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! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Latest Cork Co.Co. policy of putting ramps everywhere

  • 09-05-2022 8:47am
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭

    I see Cork CoCo seem to have an agenda of installing ramps around the place lately.

    I find it amazing how they say they have no money for roads but they are well able to finance this.

    I have no issue with ramps going in per say, (if needed). However surely that should be looked at once the crumbling roads surrounding them are addressed first. I see they are putting them on what you consider main roads too.

    If you look at it another way, E. Ryan telling people to "drive slower" would be delighted when he sees cars having to constantly slow down and speed up all over Cork. Putting him aside, How does this aid the whole green Agenda?

    I know I'm ranting but it's bizarre seeing ramps going in right next to potholes which are left untouched.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Well...they do have a lot of money for roads. Like Dunkettle, N/M20, N22, N/M28 for instance.

    That's sort of the problem. Roads are hugely expensive. So they need to balance roads expenditure with other types of transport expenditure.

    These speed control measures, even though you have obviously identified them as roads expenditure (which they are, IMO too!) are being considered a "sustainable transport" measure. That's how they're being funded: the money's being taken from the sustainable transport pot to finance them.

    The problem with your priority order (fix surfaces first, then speed control measures) is that we have an enormous amount of roads kilometres in Ireland. I would say an unusually large amount by European standards. This is likely because of our dispersed settlement patterns. This makes the roads maintenance budget very large. I would say if they were to focus on surface treatment before speed control measures, then they would never get around to speed control measures at all.

    And as we know, we have an abnormally high % of motor usage in Ireland, so perhaps the thinking might be "if we could cut down from the abnormally high level of motor usage, we'd need less surface treatment".

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster

    We do not have abnormally high % of motor usage in Ireland. That is a myth. Just look at the EU statistics on this. Ireland is 21st in the number of cars per 1000 people and is also well behind Norway and Switzerland in these figures.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    You may be right, it may be as you say a myth, which I regurgitated.

    However possibly we're looking at the wrong dataset.

    Firstly I think, using the Europa stats, that we might want the mode share stats, here

    We're definitely "mid-table" in this, and ahead of a lot of countries. These stats say we're notably better than Portugal, Netherlands, UK, Germany, France and Luxembourg. However, I then wonder if the lack of bicycle/pedestrian stats is messing up the figures perhaps? For instance Netherlands has approx. 20% or so of bicycle mode share, and this isn't reflected in the Europa statistics.

    I'm absolutely willing to accept that what I said may be a myth, but unfortunately I'm no closer to the numerical evidence on this one!

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Perhaps this document would be beneficial:

    6th Transport Research Arena April 18-21, 2016

    Mobility data across the EU 28 member states: results from an extensive CAWI survey

    Carried out in 2014.

    I'll send you a direct link if you like. (if you care!).

    Shows us to be ~5th highest car mode share in Europe behind Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Cyprus for "daily mobility". They also studied 300-1000km and 1000km+ journeys, but they don't have the data visible. Presumably because these journeys aren't really of interest in smaller countries like Malta, Cyprus, Ireland.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Also, I just realised that we're at double cross-purposes: I said we have a high number of roads km's in Ireland, you replied that we don't have abnormally high motor usage %, I effectively replied that a large % of people use car for daily purposes.

    We need to go back to my original hypothesis: we have a lot of paved road kilometres for a country of our size. I have read this many times in the past and took it for granted, but would be happy to stand corrected.

    Best I can see is the below, putting us at around the G7 average, and 26th highest of 130 or so countries:

    This would mean my original comment is incorrect: "we have a lot of road to surface"

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭iColdFusion

    Is there an accepted and enforced Irish design standard for speed bumps?

    They seem to vary wildly in their height, width, approach angle, departure angle, etc from area to area, some of them are like mini mountains you have to stop and crawl over even in a normal car, surely they are supposed to just keep people within the designated speed limit not massively below it?

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    I haven't seen design documentation but I'd be willing to bet that something does exist, probably published by TII or NTA.

    There are definitely a few different designs, because some are designed to only slow the traffic but others are designed to allow pedestrians to cross on the raised surface, some are designed for pedestrians and cyclists (toucan), some are known as speed cushions etc.

    Many bumps tend to get worn down quite fast by traffic, so the newer ones typically feel "higher" or "more severe" in my experience and then get less severe over time. Some (even just a few years old) will be worn down to the point where they're not even noticeable as bumps. That might be another reason you're noticing a big difference.

    Regarding "massively below the limit", I have two further thoughts/guesses:

    A general one, it's now known that most motorists break the speed limit on urban roads, so they're possibly trying to do something (anything) to bring down the speed in an area.

    People tend to accelerate to speed between the bumps, so where a reduced quantity of bumps is possible, they may perhaps make the few that exist more severe.

    Where a route is a known rat-run, they may be trying to discourage traffic, rather than just slow it down, making the speed bumps more severe in an effort to do so. Perhaps some kind of filtered permeability design would be better, but a lot of people cry blue murder about filtered permeability unfortunately. Driving an extra few seconds can be unacceptable to a reasonably vocal minority.

    Bumps are disliked by most people but it's kind of a "what else can we do about it" thing, because there's little to no enforcement any more.

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,399 ✭✭✭Furze99

    I'd love to know that too - seem very variable in width, height, steepness, even materials used. I can understand their use in housing estates and rat runs maybe but it's a bit perplexing to see speed bumps deployed on main roads. If you or I as a common citizen dug a trench or put some other hazard on a road, we'd be hauled over the coals by the local authority.

    What further perplexes me are speed bumps in rural towns & villages on through roads and that are poorly lit / signposted. There's a few I know as a local and you'd remember to slow down at night. But some people just passing through must see them at the last second. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this type of lazy installation is a contributory factor in accidents.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Something worth considering is the fact that the local authority has concluded that the measured speed on the main road should be lower , but people are not by-default driving "slowly enough" on those roads.

    Perhaps some of those roads are currently too wide, straight and basically too forgiving of speed, such that people don't automatically drive "slowly enough".

    For instance, I know of a road with 50kmh posted speed and three schools on it. People dropping their kids to school often do well in excess of 70kmh according to the big flashing LED display. The road is wide and straight and has a hard shoulder nearly as wide as the traffic lane. People have no visual cues that their speed could be problematic, until that LED display.

    A recent approach by Cock Co. Co. has been to narrow the road lanes, remove hard shoulders and plant trees alongside roads in built-up areas, with the idea of giving more "visual cues". Many "main roads" are kind of multi-purpose, with all sorts of development happening on them. There probably needs to be better planning of entrances/exits, road widths and designs and pedestrian/cycle routes in the urban areas.

    Some people are always going to speed, but providing them the opportunity via wide straight roads is a small part of the problem.

    Many people just accelerate between speed bumps if the road is wide and straight. I've seen it myself when cycling, a large number of people "leapfrog" me only to jam on the brakes at the next speed bump. The bumps themselves are only a small piece of the required solution, is what I'm saying.

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,399 ✭✭✭Furze99

    Maybe but I'm talking about speed ramps on roads with 50kph designation, that if you drove over at that speed, you could lose control of the vehicle and/or damage it. Hit this in the dark at that speed or a bit higher. I have little doubt that there will be a serious accident with some of these ramps, not in well lit cities but on dark approaches to rural villages. And the local authorities should be take to the cleaners in the courts in that, as they are introducing a hazard which is not in line with the design speed and which in many cases are poorly signposted and often not lit.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Well I think that's the thing, they need to be either well lit or well signed.

    We are always expected to "drive at speed appropriate to the conditions" and be able to stop for any hazard etc but if it's a plain "road-coloured" bump in the dark it's very hard to see. I haven't personally seen any of those, thankfully: all the ones near me seem to have fairly visible markings on them. Which makes sense: you WANT people to see the bump and slow down, surely that's the purpose!

    Do you have any examples for us to mull over, by any chance?