A wonderful illustration showing how much public space we’ve handed over to cars

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120970714#Comment_120970714

I shouldn't have to yield but I do yes.

It sounds like you are using your intuition on the roads which is good. I'm not a stickler for following rules robotically either.

But the part of the rules I quoted is just an elaborate way of saying don't run out into traffic and mind yourself. Calling pedestrians king of the road is beside the point. In an unfair way, because life isn't fair, cars are obviously primary in an almost metaphysical sense.

Phasing cars out of urban areas will not completely enthrone pedestrians either because e-bikes, which can be tweaked to go beyond standard speeds of 15mph or 28mph, will still be zipping about the place (and so will sulky racers😅)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c7D0YsgnrE

07Lapierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120970816#Comment_120970816

"Cars are obviously primary"..there you have it...Thats the problem right there! Other countries put people first. Cars should not have priority. our roads/infrastructure should be designed to reflect this. This tread is about the amount of space we allocate in our cities to cars. the responses in this tread show that irish people are too attached to their cars and they don't want to/ are not prepared to change their ways. in the mean time we continue to put responsibility onto individuals for their own safety on our roads. In short...we're F***ed!

p.s My Headstone will probably read "He was wearing a helmet, yes he was wearing a Hi-Viz vest, yes he was on the correct side of the road, no he was not speeding, BUT the Motorist that killed him...Yes he was speeding, but sure he comes from a good family, has a promising future ahead of him and sure a custodial sentence would only ruin his chances in later life, so we'll just fine him and let him off with a warning"

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120970889#Comment_120970889

I disagree with your characterisation of the thread. OP says cars should have less allocated space and most of the discussion is around public transport alternatives (an automated transport alternative to cars, which most European cities have in spades).

Even if cars are phased out of urban areas, there will still probably be connecting roads between regions of one kind or another. You will still have to exercise discernment and carefulness if you're near them on foot.

You must always exercise judgement for your own safety in every situation anyway. No point getting angry about it, its just how it is. The RSA aren't gaslighting you.

Pawwed Rig

• If there is no footpath, you must walk as near as possible to the righthand side of the road (facing oncoming traffic).

I had a crazy woman screaming at me from her car one day for doing just this as a pedestrian. She claims I should have had lights on 🤣

She actually beeped at me initially and then did a u turn further up the road and came back to start shouting out of her window. I just laughed at her but she shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120970755#Comment_120970755

my gun control point stands. someone on foot generally creates essentially no danger, except to themselves. i can think of a single instance where the actions of a pedestrian led to the death of another person (i'm sure there are more, but the point is it's vanishingly rare). but people often use the vulnerability of pedestrians as a lever to argue an outsized responsibility on their part, and 'we are all responsible for rode safety, regardless of mode of transport' is part of that narrative.

the onus of responsibility lies (or should lie) on the person who is creating the danger, and somewhat appropriate to the level of danger being created. someone weighing 70 or 80kg walking at 5km/h cannot sensibly be compared to someone driving a 1,500kg car at 30, 50 or 80km/h.

Mrs OBumble

I never said anything about equal responsibilities.

But it's simplistic to think that all responsibility lies with vehicle drivers.

The people who have most impact on road safety are the engineers who design roads+footpaths, operatives who build them, cleaners who keepthem fred of debris, and mechanics who service vehicles . They have more responsibility because it's their paid job, and they affect lots of people.

That doesn't mean individual vehicle users don't have any responsibility. They're just different.

And if you aren't aware of cases where pedestrians caused their own or someone else's death, you must be very young, or media adverse.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120972163#Comment_120972163

The people who have most impact on road safety are the engineers who design roads+footpaths, operatives who build them, cleaners who keepthem fred of debris, and mechanics who service vehicles . They have more responsibility because it's their paid job, and they affect lots of people.

...and not the person behind the wheel? What utter nonsense!

Ezeoul

A driver distracted even for a split second by a pedestrian stepping out in front of them could easily cause a major accident. In a split second the driver has to make a choice - swerve to avoid the pedestrian and into the oncoming lane?

Here is one such example of exactly that which resulted in the death of a passenger in an oncoming vehicle.

https://www.chaliklaw.com/news/a-passenger-dies-in-a-head-on-crash-as-a-driver-tries-to-avoid-hit-a-pedestrian/

An interesting question would be on a daily basis, how many such potential accidents are avoided because of driver's reflexes? But no way to measure that number.

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/high-court-pedestrian-fails-to-establish-negligence-of-a-driver-who-knocked-him-down-on-100km-h-road

Here is also a case where a driver (Mr W) was found not to be negligent in a collision with a pedestrian (Mr S) (though luckily, not a fatal one). Basically, the Judge ruled it was the negligence of the pedestrian for his own safety that caused the accident. Here it was the pedestrian's actions that created the danger.

Referring to The Rules of the Road, Mr Justice Keane said that if Mr S had followed the advice in that document, the accident described could not have occurred. Consequently, Mr Justice Keane found the proximate cause of the accident to be the negligence of Mr S.

Mr Justice Keane was also satisfied from the evidence that Mr W was driving within the speed limit, with his daylight running lights on, and without any evident defects in his vehicle. Mr Justice Keane said that “[i]n crossing the road as he did, Mr S presented Mr W with an emergency. In both applying his brakes and swerving in attempting to avoid colliding with Mr S, I am satisfied that Mr W responded reasonably. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that he was able to bring his vehicle to a halt within five metres of the point of the collision on a portion of a national primary road with a speed limit of 100 km/h”. He added that The Rules of the Road state “the total minimum stopping distance under dry conditions at that speed is 70 metres”.

magicbastarder

it's gas how ingrained the skewed perception of risk and danger is in ireland; however, i guess not just ireland. here's a great contrast of risk assessment as evidenced in the irish courts - it should be pointed out that these two cases were heard on the same day in front of the same judge.

#1 - a man on an e-scooter stopped by gardai, asked for insurance; sounds like he got gobby with them. he picked up a 4 year driving ban and €350 fine. (and he may not actually have been on the scooter, but that's clearly in dispute)

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/uninsured-e-scooter-user-gets-four-year-ban/ar-AA17P8vi

#2 - a man caught driving a car at over 150km/h on the M1; when stopped, he had two open cans on beer on the seat beside him, smelt of alcohol, and was more than double the legal limit. 3 year driving ban and a €750 fine.

https://www.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/drunk-driver-caught-doing-speeds-of-150kph-on-busy-m1-fined-and-banned/1911479800.html

so someone on an e-scooter got a longer driving ban than someone speeding while drunk. and there's not even any evidence that the e-scooterist was creating a danger at the time.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120972270#Comment_120972270

the fact that the case you cited is not an irish one is itself interesting, no? american roads are considerably more dangerous than those in western europe anyway, but it can't be blisteringly common if that was the best example you found. are you aware of any in ireland?

g g murpho

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973884#Comment_120973884

Maybe the escooter bloke was also done for driving without a licence (AM), no number plate, no insurance, tax, NCT, no helmet, and driving erratically, ie, up and down from the footpaths.

I’m not condoning the inconsistency in sentencing btw, just trying to speculate.

He deserved to be punished though and the law needs to crack down on scooters mind.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973912#Comment_120973912

Whatever he was done for, it is ludicrous (but actually not that surprising) that the scooter owner received a longer period off the road than a speeding drunk driver.

Definitely a tremendous shame that we followed the Yank model of car first rather than the European model of reliable public transport.

g g murpho

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973940#Comment_120973940

Absolutely. I agree. An Irish punishment true and true.

I’ll happily see escooters legislsted for and permitted if it reduces car usage and frees up space in bus / luas / train for those that need it. The operator should at a minimum have a learner permit in any category onto which points can be applied for rogue behaviour and a compulsory 3rd party insurance from the state for a nominal €50 or thereabouts.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973912#Comment_120973912

it's not impossible that he was charged with those offences, but the article states he was 'found guilty of driving an e-scooter without insurance at High Street in Balbriggan on September 16, 2021.'; no other charges are mentioned or suggested.

also worth pointing out that this happened during a period where it was well known that the government were working on legislation to regularise the use of e-scooters, which is why convictions had dropped way off. it's really not natural justice to do someone for something that the government is intending to legalise.

g g murpho

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974011#Comment_120974011

Ok. Point taken. 👌

Ridiculous if that’s the case.

No insurance on a 50 kg scooter (whilst presumably sober) vs drunk driving a 3 piece suite. 😬

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973978#Comment_120973978

Going off topic now but escooters have now been legislated for.

g g murpho

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974067#Comment_120974067

….

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973898#Comment_120973898

Oh, the old "but that didn't happen in Ireland!" as if it makes one iota of difference.

It was the first example I found. If you want more examples, you can look for yourself, but it could happen anywhere, especially on a narrow road.

I take it you've no comment on number of potential accidents where the catalyst was a pedestrian, that are avoided due driver reflexes.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973884#Comment_120973884

It does sound harsh.

But first time offenders don't get banned, and given the severity of the ban, I would assume (rightly or wrongly) that e-scooter man probably had previous convictions for motor offences.

Bringing his child who needed hospital appointments into the case as an excuse to plead for leniency, would indicate he knew he was at risk of a ban.

Drunk driver should have been banned for minimum 10 years.

magicbastarder

I take it you've no comment on number of potential accidents where the catalyst was a pedestrian, that are avoided due driver reflexes.

of course i don't. i don't rate it as a point with any substance worth commenting on. drivers are expected to be able to deal with what (by definition, in this case) are manageable situations.

and i'm not saying a knock-on collision did not happen in ireland. but you're the one maintaining it's a phenomenon worth remarking on; the onus is on you to prove your point; that it's significant enough to be relevant - not for me to disprove it. 'it could happen' is a pretty weak argument.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974362#Comment_120974362

Except when it's not a manageable situation, due to the irresponsibility of someone else. Example given in the other case I linked too where the Judge found the pedestrian was at fault. .

You were the one who introduced the subject of "knock-on" deaths to the thread by implying that it doesn't happen. It does happen, and I proved that point when I gave you an example where it happened, and you're being dismissive of it because it didn't happen in Ireland. "It hasn't happened here" doesn't make it irrelevant.

(Though I will be sure to remember that only things that happen in Ireland count the next time someone is dumping links and spouting of stats from the Netherlands, etc).

magicbastarder

Except when it's not a manageable situation

No, you don't get to move the goalposts like that. You explicitly asked for my comment on situations when motorists *were* able to avoid pedestrians. Situations thus by definition were manageable. Because they were managed.

Please point out where I introduced the concept of 'knock on' deaths, like you claim?

Are you referring to me mentioning the concept of a pedestrian being responsible for someone else's death, where I explicitly stated I am aware of at least one example in Ireland?

And why are you mentioning people dumping stats about the Netherlands? Has this happened? Or have you simply spelt Loueze backward and not even managed to do that right?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974667#Comment_120974667

Your post #186

"someone on foot generally creates essentially no danger, except to themselves. I can think of a single instance where the actions of a pedestrian led to the death of another person."

I didn't explicitly "ask for your comments" on accidents that are avoided either. I was making reference to the fact that you ignore what you don't want to address.

And don't play dumb now - you know exactly what I mean when I mention people dumping links and stats from other countries .

I hope your evasive maneuvers are as good when you're driving.

I'd report you for that petty little personal dig and attempt at doxxing, but then, you are a Category Mod for this forum aren't you, so its hardly worth my while, is it?

Maybe I'll report it anyway. Just for the craic.

Emblematic

One thing I'd like to see is taxis removed from bus lanes. When you think about it, they're no more space or energy efficient than cars. With buses moving faster due to not being held up by taxis in bus lanes, there would be less need of taxis to get you there quicker.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974785#Comment_120974785

I still do not understand how me mentioning that I know a case of a pedestrian's actions resulting in the death of another person, led you to believe I was talking about knock on accidents?

For the record, the case I am talking about was the one in the phoenix park where a cyclist died because a pedestrian collided with them. It was not a case of a pedestrian causing a car to swerve leading to a secondary collision like you tried to turn it into.

And a single incident from another country is not a statistic, it's barely above the level of an anecdote. You're welcome to post statistics on the level of secondary collisions from other countries if you can find them. But an 'it happened once in America' report is hardly useful, is it?

You spelt your previous username backwards and came straight back into the arguments that previously exercised you. Did you not want people to know that was you? If so, your choice of your new username is comical.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974827#Comment_120974827

Often been mentioned. It was only in 1997 I think that it was first allowed in Dublin.

As somebody who predominantly walks to work I find that cyclists and scooter users are the least considerate of all commuters. They don't observe things like pedestrian crossings/traffic lights and the majority are cycling full tilt on the footpaths now. There are also a considerable number of idiots with cargo bikes also cycling on footpaths, the bikes take up the whole footpath.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120975000#Comment_120975000

You spelt your previous username backwards and came straight back into the arguments that previously exercised you. Did you not want people to know that was you? If so, your choice of your new username is comical.

I'm not sure why you think someone who claims to have a disability (like Loueze) and therefore needs to drive (like Loueze) and is fairly belligerent in their stance against vulnerable road users (like Loueze) could be Loueze just because their username is Loueze spelt backwards.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120975143#Comment_120975143

I think if the majority of cyclists are cycling full tilt on the pavement you will be able to back that up with some video footage from YouTube or such.