Irish law on "jay-walking"

definitely a law on it. And I have seen it enforced in the city centre by some guards at the end of grafton street a few times. Pedantic but law...

Section 38 of the Road traffic act 1964

Use of zebra crossings
38.—(1) On a roadway on which a zebra crossing has been provided a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 50 feet of the crossing except by the crossing.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I know what you mean: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/plan-for-dublin-cycle-lane-is-just-another-swipe-at-motorists-30363303.html

There's more to it than mere distance, however.

I am aware of several locations where a local authority has deliberately sited a "pedestrian crossing" away from where pedestrians need and want to cross.

Additionally, I wonder what the definition of "pedestrian crossing" is in the relevant legislation?

Interesting, what I found specifically mentions a "zebra crossing" rather than "pedestrian crossing"...but I wonder if there has been any repeal or advancement on same in later acts?

One thing I will say is that here in Ireland we are not complete morons in this regard so the need to use only designated crossings is much reduced compared to other countries. Mainly because, for drivers, if you hit someone on the road, anywhere, its your fault. And for people, the risks and consequences of being hit by a vehicle are too much. All in all, everyone looks out. Perhaps in very high density areas like Dublin City centre more strict use of crossings is advisable but anywhere else I dont see a need for it to ever change.

Whatever the distance, that's a point of detail, and is ignoring the principal point. The fact remains that there is a law on jay-walking that is ignored left, right and centre in much the same way as many drivers and cyclists also ignore road traffic laws.

Again, it boils down to a lack of enforcement.

Other countries manage to enforce their road traffic legislation, why can't we?

Most of us may not be morons, but I'm amazed every day by the number of people who decide to walk across Westmoreland street at rush hour in the evenings. The place is full of buses and taxis and bicycles all going at different speeds, there's about 5(?) lanes of traffic, and you have eejits casually strolling out and weaving in between the buses.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Again, I would expect such a crossing to be placed where pedestrians want to cross, not where a Local Authority official wants to make them cross.

You'd expect that, as would most people. But LA's often omit pedestrian crossings where there is otherwise a strong desire line. There are numerous examples along the quays. Suppose you want to get from the west side of Parliament Street to the west side of Capel Street, you actually have to use the east side of Grattan Bridge. Many other examples where all four sides of a crossroads cannot legally be crossed. Church Street at the Luas is another example: the pavement dips down, but there is no legal crossing on the south side of the junction, instead you must use the north side, but then you encounter the situation where the north side of the Luas tracks are blocked off to pedestrians.

monument wrote: »

If he said 50m, as he is quoted as saying, he is not correct.

It's just 15m.

Though if he said 50 feet, that's just about 15m. And of course, 15 and 50 are often misheard...

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50 metres quote is from the AA's press release itself, so in this case it wasn't a case of being misheard.

Fair enough, so, but I still reckon the 15m = 50ft thing is close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to a likely slip of the tongue/mind. Still, it illustrates the continued need for proofreaders...

Any chance of a 'law on Conor Faughnan'?

porsche959 wrote: »

Because he's one of the few in the public eye that defends rights of motorists?

But the rights of motorists are the same as those of anybody using the public road. There are no 'rights of motorists'. There are privileges extended to us by virtue of the payment of motor tax and the holding of a valid license. No particular extra 'rights' though.

Aard wrote: »

You'd expect that, as would most people. But LA's often omit pedestrian crossings where there is otherwise a strong desire line. There are numerous examples along the quays. Suppose you want to get from the west side of Parliament Street to the west side of Capel Street, you actually have to use the east side of Grattan Bridge. Many other examples where all four sides of a crossroads cannot legally be crossed. Church Street at the Luas is another example: the pavement dips down, but there is no legal crossing on the south side of the junction, instead you must use the north side, but then you encounter the situation where the north side of the Luas tracks are blocked off to pedestrians.

There might be a strong desire line but there are only two light sequences at the junction of Parliament Street / south quays / Grattan Bridge and there are always active pedestrian crossing(s).

• the crossings on the bridge and on Parliament street are active whenever the traffic travelling along the quays has a green light
• the crossing on the east side of the lights is active whenever traffic coming off the bridge has a green light

A crossing on the fourth side could not operate as frequently as the other ones because this is an active exit from the junction for all traffic routes where as the others can be active at the same time as traffic routes.

It’s actually a good example of balancing the needs of all modes, yes the shortest route by distance for some people might be a crossing on the west side of the junction but when you factor in the impossibility of matching the frequency of activation of the other three sides, the shortest distance to cross is not necessarily the shortest time to cross. On the other side of the argument there is no left turn from the quays onto Parliament Street discommoding motorists but enabling the simultaneous movement of traffic and pedestrians.