pwurple wrote: » Have any of you even so much as a safe pass? If there is a small fire, and you can put it out, do so. If that's not possible, don't. Am I speaking Swahili here?
Emely Refined Toothache wrote: » I wonder what her renewal will be next year?...multi million euro claim against her I know it will be a battle with the manufacturer in the end
wavert wrote: » I don't know much about lifting cars but I'm not sure is this what alloys were designed for! They should be using a proper car lifting hoist.
TheDriver wrote: » I've been looking at video of car on fire and brigade after photos and I'm shocked at the cars who obviously drove out past it. Imagine if the car blew whilst passing, youd be killed stone dead. I'd prob feel the need to boot out of there but in hindsight, it is very dangerous. A number people obviously thought it a good risk.
rom wrote: » Have you had any claims in the last 3 years .... yeah... how much ... Would make a great wind up call to ring the insurance companies.
TheChizler wrote: » Typically cars don't explode from being on fire, eventually their tank might rupture and cause a fireball but no explosion so to speak. Tyres do explode which is what witnesses were hearing.
my3cents wrote: » The weight isn't the issue, unless they are using rubber hooks I can't see how they can't scuff up the face of the alloy. That said its still not a bad way of moving the cars.
Chris_5339762 wrote: » The delays on the N40 purely from onlookers are really beginning to irritate me now. Backed up to the Ringaskiddy junction this morning at 8am. 630pm tonight backed up to the tunnel. No blockages or lane restrictions, I was coming the other direction and it is blatant rubbernecking and people nearly stopping for a look.
whisky_galore wrote: » This will work with your cute little course putting out a fire in a small tray in the yard, but you seem to know more than the RSA... "...for safety reasons, should smoke break out in a vehicle, the RSA would recommend that you shouldnt drive into a multi storey car park to look for help in putting it out when the fire starts "
pwurple wrote: » Have any of you even so much as a safe pass? To requote the for dummies version.. If there is a small fire, and you can put it out, do so. If that's not possible, don't. Am I speaking Swahili here?
mean gene wrote: » i travel this way couple of times daily and people just drive a tad slower to look over thats all no stopping stop moaning
mordeith wrote: » Are you serious? Traffic was literally stopped at the Rochestown exit this morning to accommodate people driving a 'a tad slower' to look at what? 'Wow, a crane!' ...idiots
Gru wrote: » These people are idiots. Its bad enough that people seem to think its ok to slow at this part of the road at the best of times, let alone when theres something so mundane going on. They can and do cause accidents and huge unnecessary delays for hundreds of people. What's needed is for a wall/barrier to be erected along that road that blocks views of douglas. Only way to stop these morons.
TheBoyConor wrote: » That road should never have been built where it was. If it was nowadays it wouldn't have a hope in hell of being built slap bang right through the middle of douglas, bisecting the village in two.
TheBoyConor wrote: » I wonder was there much opposition to it at the time? Is there any record of the history of the road?
TheBoyConor wrote: » That road should never have been built where it was. If it was nowadays it wouldn't have a hope in hell of being built slap bang right through the middle of douglas, bisecting the village in two. the south ring was of course warranted, but to bulldoze an elevated dual carriageway right through a village was the height of ignorance. But it was different times - back in the 80s there wasn't really a whole lot of appreciation of the bisecting effect roads have on communities, and the negative effects of noise, dust and fumes. In hind sight, it should have been tunnelled starting around Bloomfield, underneath Douglas to re-emerge west of St. Patrick's mills. This would have preserved most of the waterfront at Rochestown looking out onto the Douglas River inlet off of Lough Mahon. But unfortunately this was not considered at the time and what would have been a fantastic amenity was oblitterated by the N40 along with a not insubstantial part of Douglas. And LS, if that road was built as you suggest with hard shoulders, it would have erased even more of the village.
airy fairy wrote: » We're fooked altogether when they start demolition. Imagine the rubbernecking then.
Chris_5339762 wrote: » Whats worse about the Douglas flyover is that it will become an atrocious bottleneck once the M28 and Dunkettle are done. It needs to be 3 lanes now, but when those two projects are done, it'll basically be 6 lanes into 2. That'll be jammed all day.
lawrencesummers wrote: » That road never bisected any of the village, there is a school on one side and the old car park was on the other As for the hard shoulder It would take more space, sure but not having a hard shoulder on that stretch is a hazard, the ambulances based at the Kinsale Road roundabout are regularly delayed on that stretch in rush hour traffic and there have been a number of accidents on that stretch that bring the entire south ring to a dangerous standstill. As for your Tunnell idea, wishful thinking / pie in the sky. This is the same place that many didn’t think the actual tunnell wasnt needed at the time.