countries roads are full of these signs (like the ones missing from this footpath/island). If your argument is that people don't need these signs and should "just see" any and all obstacles they highlight then, are you suggesting the government has just wasted the money on the signage... but also think about how many accidents/possible fatalities/car damage incidents might be caused/avoided by the absence/usage of such signs.

    The design and implementation of roads are supposed to be to a high standard and as such strive to eliminate all incidents where possible by signage.. not leaving it up to the chance that the driver/road user would see the obstacle.

    As an aside, i've spoken to a few people in that immediate area and there have been a load of issues surrounding that little traffic island (and overhang). I believe a van once drove into the side of it.

    In any case:

    Just to attempt to cover off a few points about the car debacle. I am not trying to be disingenuous at all here, or dodge any questions.

    * Accident did not happen on a rainy night.

    * Car is all in order - I am normally resident in england and tax/nct/insurance etc is all in line.

    * Somebody commented I am not legally parked where I was. I was broken down with two flat wheels...!! Cars could still get by and I was at the scene!

    * You would easily hit both wheels if you drove over something, even slowly and weren't aware of it.. I mean the difference length between the two wheels isn't that great.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,942 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    you're going to get short shrift from many people on your argument that you are not responsible for seeing obstacles - in the daylight - which are not highlighted to you with hi-vis reflective street furniture.

    and rightly so. this idea that you can outsource your responsibility to drive safely to the council, because of a missing warning sign, is pitiful.


    it's not a zero sum game. just because there were missing signs which should have been there does not excuse you from driving into a kerb.



Advertisement