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

Traffic light buttons

  • 18-01-2025 02:13AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 471 ✭✭


    I seem to recall back in the 90s and early 2000s that the pedestrian crossing buttons were of the same kind as seen in the UK today, a picture of which is attached.

    I notice nowadays that nearly all of them are Prisma Teknik or the Australian type, and that none of the UK buttons remain anywhere except in the north. Were they actually as widespread as I remember, and if so what was the reasoning behind their replacement when the UK still operate them without issues?

    Post edited by Sam Russell on


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭scrabtom


    They were such satisfying buttons to press



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,726 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    Ive said this before in other threads. We have a habit in Ireland when it comes to any kind of infrastructure, to "future proof" whatever we get, and so it often is over engineered and guess what, more expensive.

    There is also a tendency of doing something (anything) different from what the Brits do.

    Post edited by LambshankRedemption on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    There’s still one of the old British types on a crossing on the Kylemore Road in Ballyfermot, just north of the Kylemore Avenue junction. It was never replaced.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭oneweb


    They were indeed installed absolutely everywhere here.

    Purely from a practical point of view, the bigger buttons are far superior for anyone with dexterity issues, missing digits and temporary disability (cast / bandage / heavy gloves / holding a baby etc.). I was pleasantly surprised to see the units retrofitted with touch-free sensors, although by the time they sense a hand, you might as well have touched them.

    Just because "the UK still operate them", doesn't mean they're still fit for purpose for plenty of people who need better. I'd imagine they just don't want to spend the money to replace them. Just look at roads - the UK still operates a huge number of pothole-ridden roads which aren't suitable for plenty of cars!

    It is what it's.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,157 ✭✭✭✭thesandeman


    There's still the odd one around.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Ciaran


    The new ones were good for using your elbow on during Covid too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    I've seen some photos of some in New Zealand where they've retrofitted some with a steel bar to stop people kicking the buttons!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,273 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    We have a long history of doing things half-arsed and then having to upgrade them just a few years later. e.g. M50, those diddy little 30m trams on the Red Line… usually at far greater expense than if it was done right the first time.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    On the contrary, both of those are actually examples of projects where they planned ahead, where the design made provision for those future upgrades!

    The Red Line was built from the start with 40m platforms, making it very cheap and easy to extend the 30m trams to 40m. It really wasn't much of an extra expense.

    The M50 was also originally designed from the start with the extra space and width to be easily widened after opening.

    Most of our intercity motorways were built to a design far in excess of the demand levels they see. Not that this is a bad thing, we certainly benefit from it in the long term.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,273 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The M50 was also originally designed from the start with the extra space and width to be easily widened after opening.

    Really? Because many of the junction designs are very compromised since the upgrade, so if there was provision made, it was not sufficient. The widening project also cost a fortune.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes, space was left in the original design for extra lanes, otherwise it would have cost billions more. However the original provisions didn’t foresee us going for full freeflow junctions as we ended up doing, they just foresaw extra lanes, not necessary the big upgrades to the junctions or at least not to that extent. But the width for the extra lanes was all there along the route, overpasses had the necessary width, etc.



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 4,615 Mod ✭✭✭✭TherapyBoy


    Wasn’t there issues with the lane widths when they expanded it from 2 lanes to 3? The speed limits were restricted to max 100kph because they couldn’t have the lanes wide enough for 120kph if I’m remembering correctly.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    This is sort of a myth.

    Yes, the M50 lanes are 0.25m narrower then the rest of the motorway network, however that is still a width used for 120km/h or faster motorways across mainland Europe.

    The decision to reduce the sped limit was more made on various factors around safety and traffic flow of an urban motorway. It played a part, but definitely not the most important ones. Short sightlines/bends, many frequent junctions, etc. made it less suitable for 120km/h.

    Of course they are taking that even further now with dynamic speed limits.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,831 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The lightbulbs inside them would fail and require constant replacement maintenance. The newer type have the crossing direction indicator for visually impaired people also.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,612 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    the newer type seem prone to letting in water. There are several pedestrian crossings near me that start cycling through the phases by themselves whevever it rains.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭highdef


    Dynamic speed limits could be used to allow 120 km/h limits outside of busy periods on the M50. I sometimes travel on the M50 in the early hours of the morning and it's annoying that I'm not permitted to travel at more regular 100 km/h, like on all the other motorways, even though traffic is extremely light…….although you still get gobshites hogging lane 2, even then, thereby blocking nearly 70% of the available lanes. And no, I won't overtake on the inside!

    Back on topic, the old UK traffic light push button units were regularly vandalised in some places so I guess the councils went with a more vandal proof solutions and standarised with that.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    It isn't worth it, travelling the full length of the M50 there is only a 3 minute difference at 120km/h versus 100km/h

    And most people don't travel the full length, so most people are loosing maybe 1 minute. Compared to the traffic you will hit off the M50 it is meaningless.

    And accidents are more likely to happen at 120km/h then 100km/h, all it takes is one accident to cause major delays on the M50 and you lose the time saved.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭highdef


    It's grand and well saying it's "only 3 minutes" longer to drive the full length of the M50 at 100 km/h versus 120 km/h when that's just a single instance. If you spread that out through the year for a person that travels the full length during quiet periods, 5 return journey days over 48 weeks (52 - 4 weeks for annual leave, as an example), that equates to a full day (24 hours) of a persons life. Even your suggestion that most people would lose about 1 minute as they are likely to use only a section of the M50, that still equates to 8 hours extra used up in a persons life annually.

    Also, on a quiet motorway at night time with very little traffic, are you saying that I'm more likely to be involved in an RTA on every other M-road (with a 120 km/h speed limit) apart from the M50? Night time RTA's on motorways are very very infrequent. I checked some data from the RSA and it would suggest that collisions on roads with a 100 km/h limit are FAR more numerous than those with 120 km/h limits. As the vast majority of roads in Ireland with a speed limit of 120 km/h are motorways, it would be reasonable to assume that the figures shown in the table referencing collisions at 120km/h are regarding motorways except for the M50. The data below is for the years 2008 - 2012. The M50 upgrade project was completed in 2010 so it would be part of the dataset referenced here.

    image.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,441 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    M50 is the busiest M-road, by a long way. Simply on that basis, I’d argue that, yes, your chance of being in a collision is higher than on any other motorway. You’re right to point out that this is still a tiny chance compared with the Regional network, but of all the motorways, M50 is the one you’re most likely to have a collision on, simply because it has more cars on it at any given time.

    Speed slightly increases your chance of being in an accident, but it enormously increases your chance of harm if you are. Impact force is proportional to the square of speed: a deceleration from 120 km/h to zero is 40% more severe than one from 100 km/h. Speed doesn’t really crash, but it does kill.

    Incidentally, there are parts of M50 that have never permitted 120 km/h: The 8km Southern Cross (J11-13) route opened with a 60 mph limit (updated to 100 km/h in 2005) due to poorer route geometry - there is no way this will be increased to 120 at any time.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    That is a silly comparison, you are comparing mostly national roads to a motorway!

    And yes, collisions on the M50 are more likely, because it is far busier then any other motorway, it has more lanes, more traffic, far more junctions relatively close to one another, much greater bends and tighter sightlines, far more cars entering and exiting and changing lanes.

    It is an urban motorway and very different to the quieter rural motorways down the country!

    Anyway, it isn't really about safety, it is about keeping traffic moving across the whole of Dublin. Any time there is a crash on the M50 it causes not only chaos on the M50, but across the whole of Dublin City. So it is in every ones best interest to keep the number of crashes down.

    This isn't unique to Ireland, this is true of urban motorways all across Europe.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭highdef


    The argument I am making is that with variable speed limits now in place on the M50, sections of the motorway with very light traffic flowing (like overnight periods, for example) could very easily and safely be permitted to drive at 120 km/h. For drivers travelling on the the M50 when traffic is light, there is no requirement to restrict them to 100 km/h, when 120 km/h is perfectly OK…..to be honest, a large percentage of drivers drive far in excess of 120 km/h on the M50 during the overnight period, never mind in excess of 100 km/h…..but that's a different story!



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Light traffic flows doesn't change elements like tight sight lines, multiple junctions in relatively short distance, etc.

    As for enforcement, easy, average speed cameras should be installed along the length of the M50.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭highdef


    Junction 3 to junction 9 consists of straight stretches with minor curves, plus no junctions close to each other. It's absolutely suitable for a 120 km/h limit when traffic is light.

    As for the average speed cameras, I'm completely in agreement with you on that but I'd go further and roll them out in many other places. N roads, R roads and even well used L roads that are known for speeding drivers. If the current speed limits were beint rigorously enforced, there'd unlikely be a call for speed limit reductions. The issue of high speed incidents occurring will continue, no matter what the numbers are shown on speed limit signs. Rigorous enforcement of current laws is what's lacking.

    Apologies for digressing.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Between junction 3 and 9 you have 4 of the busiest junctions in the country in a stretch of just 17 km!

    That is radically different to anything you experience out on the rest of the motorway network. Far more complex and stressful.

    It takes 10 min 12 sec to cover that 17km at 100km/h, while it takes 8 min 30 seconds at 120km/h. A whopping 1min 42 sec saving! This is a complete nothing burger.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,283 ✭✭✭kirving


    That logic might work on an individual basis, but you have to remember that that the overall road capacity will fall if you increase the speed limit too much.

    Human reaction time is standard, and braking distance is some exponent of speed, so the road ends up having a lower capacity overall, despite individual journey times being quicker.

    Your delay would just move from driving slower on the road, to waiting on sliproads as people try to safely join the road in front of you.

    image.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭highdef


    @kirving & @bk , you're both missing my point. My comments about having a 120 km/h limit on suitable sections of the M50 are only in relation to when the road is quiet/with low amounts of traffic. I've made that clear. Please don't keep going on about complex and stressful situations that would apply when traffic volumes are not low.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,441 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    The point they are making is that there are no suitable sections of M50, not anymore. Traffic on this road is such that when the road is “quiet” is is still carrying a lot of traffic, just spread across several lanes. If you increase the running speed, you increase the effects of accidents at the slip roads.

    For a tiny saving in notional journey times, over three hours at night, it’s just not worth doing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,612 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    WTF has this got to do with traffic lights?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: I think this subject is fully explored. Now we are onto speed limits on motorways where no pedestrians should ever set foot.

    So thread will be closed.



  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement