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

M6 - is the Galway Bypass necessary? (thread split)

Options
1…567810

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    I am heartily sick of Nix and his hysterical green muppetry. Only a few months ago he claimed there was an NRA plan to build a "Motorway" out to Spiddal. :(

    http://planbetter.ie/2011/01/06/nra-buys-up-land-to-force-new-government-into-building-ghost-roads/

    In which ...inter alia.....Nix accuses the NRA of buying up land for a Regional Road ( they don't) and in which he constantly equates single lane road and 2+2 road with Motorway ( it ain't) and in which he conflates current and capital spending all the time.

    Very few of the listed roads are proposed as motorways.

    The man is a self confessed front up for misc loolas in an Taisce and that Peter Sweetmans lot. In fact this planbetter thing is Nix, nobody else seems to have anything to do with it even though they allegedly support him. :(

    This is all dreadfully McGuckian :(


  • Options
    #273
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. LOL. :D Good one! Psychic reading, economic analysis, engineer's report and social critique -- all in one.

    2. I didn't make such a suggestion either. I unreservedly withdraw my remark that your nixation with James Fix was a brief one.

    3. Roll on the property tax. I'll have to pay it too by the way. Unless my house falls down first of course.

    4. More LOL. Are you suggesting that the 'dormers', mansions and haciendas dotting the landscape are in the vast majority of cases occupied by rural folk born in the same parish but who now need to drive to Galway City because farming no longer provides sufficient employment? I'm afraid I just don't believe that. In any case, Galway Co Co's own plan (whatever about its practices) regards such development as sporadic, uncoordinated and unsustainable. I don't see this happening elsewhere to the same extent. For example, in Northern Ireland, where the agricultural economy is not vastly different from ours, you do not see the same level of "one off" housing. Comparing the Donegal and Derry landscapes, for example, it is evident that "one off" houses are much more numerous on the RoI side.

    5. One good job that auctioneer did was to reveal some people's real ambitions for the GCOB. That is the point I have been making from the outset: the bypass is in theory meant to alleviate traffic, but there is a not insignificant risk that it may not be a permanent or even long term sustainable solution given the development pressures that could be unleashed within and around the city. Nothing outlandish about such prospects, IMO, given this country's record. The Celtic Casino meltdown has certainly put paid to a lot of such ambitions, but do you really think the gombeens are gone forever?

    6. The bankrupting of this country by said gombeens has made the GCOB, and any other proposed solutions to Galway's traffic problems, a major economic challenge. But even if the money for the bypass were made available tomorrow, the actual infrastructure is still years away. I'm not prepared to sit and wait, in my car or in my crumbling house (only 1-11 years left before it falls down! :eek:), for the GCOB to materialise. I'd prefer to put my energy into seeking practical solutions now and in the near future.

    Why are Greens|Enviromentalists sound so creepy & sinister at times?
    What is this "final solution" of yours? move everyone to ghettos? gas the rest to reduce the carbon footprint?

    From a psychology point of view it seems to me that your are full of resentment and jealosy for those people doing better than you, and this is manifested in your desire to drag Galway into the stone age and impose more misery on the people and let the local economy stagnate.


  • Options
    #274
    KevR
    Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    4. More LOL. Are you suggesting that the 'dormers', mansions and haciendas dotting the landscape are in the vast majority of cases occupied by rural folk born in the same parish but who now need to drive to Galway City because farming no longer provides sufficient employment? I'm afraid I just don't believe that. In any case, Galway Co Co's own plan (whatever about its practices) regards such development as sporadic, uncoordinated and unsustainable. I don't see this happening elsewhere to the same extent. For example, in Northern Ireland, where the agricultural economy is not vastly different from ours, you do not see the same level of "one off" housing. Comparing the Donegal and Derry landscapes, for example, it is evident that "one off" houses are much more numerous on the RoI side.

    5. One good job that auctioneer did was to reveal some people's real ambitions for the GCOB. That is the point I have been making from the outset: the bypass is in theory meant to alleviate traffic, but there is a not insignificant risk that it may not be a permanent or even long term sustainable solution given the development pressures that could be unleashed within and around the city. Nothing outlandish about such prospects, IMO, given this country's record. The Celtic Casino meltdown has certainly put paid to a lot of such ambitions, but do you really think the gombeens are gone forever?

    Do these points not contradict each other? Please explain yourself.

    Are you against development taking place in County Galway or are you against development taking place in Galway City? It seems to me like you are against both.

    In your opinion, should people live in the city so they are near work/schools/shops/colleges/hospitals? People moving to the city from the countryside will result in more development in Galway City.

    Or do you not want any development to take place in Galway City? This would involve more people having to live in County Galway.

    The population is growing! Development will have to take place somewhere so make your mind up.


  • Options
    #275
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    EDIT:

    "However, environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman claimed An Bord Pleanála was wrong in its interpretation of the habitats directive. His challenge to the board’s decision is supported by Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government."

    The government minister who at the time happened to be the TD for the area in which Mr Sweetman has his offices - do you find it strange that anything that minister Gormless objected to ideologically Mr Sweetman was the chief opponent?

    This is the same minister Gormless who propped up the FF government you show so much disdain for through your comments like celtic casino, helping them to continue the bad planning decisions you so hate and instead of worrying about piffling issues like jobs, planning or making our PT services effective instead started debating fox hunting.

    Transport (NRA) supports GCOB, Environment (probably better described as our lack of planning dept) against.

    The score is one all, with the High Court (impartial, at least until they rule against your beliefs) asked to referee. Rule against Mr Sweetman.

    2-1 to transport

    No wait appeal on the spot kick, change of referee - the Supreme court (another impartial body until they say something you don't like). Rule against Mr Sweetman.

    2-1 to transport (deja vu)

    No wait, another appeal on the spot kick - ECJ asked to referee. Deja Vu again.

    So lets see thats the planning authority (APB), The High Court and the Supreme Court ruling that transport have a better case than the dept who failed to plan for our population boom.

    Oh well, since we're not allowed to travel to our offices and factories from towns & villages all over the west of Ireland to one of the few places with jobs left, we'll just have to go back to working the land and the horse and cart for transport.

    Nope scratch that we can't do that either, since cow farming are regarded by our pseudo environmentalist greens as being nearly as destructive to the environment as motorised transport.

    And the horses will sh*t all over the place, are too expensive and will be taken off people by the ispca for not housing them in luxury that we ourselves can't afford because the animal themselves are so expensive to buy and care for.

    we're doomed


  • Options
    #276
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So on the subject of stalled traffic, as opposed to bicycles, how long must we wait for Godot GCOB?

    Straw poll, since 'hurl is repeatedly driving the point home about the expected delivery of GCOB being 5-10 years in the future, and nobody is disagreeing, imo this is trolling and an unnecessary insult of a valid question & answer.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74372011&postcount=659
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74391104&postcount=672
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74392417&postcount=675


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    wiseguy wrote: »
    Why are Greens|Enviromentalists sound so creepy & sinister at times?
    What is this "final solution" of yours? move everyone to ghettos? gas the rest to reduce the carbon footprint?

    From a psychology point of view it seems to me that your are full of resentment and jealosy for those people doing better than you, and this is manifested in your desire to drag Galway into the stone age and impose more misery on the people and let the local economy stagnate.



    I suspect that creepy feeling you get is primarily due to your apparent paranoia, or at least an over-active imagination.

    Then again, you may just like making things from straw.





    EDIT: I'm not sure whether to give you the benefit of any doubt in the light of this comment on Mike Godwin's canny observation:

    Godwin's Law: prov.
    [Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.


  • Options
    #278
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    KevR wrote: »
    Do these points not contradict each other? Please explain yourself.

    Are you against development taking place in County Galway or are you against development taking place in Galway City? It seems to me like you are against both.

    In your opinion, should people live in the city so they are near work/schools/shops/colleges/hospitals? People moving to the city from the countryside will result in more development in Galway City.

    Or do you not want any development to take place in Galway City? This would involve more people having to live in County Galway.

    The population is growing! Development will have to take place somewhere so make your mind up.


    You seem determined to engage in fanciful speculation about my motives, attitudes and circumstances rather than engage rationally and constructively with the issues I raise, and which are supported with reference to policy documents produced by both local authorities, as well as other external sources.

    In any online debate of this kind, it always helps to remember that it's a thread, hence there's a written record that can be checked before making unsubstantiated claims.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74370681&postcount=657


  • Options
    #279
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The government minister who at the time happened to be the TD for the area in which Mr Sweetman has his offices - do you find it strange that anything that minister Gormless objected to ideologically Mr Sweetman was the chief opponent?

    This is the same minister Gormless who propped up the FF government you show so much disdain for through your comments like celtic casino, helping them to continue the bad planning decisions you so hate and instead of worrying about piffling issues like jobs, planning or making our PT services effective instead started debating fox hunting.

    Transport (NRA) supports GCOB, Environment (probably better described as our lack of planning dept) against.

    The score is one all, with the High Court (impartial, at least until they rule against your beliefs) asked to referee. Rule against Mr Sweetman.

    2-1 to transport

    No wait appeal on the spot kick, change of referee - the Supreme court (another impartial body until they say something you don't like). Rule against Mr Sweetman.

    2-1 to transport (deja vu)

    No wait, another appeal on the spot kick - ECJ asked to referee. Deja Vu again.

    So lets see thats the planning authority (APB), The High Court and the Supreme Court ruling that transport have a better case than the dept who failed to plan for our population boom.

    Oh well, since we're not allowed to travel to our offices and factories from towns & villages all over the west of Ireland to one of the few places with jobs left, we'll just have to go back to working the land and the horse and cart for transport.

    Nope scratch that we can't do that either, since cow farming are regarded by our pseudo environmentalist greens as being nearly as destructive to the environment as motorised transport.

    And the horses will sh*t all over the place, are too expensive and will be taken off people by the ispca for not housing them in luxury that we ourselves can't afford because the animal themselves are so expensive to buy and care for.

    we're doomed


    The EU case is a legal one, not a political one, I should think.

    The other parties mentioned were "Ireland" and the Attorney General.

    The former may be having a doomed love affair with the car, but the AG?

    The AG's involvement couldn't possibly be a formal legal one, could it? There couldn't possibly be a major legal issue to be determined at EU level, could there?

    Maybe she goes to work by ass and cart and secretly wants us all to do the same?


  • Options
    #280
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Straw poll, since 'hurl is repeatedly driving the point home about the expected delivery of GCOB being 5-10 years in the future, and nobody is disagreeing, imo this is trolling and an unnecessary insult of a valid question & answer.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74372011&postcount=659
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74391104&postcount=672
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74392417&postcount=675



    Trolling? Insult? :confused:

    I don't get it. Is it not a realistic assessment?

    I would guess that the legal issues will take a long time to resolve, as they often do.

    Then there's the CPOs.

    And of course the construction of the bypass itself.

    Surely we're looking at a minimum of five years?

    When do you think the GCOB will be finished?


  • Options
    #281
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dear god can a thread split be done. Im sick of the bickering in this thread


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Yes can we have a cycling in Galway thread please and throw the last 2 weeks worth of this thread into it.


  • Options
    #283
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Yes can we have a cycling in Galway thread please and throw the last 2 weeks worth of this thread into it.




    A sizeable chunk of this thread could also be "thrown" into an anti-cycling thread, of which I'll wager there are more than a few on Boards, as you're probably aware.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58318964&postcount=33

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66227155&postcount=312

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68004551&postcount=333

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68004746&postcount=334

    Another portion could be "thrown" into a Beckett thread. Or are we still waiting for one?

    Other suitable threads for throwing stuff in: Green-bashing, Straw Modelling, Psychic Abilities, Ostrich Studies.

    Sarcasm aside, and bearing in mind the tone and content of many posts in the earlier pages of this thread all the way back to 2008, what exactly do you see as the nature and purpose of the overall discussion?


  • Options
    #284
    glineli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,098 ✭✭✭glineli


    The sooner this thread is split, the better as its descended into farce!!!


  • Options
    #285
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Locking this temporarily for containment purposes.


  • Options
    #286
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Thread split. I will read through the whole thing when I get a chance and will retrospectively infract if necessary. In the mean time, thread is open for business again.

    EDIT to provide explanation for the thread split:


    Now is not a time when I can give a detailed reply (very busy). Basically, the original Galway outer bypass thread was started in 2008 along with other threads for many similar schemes that have since been completed. In 2008, such threads were mainly for Boards.ie road enthusiasts to comment on the design, spec, and construction progress. So, briefly, it was very much a construction and planning thread. Even though this was not explicitly stated in the first post, that was the context under which it was started. Obviously, I would not expect relative newcomers to the forum to know that.

    I split the thread because it was being taken in a different direction, with the issue of transport 'culture' and differing perspectives basically taking over the thread. While I do think that such discussions have a place in the forum and am happy to accommodate them, they are tangential to the original purpose of the thread. I have received many complaints over the past few days about the change in direction of the thread, and the split is my solution. The original thread is about design, planning progress and, ultimately, construction; this new thread is for the debate.

    RE the name of the new thread, I am happy to change it if suitable alternatives are suggested. As you can see, I edited galwaycyclists' post to make it clear that the OP now is the result of mod intervention.


  • Options
    #287
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    To those who don't think Galway needs a bypass:

    Of course Galway needs a bypass - you just don't dump a major road or motorway at the back of a city (especially where it meets only one of the roads therein) with no proper through road to take traffic around it or past it. Even the M3 to Kells (a relatively small town) splits into the N3 Type 2 Dual and N52 Kells Bypass (a proper bypass in that it goes completely around the town). One would expect at least one decent road to take the traffic past Galway, even if it was only a Type 2 Dual with the odd roundabout (of course, it should be motorway though IMO).

    Regards!


  • Options
    #288
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    By passing Galway would be fantastic. Not everyone from West of the city who heads East needs, or more importantly, wants to be caught up in that traffic. Being stuck on the road beside another faceless hotel or crappy industrial estate isn't everyones goal ;)


  • Options
    #289
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,880 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    @antoobrien Note that you have not attempted to respond to posts #218 or #220 which pretty clearly show that your post #216 was the real "rubbish" post


  • Options
    #290
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    @antoobrien Note that you have not attempted to repsond to posts #218 or #220 which pretty clearly show that your post #216 was the real "rubbish" post

    You accuse me of posting rubbish then don't have the good grace to post links or at least quote what I said, if you're going to criticize at least put some context up for those of us who don't know (or in my case can't remember) which posts you're referring to.

    Post 216 was a response to the notion that GCC was very pro motorist, something originally brought up by 'hurl and answered by Sponge Bob in an ongoing slagging match between those two:
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    2. The city council did not 'prioritise' cars

    To which galwaycyclist responded:
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Sorry but with regret thats just silly. The council have spent 20 years prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations. Why do you think you are stuck in traffic?

    I gave a list of things I think that GCC did where I think motorists were not not prioritised or things were done badly that affected motorists:
    antoobrien wrote: »
    What utter rubbish.

    The following things have been inflicted on motorists over the past 20 years in Galway:
    The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
    Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)

    I can go on, but the obvious is totally lost on you.

    In Post 218 hurl doesn't actually dispute that any of these measures are pro-motorist but brings up that the fact that their either bad for cyclists or pedestrians. My post has nothing to do with the pedestrian/cyclist impact, ( granted the first point does acknowledge that some of these things have been done, badly but) the premise of the post is that that motorists have been adversely affected by various measures taken, when GCC is supposed to be so pro motorists that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations."

    Hurl brings it back to how they are bad for pedestrians or cyclists - which is nothing to do with the original point regarding GCC pandering (my phrasing) to motorists. The fact that GCC have botched the attempts to provide for cyclists and pedestrians - in some cases created worse problems for either or both - is not in question, it merely makes it even more aggravating to motorists.

    I happen to agree with some of the things he/she said, but lets stick to the point.

    Your own post 220 does the same thing as hurl, you again bring it back to the impact of these measures on cyclist & pedestrians through the hamfisted efforts of GCC. While that's well and good, it completely ignores the premise of my post, so I'll ask you directly:

    Do these measures to the benefit of motorists in Galway or do they make the situation worse for motorists?

    For the record I agree with some of what you said as well, I'm just trying to break through this false perception that GCC is biased towards motorists - take a look at the mess they've made at scheduling of the road works and the rather head in the sand responses form the council for the latest piss poor example of they treat motorists.
    what_traffic wrote: »
    @antoobrien Note that you have not attempted to repsond to posts #218 or #220[

    MYOB responded to (thanks btw, put far more succinctly than I would have) 'hurls post, and even though yours was posted slight after that, it already dealt with the criticisms in your post, so I don't feel the need to respond.

    What yourself and hurl have done here is a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise, in this case from GCC being so pro car that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations." to somehow make it about how these measures, most of which are aimed at making life easier either cyclists or pedestrians, some at aimed at motorists are bad for both.

    It may be worth bearing in mind that it's not particularly easy to please everyone, but when attempts to provide something for one group or another backfire it does annoy everyone - and everyone else gets the blame.

    By failing to deal with the premise of my post and attempting bring it back to your own hobby horses, your & 'hurl's arguments got what they deserved: being completely ignored as irrelevant. Discussing them would have been to legitimize the distraction from the point - in which case it reverts to the slagging match that 'hurl has been attempting to derail the thread with, eventually causing the split.

    Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved. Instead you ignored the premise and went into (what could be construed as) an anti motorist tirade.

    I regard the matter as closed, would you like to discuss how they are good or bad for the specific groups, or do you want to go back to the slagging match?


  • Options
    #291
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    What yourself and hurl have done here is a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise, in this case from GCC being so pro car that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations." to somehow make it about how these measures, most of which are aimed at making life easier either cyclists or pedestrians, some at aimed at motorists are bad for both.

    It may be worth bearing in mind that it's not particularly easy to please everyone, but when attempts to provide something for one group or another backfire it does annoy everyone - and everyone else gets the blame.

    By failing to deal with the premise of my post and attempting bring it back to your own hobby horses, your & 'hurl's arguments got what they deserved: being completely ignored as irrelevant. Discussing them would have been to legitimize the distraction from the point - in which case it reverts to the slagging match that 'hurl has been attempting to derail the thread with, eventually causing the split.

    Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved. Instead you ignored the premise and went into (what could be construed as) an anti motorist tirade.

    I regard the matter as closed, would you like to discuss how they are good or bad for the specific groups, or do you want to go back to the slagging match?


    Part of my earlier assertion (clumsily framed and phrased in certain aspects, and rapidly withdrawn after a Mod PM and in-thread warning) has been somewhat confirmed.

    Note: I am referring now to certain posters' interest in this thread, rather than to the Mod's decision (and prerogative) to split the thread. Does that cover me? :eek:

    IMO, at no point did I make "a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise".

    Rather I reframed discussion of the points you raised by describing how the alleged motoring inconveniences you described were in fact motoring benefits in some cases (eg one-way streets) and trivial issues in others.

    I'm a motorist too, and I can tell you that none of the things you identified have given me the slightest problem when driving whereas they definitely do when cycling or walking.

    "Being completely ignored as irrelevant" by whom? "Legitimised" by whom? Who gets to decide what's relevant or legitimate?

    As for your accusation that I was "attempting" to derail the other GCOB thread, derail it from what exactly? From its anti-cyclist sneering? From its defamatory descriptions of Bypass objectors as "sociopaths"? From its canonical group-think that there is no room for scepticism about the GCOB in terms of its central role in Galway City transportation policy and development planning?

    So is that the shibboleth for entry into the group that decides what's relevant and legitimate: some expression of sympathy that motorists are being treated as badly as cyclists, pedestrians and bus users have for decades?

    We had one poster, eventually and inevitably, trying to compare Galway's motorists to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

    "Slagging match" in this context is just a euphemism for "a debate where the dominant group won't tolerate dissenting voices". I don't recall the senior club members being too upset about "tirades" when the targets were cyclists, the Green Party, An Taisce, and named individuals specifically identified in the thread and singled out for branding as "sociopaths". See threads below.



    churchview wrote: »
    An Taisce at one time was quite a reputable organisation in Galway, but now it's gone beyond a joke. If something could be done to get an Taisce to silence or remove Hambleton it would do a lot of good for Galway and, incidentally, for An Taisce.

    It's like he's hardwired just to object to everything. Sociopathic describes the attitude very well. There is a total lack of feeling or empathy for the effect that statements and actions have on others.

    As usual, Hambleton never lets facts get in the way of his hysteria.

    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I just had to laugh...
    I'm a cyclist.

    Speaks volumes before we've even begun.

    KevR wrote: »
    Those cyclists who also have a car and pay motor tax can have a say on the SQR. Those who don't pay any motor tax don't really deserve a say because they're not paying for it in any shape or form

    churchview wrote: »
    KevR,

    I dare you to go over to the Psycholing forum, and say that

    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Funny that, the last time I actually saw O Brolcháin was in that very same Ardilaun which was his sort of 'constituency office' when he was a councillor in Galway.

    I'd say the FFers would wrap the bike around his neck and drag the bicycle and impaled senator around the Ardilaun carpark tied to a state merc ...more like ...while tweeting back at Dan Boyle of course


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,880 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    antoobrien wrote: »
    You accuse me of posting rubbish then don't have the good grace to post links or at least quote what I said, if you're going to criticize at least put some context up for those of us who don't know (or in my case can't remember) which posts you're referring to.

    Post 216 was a response to the notion that GCC was very pro motorist, something originally brought up by 'hurl and answered by Sponge Bob in an ongoing slagging match between those two:


    To which galwaycyclist responded:


    I gave a list of things I think that GCC did where I think motorists were not not prioritised or things were done badly that affected motorists:


    In Post 218 hurl doesn't actually dispute that any of these measures are pro-motorist but brings up that the fact that their either bad for cyclists or pedestrians. My post has nothing to do with the pedestrian/cyclist impact, ( granted the first point does acknowledge that some of these things have been done, badly but) the premise of the post is that that motorists have been adversely affected by various measures taken, when GCC is supposed to be so pro motorists that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations."

    Hurl brings it back to how they are bad for pedestrians or cyclists - which is nothing to do with the original point regarding GCC pandering (my phrasing) to motorists. The fact that GCC have botched the attempts to provide for cyclists and pedestrians - in some cases created worse problems for either or both - is not in question, it merely makes it even more aggravating to motorists.

    I happen to agree with some of the things he/she said, but lets stick to the point.

    Your own post 220 does the same thing as hurl, you again bring it back to the impact of these measures on cyclist & pedestrians through the hamfisted efforts of GCC. While that's well and good, it completely ignores the premise of my post, so I'll ask you directly:

    Do these measures to the benefit of motorists in Galway or do they make the situation worse for motorists?

    For the record I agree with some of what you said as well, I'm just trying to break through this false perception that GCC is biased towards motorists - take a look at the mess they've made at scheduling of the road works and the rather head in the sand responses form the council for the latest piss poor example of they treat motorists.



    MYOB responded to (thanks btw, put far more succinctly than I would have) 'hurls post, and even though yours was posted slight after that, it already dealt with the criticisms in your post, so I don't feel the need to respond.

    What yourself and hurl have done here is a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise, in this case from GCC being so pro car that it is "prioritising cars at the expense of all other considerations." to somehow make it about how these measures, most of which are aimed at making life easier either cyclists or pedestrians, some at aimed at motorists are bad for both.

    It may be worth bearing in mind that it's not particularly easy to please everyone, but when attempts to provide something for one group or another backfire it does annoy everyone - and everyone else gets the blame.

    By failing to deal with the premise of my post and attempting bring it back to your own hobby horses, your & 'hurl's arguments got what they deserved: being completely ignored as irrelevant. Discussing them would have been to legitimize the distraction from the point - in which case it reverts to the slagging match that 'hurl has been attempting to derail the thread with, eventually causing the split.

    Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved. Instead you ignored the premise and went into (what could be construed as) an anti motorist tirade.

    I regard the matter as closed, would you like to discuss how they are good or bad for the specific groups, or do you want to go back to the slagging match?

    You where the one who started the slagging.
    This reply is a very long winded reply - but at the end of the day you still have not been able to back up anything you said in post Post 216


  • Options
    #293
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Part of my earlier assertion, clumsily framed and phrased, and rapidly withdrawn after a Mod warning, has been somewhat confirmed.

    I was wondering why I got that notification in my inbox and why I hadn't seen it before, and indeed can't find it in the thread any more.

    Any chance you can pm me what it is I have only seen part of (to avoid further trouble)?

    For the record, I'm waiting to see if Tremolo (or any of the other mods) will come back to me about anything I've said on here because I'm aware that there are a few things I've said are borderline (despite trying to stay on the right side of the posting rules), but I'm willing to take the risk because I believe that they need to be said.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    IMO, at no point did I make "a classic attempt at moving the debate away from the issue by re-interpreting the original premise".

    Why then do you keep changing the subject back to whatever hobby horses you have about the various topics, and will not discuss something when directly questioned?

    I notice, once again, you have dodged an invitation to discuss your criticisms of what I said:
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Had you even discussed the fact that these measures may be bad for motorists a rational debate might have ensued, in which we would have probably reached agreement on some of the points you raised. We might have even discussed points where some of the measures in question had been successful for one or more of the groups involved.

    Please deal with my premise that those items I listed in post 216 are anti-motorist or leave it - your choice.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    "Slagging match" in this context is just a euphemism for "a debate where the dominant group won't tolerate dissenting voices".
    Nice definition but wrong, what you're describing is intolerance (there are stronger words I could use but I won't for fear of insulting you). What I was referring to was the lack of manners that yourself, what_traffic, spongebob & I all used used when discussing the premise that GCC is pro car.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I don't recall the senior club members being too upset about "tirades" when the targets were cyclists, the Green Party, An Taisce, and named individuals specifically identified in the thread and singled out for branding as "sociopaths".
    Give me a little credit - I have stayed away from using those terms - in order to try to avoid the debate from degenerating into this kind of farce, though I do agree with the assertion that the people you've singled out are somewhat "not all there".

    The only thing i attacked was Nix's document with which I found serious factual issues, even then I tried to keep it family and reasonably professional. IMO it's not too much to expect that somebody who expects people to listen his views on planning will come up with realistic figures.


  • Options
    #294
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    You where the one who started the slagging.
    This reply is a very long winded reply - but at the end of the day you still have not been able to back up anything you said in post Post 216

    Care to discuss the fact that what I said is that the measures are anti motorist?


  • Options
    #295
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Care to discuss the fact that what I said is that the measures are anti motorist?

    No they seemingly don't Anto.

    But as long as the Galway Green/An Taisce/Cycling/Objectocratic tendency is left an ickle thread to fulminate and thrash about within (and hopefully mainly at each other :cool:) then life goes on apace.

    I'm outta this one, forever.


  • Options
    #296
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Why then do you keep changing the subject back to whatever hobby horses you have about the various topics, and will not discuss something when directly questioned?

    I notice, once again, you have dodged an invitation to discuss your criticisms of what I said:

    Please deal with my premise that those items I listed in post 216 are anti-motorist or leave it - your choice.


    Changing the subject? Hobby horse?

    Transportation policy is the subject. Traffic is a "hobby horse" for an awful lot of people.

    I have already responded to your list:


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    If these are "obvious" barriers to motoring then it would appear that it is you who's missing the point, IMHO.


    The excessive application of traffic lights (which are supposed to be friendlier to cyclists & pedestrians) and pedestrian crossings - they're usually badly placed so that pedestrians will still prefer to cross 20, 50 or 100 yards away
    "Excessive" according to whom? If lights are badly placed and are removed from pedestrians' preferred crossing points then it is clear that they were not sited to maximise pedestrian convenience. Often the Council will reluctantly install lights but will do so in a manner biased towards traffic flow rather than pedestrian convenience. Here's a post illustrating this in action. One of the Council's main failings, IMO, is that they try in a piecemeal fashion to keep different stakeholders a little bit happy, when what they really should be doing is developing and implementing a grand vision with sustainable transportation as its fundamental aim.


    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    I don't like the new Square, but IIRC there were more pedestrian priority crossings there once upon a time. AFAIK bus facilities have also been improved.


    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq
    Very bad for pedestrians in my experience. Walking from Forster Street to the Meyrick Hotel across these two roads without the benefit of a pedestrian crossing is not pleasant with children in tow, so I imagine it would be even more difficult for disabled people and senior citizens who can't move quickly enough to dodge the buses, taxis and cars. There's nowhere for pedestrians to cross two lanes of one-way traffic here on Forster Street either.

    The complicated one-way system around Eyre Square and adjacent streets is itself a prime example of cycle-hostile traffic management primarily aimed at keeping motorised traffic moving, albeit with a few compromise pedestrian crossings in the mix. Cycling around here is a joke because so many direct and natural cycle routes are blocked off by one-way restrictions.

    Furthermore, control of illegal parking around Forster Street and environs is a farce. Another example of City Council bias towards motorists, IMO.


    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    Another barrier for cyclists. Galway City Council knew this was cutting off a prime cycling route but they went ahead and did it anyway. I remember Shop Street when it was two-way and had buses on it! Closing it off to traffic was never a difficulty for me as a driver, but it's a real nuisance as a cyclist.


    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    One-way systems are specifically implemented to improve traffic flow. Traffic moves faster on average on one-way streets than on the same thoroughfares with two-way traffic. One-way systems are inherently anti-cyclist. I've asked this question already but got no answer: can you identify a single solitary one-way street in all of Galway City that exempts cyclists?


    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    Frequently bad junction design. Who do you think are the biggest potential losers: motorists in the metal cocoons with seat-belts, air-bags, crumple zones etc, or vulnerable road users such ad pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, senior citizens who may need support to walk?


    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    Buses are high value traffic, moving far greater numbers of people than private cars per metre width of road. It is right and proper, and totally in keeping with national policy, to give them more room. My guess would be that the real problem is that bus lanes are too narrow, especially where cyclists are expected to share them.


    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
    That slip road is a serious hazard for pedestrians. Vehicles come flying down there at speed (from the Quincentenary Bridge where the vast majority of traffic is grossly exceeding the speed limit). Motorists driving down the slip road are often looking to their right to anticipate what traffic they may encounter at the junction. This roundabout generally is a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians. If you can't sprint, tough luck. In general such slip roads are also very hazardous for cyclists, since those wishing to go straight ahead may find themselves positioned inside fast-moving left-turn traffic.


    Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)
    Moneenageisha, though still a challenging junction, is better than the roundabout for cyclists and pedestrians. If buses are being held up there it's because there are too many private cars. It is absurd having buses stuck in car traffic -- defeats the purpose entirely, and removes all the advantages that PT should be given as a matter of policy. The solution is more bus priority measures, not less.


  • Options
    #297
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    No they seemingly don't Anto.

    But as long as the Galway Green/An Taisce/Cycling/Objectocratic tendency is left an ickle thread to fulminate and thrash about within (and hopefully mainly at each other :cool:) then life goes on apace.

    I'm outta this one, forever.



    See what I mean?


  • Options
    #298
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,880 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Care to discuss the fact that what I said is that the measures are anti motorist?

    You still have not explained "How" they are anti-motorist? For example I would agree that the pedestrianisation of shop street has inconvinced motorists and cyclists to the benefit of pedestrians. You however have not explained any items on your list in post Post 216


  • Options
    #299
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    You still have not explained "How" they are anti-motorist? For example I would agree that the pedestrianisation of shop street has inconvinced motorists and cyclists to the benefit of pedestrians. You however have not explained any items on your list in post Post 216

    Ok, I'll change the order a little tho


    The excessive application of traffic lights
    Example: Riverside & Liosban Industrial estate - two sets of lights, the sequencing of which have caused massive problems since they were installed, combined with the left filter coming out of the estate. They really should have routed the traffic from Riverside into Liosban or vice versa.
    It would be better at riverside as there is more space, as well as potentially adding access to the business park (maybe make it left in left out) but a bigger impact on a residential area than if it were done at Liosban (leaving no entrance to the business park.

    Also the serious of lights between Moneenaghesha & Doughiska - though I know some of them are needed there's a lot there for a short stretch of road. SOme of them could be removed, e.g the pedestrian lights at dawn dairies could be replaced with a pedestrian overbridges at GMIT as there's space to make it safe for everyone (not just the young and reasonably fit students).

    The "upgrade" of Eyre Square
    Closed off the road outside the skeff (there was a good reason for doing so, but we're talking about how these things impact motorists) - requiring a change in layout which I'll deal with in the next points.

    The shambolic setup of the pedestrian lights at the the junction with Forster St & Eyre Sq and
    Generally counter intuitive junction design
    What's good about this for anyone? Turning right from Forster St you have very limited visibility as to what the status of the lights actually are and it's so near it that even going slowly you've very little time to react. It's too easy to hit unwary pedestrians & cyclists here. The tresult of the lights is that the traffic backs up around corners, while simultaneously making it harder for buses & taxis (not that I give a rats about taxis) to exit the train station.

    And the fact that pedestrians generally cross where they want instead of using these, e.g. between Foxes and Garveys - when the facilities are specifically for them really aggravates motorists..

    The pedestrianization of the Shop St area (totally cutting off O'Briens bridge to all but local traffic)
    Already dealt with


    The closing of roads, turnoffs and creation of one way systems
    Dock road and the surrounding streets has lead to queue hopping due to the fact that people don't know how to/won't zip merge. I know the intention was to cut off a rat run. I'm not question that decision, just saying that imo the outcome is bad for motorists.

    Creating bus lanes on roads where there is not space for 3/4 lanes of traffic
    Dublin Rd - there isn't enough space for 4 lanes where they have the lane, without which bus lanes aren't much good, and it ends inbound (at least temporarily) at Duggans in Renmore. This leads to buses & taxis having to "butt" into traffic (yellow boxes not withstanding) - I've been on enough buses where the driver makes me very nervous with the speed approaching these lights.

    The slip from from the new Quincentenary Bridge to the Headford Road that requires traffic to stop (wtf is up with that - may as well have left that traffic at the lights)
    A specific attempt to help motorists that failed spectacularly creating several dangers for everybody using this road not matter whether on wheels or shanks mare. I think we're all in agreement there.

    Moneenageesha (I was sitting in a bus on college rd for more than 5 minutes on Saturday waiting for lights to turn, so much for the supposedly PT friendly smart lights)
    I said more than five minutes because I checked my watch to see what time it was, and I checked later to see how long we'd been sitting there. The total time is closer to 10 minutes, but I don't know how much so I'm being generous with 5.
    What more can I say, there wasn't much traffic about while I was on the bus but we were still sitting still waiting for lights to clear - far too long.

    I've said my bit and humored you more than you deserve - now explain how these measures are pro-motorist.


  • Options
    #300
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I have already responded to your list:

    Yes, but you as usual haven't addressed the question I asked - how are these good for motorists?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Personally I don't see it as an "either or" situation, I'm fully in support of both the GCOB, improved cycle facilities and bus lanes


Advertisement