Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Galway traffic

12467…253

Comments

  • #92
    flazio
    Registered Users Posts: 12,779 ✭✭✭✭flazio


    Well, let's go back to the council election promises the councillors made, book into their "clinics" and demand answers on where they are on their promises. Keep writing to mainstream media, the like of Galway Bay FM, Tribune, Advertiser, not the Facebook trigger quacks. It's frustrating but protests and signs can be ignored, one to one conversations cannot.
    We had our say in the council elections now lets use it.


  • #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    let the citizens vote on it.

    If that happened back in the day, Shop st would never have been pedestrianised

    Sometimes people need to have the decisions made for them otherwise they will vote for Brexit


  • #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    There would have been war on the streets over Mutton Island.


  • #95
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    DaCor wrote: »
    If that happened back in the day, Shop st would never have been pedestrianised

    Sometimes people need to have the decisions made for them otherwise they will vote for Brexit

    Brexit happened because of an illegal campaign and lack of true public awareness of the implications of a leave vote.
    Here, referenda are held after consultation and public awareness campaigns.
    Let us have a panel from all spectrum across the city( shop owners, business owners, factory managers, schools, public and private transport, householders and commuters) and professional traffic and city planners from outside city control. Meetings for six months to evaluate the problems and a further six to twelve to draw up plans for our city.
    Put it to a vote. Start work.


  • #96
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,650 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    I'd be in favour of a plebiscite to reallocate the funds for a bypass that may never get built.

    What funds?

    All that's allocated for so far is design work.

    How the Cork-Limerick motorway looking these days? What's the cost-benefit of it vs the Parkmore / Knocknacarra expressway?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,274 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    phelant wrote: »
    Yeah sure its called actually caring about cyclists and being concerned for their safety when they themselves cannot follow even the most simple of rules. It gets very tiresome. And check the stats all you want, its not in there.
    If you 'actually care' about any road users, your priority would be get drivers to stop killing people. Drivers are involved in 99% of road deaths. Cyclists are involved in 5%. The majority of road deaths are drivers killing other drivers and passengers. So without even looking at blame or responsibility, it's easy to see where the root cause lies. If you 'actually care' about reducing death and injury on the roads, get drivers to slow down and put their phones down.



    It's hard to take preaching about 'being able to follow rules' too seriously from the group of road users where 98% break speed limits, the majority use their mobile phones at the wheel, 2nd highest levels of checking social media while driving in Europe etc etc.


    phelant wrote: »
    Oh and I must be in the 2% - Woohoo!
    Wow, that's just amazing. I mean, how likely is that, when you really think about it?


  • #98
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,274 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    Let us have a panel from all spectrum across the city( shop owners, business owners, factory managers, schools, public and private transport, householders and commuters) and professional traffic and city planners from outside city control. Meetings for six months to evaluate the problems and a further six to twelve to draw up plans for our city.
    Put it to a vote. Start work.
    Doesn't that describe the local election process that's just happened?


    Honestly, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest public voting on every public decision. Would you put your own personal medical treatment to a public vote, or would you rely on expert opinion?


  • #99
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    What funds?

    All that's allocated for so far is design work.

    How the Cork-Limerick motorway looking these days? What's the cost-benefit of it vs the Parkmore / Knocknacarra expressway?

    So, you're saying that they've spent a decade+ designing and redesigning a by-pass( ring road) there's no money for?

    I have no idea of the cost-benefit of one over the other is. Like I said... gather a forum, include unbiased professional planners in it. Formulate a plan or several plans and put it to a public vote.


  • #100
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,094 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Votes and referendums are a tricky game in the modern world, I certainly wouldn't be putting issues such as traffic congestion to a vote. Save that for constitutional and social issues.

    Cyclists and cars and cyclists and cars etc, is there not somewhere else ye can get offended and annoyed at eachother about this? From what I can see it's next to no effect on the traffic issues here, so spare us!


  • #101
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,094 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    So, you're saying that they've spent a decade+ designing and redesigning a by-pass( ring road) there's no money for?

    Of course, I'd recommend learning about how these projects work. Why 'allocate' (set aside for years more like?) funding for a project that's not even got past planning?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Doesn't that describe the local election process that's just happened?


    Honestly, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest public voting on every public decision. Would you put your own personal medical treatment to a public vote, or would you rely on expert opinion?

    In the same way that another general election in the UK will not solve the Brexit crisis, no amount of local elections will solve the problems the city faces. Like I said earlier, there seems to be no will at local government level to sort the traffic issues.

    Like I also said earlier, a forum of local interested groups from across the city in conjunction with UNBIASED PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS to investigate and plan a solution.

    No, I don't agree on voting on every single public decision. But this has dragged on for decades and there's no end in sight.

    If you've a better idea, let's hear it.
    Or are you happy to let the people currently at the helm in this city to carry on as they have been?


  • #103
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    Brexit happened because of an illegal campaign and lack of true public awareness of the implications of a leave vote.
    Here, referenda are held after consultation and public awareness campaigns.
    Let us have a panel from all spectrum across the city( shop owners, business owners, factory managers, schools, public and private transport, householders and commuters) and professional traffic and city planners from outside city control. Meetings for six months to evaluate the problems and a further six to twelve to draw up plans for our city.
    Put it to a vote. Start work.

    While admirable and well intentioned, it won't happen and if it did it wouldn't work due to:

    - the shop owners who mistakenly believe their customers need access to the front door

    - schools who have such a backward way of thinking of transport options that many are building mini roads and rab's to facilitate dropping off closer to the door

    - transport operators who literally operate based on the concept of "squeeze in there somewhere cos there's no other space for you" (roads) and as such have f all power to change anything

    - households who think its a right to be able to park outside their door but want fast and efficient public transport without it taking up any road space from the cars

    - commuters (drivers) who want more roads, no traffic lights, no rab's, no pedestrian crossings, free parking, cos road tax

    - commuters (bus) who want more road space for bus lanes, higher frequency, greater coverage

    - commuters (cyclists) who want to be able to travel safely without choking on fumes, getting run over or abused all without interaction with other modes.

    - commuters (pedestrians) who want to be able to cross safely without having to wait several minutes before the lights change, not choke on fumes, not get run over by any other mode of transport

    Sounds easy to get all of those to agree


  • #104
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    DaCor wrote: »
    While admirable and well intentioned, it won't happen and if it did it wouldn't work due to:

    - the shop owners who mistakenly believe their customers need access to the front door

    - schools who have such a backward way of thinking of transport options that many are building mini roads and rab's to facilitate dropping off closer to the door

    - transport operators who literally operate based on the concept of "squeeze in there somewhere cos there's no other space for you" (roads) and as such have f all power to change anything

    - households who think its a right to be able to park outside their door but want fast and efficient public transport without it taking up any road space from the cars

    - commuters (drivers) who want more roads, no traffic lights, no rab's, no pedestrian crossings, free parking, cos road tax

    - commuters (bus) who want more road space for bus lanes, higher frequency, greater coverage

    - commuters (cyclists) who want to be able to travel safely without choking on fumes, getting run over or abused all without interaction with other modes.

    - commuters (pedestrians) who want to be able to cross safely without having to wait several minutes before the lights change, not choke on fumes, not get run over by any other mode of transport

    Sounds easy to get all of those to agree

    Of course it's not, for all the reasons you've outlined. But nobody in those groups can be happy with the city as it is.
    But it's only when you put these disparate groups in a room together, that debate, understanding and concessions can happen.

    Maybe this idea is pie in the sky thinking, but we're going nowhere ( literally at times) now


  • #105
    phelant
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phelant


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    If you 'actually care' about any road users, your priority would be get drivers to stop killing people. Drivers are involved in 99% of road deaths. Cyclists are involved in 5%. The majority of road deaths are drivers killing other drivers and passengers. So without even looking at blame or responsibility, it's easy to see where the root cause lies. If you 'actually care' about reducing death and injury on the roads, get drivers to slow down and put their phones down. It's hard to take preaching about 'being able to follow rules' too seriously from the group of road users where 98% break speed limits, the majority use their mobile phones at the wheel, 2nd highest levels of checking social media while driving in Europe etc etc.

    Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here with your assumptions and inverted commas. I (an individual) care enough to drive according to the ROTH and use common sense while maintaining vigilance for other road users. That's at a minimum. What I do beyond that (and I have for the record) is my business.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Wow, that's just amazing. I mean, how likely is that, when you really think about it?

    Not impossible when you have a Sat Nav (that warns you when you are changing to a lower speed zone), eyes (to observe signage) and a brain that allows you to err on the side of caution and drive according to conditions and environment. I am also smart enough to realise that if I collide with and kill someone (cyclist, pedestrian, other motorist etc etc) and the fault lies with me, I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I think some don't get that or maybe don't care but I have no intention of putting myself in that situation if at all possible.

    But why give any credit to individuals who at least make the effort when you can just pour scorn and generalise.


  • #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    phelant wrote: »
    But why give any credit to individuals who at least make the effort when you can just pour scorn and generalise.

    Pot kettle and all that


  • #107
    phelant
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phelant


    DaCor wrote: »
    Pot kettle and all that

    Where?


  • #108
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Very easy to endanger a pedestrian though.

    As the number of cyclists in the road has increased, crossing in apparently stationary traffic has got more fraught.

    What's that got to do with your question about if cyclists are required to undertake cars at 1.5m?


  • #109
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,274 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    JCX BXC wrote: »
    Votes and referendums are a tricky game in the modern world, I certainly wouldn't be putting issues such as traffic congestion to a vote. Save that for constitutional and social issues.
    Fully agree.
    JCX BXC wrote: »
    Cyclists and cars and cyclists and cars etc, is there not somewhere else ye can get offended and annoyed at eachother about this? From what I can see it's next to no effect on the traffic issues here, so spare us!
    It really does matter. One of the biggest opportunities not currently addressed is the opportunity to shift people out of cars onto bikes. The development of eBikes is making longer journeys more achievable. eBikes are great for older people and some people with disabilities who need some extra oopmh. Each bike takes far less space on the road, creates little or no toxic emissions and improves public health significantly.



    Small minded people don't see that the more you can encourage cycling, the more space you'll have left on the roads for the remaining drivers. Also this 'cyclists are the menace' nonsense, apart from being just factually untrue, is a deterrent to getting more people cycling. It enables those who go even further with threats of violence and bullying.


    So yeah, it HAS a very significant impact on traffic policy.
    phelant wrote: »
    Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here with your assumptions and inverted commas. I (an individual) care enough to drive according to the ROTH and use common sense while maintaining vigilance for other road users. That's at a minimum. What I do beyond that (and I have for the record) is my business.
    Isn't it funny though, how when it comes to talking about cyclists, it is 'cyclists' as a generic and all-emcompassing group. But when it comes to driving, it's all about you, and like every other poster, you're a safe driver.



    This might be a good time for you to rethink your 'mental assault' comment.






    phelant wrote: »

    Not impossible when you have a Sat Nav (that warns you when you are changing to a lower speed zone), eyes (to observe signage) and a brain that allows you to err on the side of caution and drive according to conditions and environment. I am also smart enough to realise that if I collide with and kill someone (cyclist, pedestrian, other motorist etc etc) and the fault lies with me, I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I think some don't get that or maybe don't care but I have no intention of putting myself in that situation if at all possible.
    You're right. It's not impossible, but it is fairly unlikely. It is 98% unlikely that are one of the minority of drivers who doesn't break speed limits. That's not a personal attack on you. It's just a statement of fact, based on the numbers.
    phelant wrote: »
    But why give any credit to individuals who at least make the effort when you can just pour scorn and generalise.
    Coming from the person who was claiming 'mental assault' by cyclists, it's hard to take this too seriously.


  • #110
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,274 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Very easy to endanger a pedestrian though.

    As the number of cyclists in the road has increased, crossing in apparently stationary traffic has got more fraught.
    Fraught? You just have to remember that in stationary traffic, you may well have cyclists cycling perfectly legally filtering through traffic. You just have to look before crossing - hardly 'fraught'.


  • #111
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,650 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Fraught? You just have to remember that in stationary traffic, you may well have cyclists cycling perfectly legally filtering through traffic. You just have to look before crossing - hardly 'fraught'.

    Nope, you have to look individually for every line of vehicles: crossing a 4 lane road that means four individual stop-and-checks.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,274 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Nope, you have to look individually for every line of vehicles: crossing a 4 lane road that means four individual stop-and-checks.
    Generally, looking at what's happening while crossing the road, any road, is a good idea. It's not really anything to do with cyclists, and cyclists are not the major danger on the road, as any review of KSI data will confirm.


    Looking where you're going isn't exactly 'fraught'.


  • #113
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,094 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    What 4 lane road is ever stationary enough to justify crossing in Galway? Do these roads not all have bike lanes? If you do decide to cross them, it wouldn't be bikes that's the issue.


  • #114
    zell12
    Registered Users Posts: 23,277 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    JCX BXC wrote: »
    What 4 lane road is ever stationary enough to justify crossing in Galway?
    Do these roads not all have bike lanes? If you do decide to cross them, it wouldn't be bikes that's the issue.
    Sean Mulvoy Road is frequently blocked by vehicles. No crossings on that 600m stretch


  • #115
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,650 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    JCX BXC wrote: »
    What 4 lane road is ever stationary enough to justify crossing in Galway? Do these roads not all have bike lanes? If you do decide to cross them, it wouldn't be bikes that's the issue.

    Most roads do not have bike lanes, as you'd know if you had a clue about the city. Even if they did cyclists aren't required to stick to them.

    Most roads have some periods when is perfectly safe to cross because traffic isn't moving. But now you have to cross in front of each car and check for undertaking cyclists in the gap between the car and the footpath.


  • #116
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,094 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Most roads do not have bike lanes, as you'd know if you had a clue about the city. Even if they did cyclists aren't required to stick to them.

    Most roads have some periods when is perfectly safe to cross because traffic isn't moving. But now you have to cross in front of each car and check for undertaking cyclists in the gap between the car and the footpath.

    Alright MrsO'Happy,

    While I missed the Sean mulvoy road, I can't think of any other 4 lane road without a bike lane until the N6 at Ballybrit (and if you run across that road, you do need help)

    Try crossing the quincentenary bridge at any time during daylight hours, it's almost guarenteed not to happen.

    I've also never seen cyclists not on the cycle lane on these stretches.


  • #117
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,491 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Most roads do not have bike lanes, as you'd know if you had a clue about the city. Even if they did cyclists aren't required to stick to them.

    Most roads have some periods when is perfectly safe to cross because traffic isn't moving. But now you have to cross in front of each car and check for undertaking cyclists in the gap between the car and the footpath.

    No..

    You're overcomplicating crossing the road.

    1 - look for a safe place with good visibility in both directions.

    2 - look right and make sure there is no traffic (bikes, cars, trucks etc..) coming towards you.

    3 - look left and make sure there is no traffic (bikes, cars, trucks etc..) coming towards you.

    Cross the road.


  • #118
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,274 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    But now you have to cross in front of each car and check for undertaking cyclists in the gap between the car and the footpath.
    When did you NOT have to check for cyclists filtering through the gap between the car and the footpath?


  • #119
    roytheboyo
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭roytheboyo


    Would there be any chance that people here could please come up with constructive suggestions and others respectfully analyse these suggestions rather than the same few point scoring over and back, it's depressing.
    This is why we are where we are, it's not about being right or wrong.
    I don't think it helps referring to x or y road either, the whole city is ×ucked, and solutions are urgently needed.


  • #120
    ben.schlomo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,961 ✭✭✭✭ben.schlomo


    roytheboyo wrote: »
    Would there be any chance that people here could please come up with constructive suggestions and others respectfully analyse these suggestions rather than the same few point scoring over and back, it's depressing.
    This is why we are where we are, it's not about being right or wrong.
    I don't think it helps referring to x or y road either, the whole city is ×ucked, and solutions are urgently needed.
    Lots of constructive suggestions have been made here in the past, before the mods closed previous threads. Stuff such as increased bus lanes, cycle lanes, further pedestrianisation or closing of some city centre streets to cars etc etc.

    When people come on making up nonsense stories of their 'experience' and being called out on it that's when it goes the **** show route.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    phelant
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phelant


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »

    Isn't it funny though, how when it comes to talking about cyclists, it is 'cyclists' as a generic and all-emcompassing group. But when it comes to driving, it's all about you, and like every other poster, you're a safe driver.

    This might be a good time for you to rethink your 'mental assault' comment.

    You're right. It's not impossible, but it is fairly unlikely. It is 98% unlikely that are one of the minority of drivers who doesn't break speed limits. That's not a personal attack on you. It's just a statement of fact, based on the numbers.


    Coming from the person who was claiming 'mental assault' by cyclists, it's hard to take this too seriously.

    How is saying some cyclists all encompassing? And when it appears that I care more about some cyclist's safety than they do themselves then I will stick by my opinion. As far as being unlikely to follow speed limits I disagree. I do and have the routine tailgating/lights flashing 'drive on' brigade to contend with on a regular basis (not to mention dangerous overtaking). Unlikely does not mean impossible.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement