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

Cycling/Walking around the city

Options
1…2425272930…45

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Micilin Muc wrote: »
    Has anyone got advice for a cyclist negotiating the road from Kirwan Roundabout westbound from Bóthar na dTreabh direction towards Quincentennial Bridge (A to B on the attached map).

    The cycle lane just randomly ends at the roundabout and becomes a footpath and pedestrian crossing, which is fine if you're accompanying a two-year-old.


    The classic Irish answer to this question might be "if I were you I wouldn't be starting from here at all!" :)

    What's the origin and destination of your journey?

    When I used to commute to the East of the city I avoided the Quincentenary Bridge and Headford Road like the plague. My preference was to use Lough Atalia Road, which had its own challenges but which did not involve mickey mouse "cycle facilities".

    The ripping out of the cycle-hostile Bodkin roundabout has improved matters, in my experience, but commuter cyclists crossing the river, depending on origin/destination, are still stuck with the hideous Browne Roundabout on one side and the execrable Kirwan Roundabout on the other.

    I have only cycled through that junction a few times since it was modified, and I don't recall any difficulty with a right turn. IIRC it was way easier than the roundabout. However, I am open to correction on that point.

    Has a box turn facility been provided? I'm aware that this issue was highlighted in the Road Safety Audit so if it's still a problem send me a PM.


    J o e wrote: »
    I stay on the cycle lane with traffic going towards town. Then peel off to the left into the cycle lane waiting to cross directly over the bridge. There's a turning box here for this but tbh I don't see why you'd use it here with the cycle lane in place.

    The problem here is the light sequence goes anti-clockwise so there's a bit of a wait before getting the second green.

    Alternatively take the Tuam Rd and come down the Sean Mulvoy Rd.


    I'd avoid the Tuam Road, because I think it's a hideous dump. There have been complaints about Sean Mulvoy Road (eg speeding, poor drainage) but perhaps it might be better for cyclists than Bothar na dTreabh.

    There are still numerous "salmon cyclists" on the QB so there must be something about their perception/experience of the ex-Bodkin junction that has them cycling on the 'wrong' side of the road.

    Are the traffic signals conducive to safe and convenient cycling? Again, the Road Safety Audit mentioned the undesirability of long wait times for pedestrians, but if the wait times for cyclists are also excessive then this will encourage unorthodox, illegal or even dangerous behaviour.


  • Options
    #783
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    The box turn is there - recall a previous discussion
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056342777&page=40


  • Options
    #784
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    snubbleste wrote: »
    The box turn is there - recall a previous discussion
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056342777&page=40



    Thanks for refreshing my memory! Somebody has to be able to recall such things, and it's not always me...


  • Options
    #785
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Road Safety Audit mentioned the undesirability of long wait times for pedestrians,

    Different junction but I was coming through Moneenagesha this morning coming from Lough Atalia. I was at the top of the lights which were red for traffic - and were going to stay red for traffic until all the other arms of the junction had been given their turn.

    Even so the lights for pedestians on this arm were still red as well. A lady came up with baby buggy and pressed the button. So even though the lights for traffic will not change for the best part of a minute she is still expected to push a button and wait.

    I pointed out the traffic crossing on its green and the ridiculousness of the situation so she crossed away.

    The way these lights are set up is a straightforward abuse of this young mother and her child. Of course we don't have a good history in this country when it comes to official attitudes to young women with babies.


  • Options
    #786
    Micilin Muc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭Micilin Muc


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The classic Irish answer to this question might be "if I were you I wouldn't be starting from here at all!" :)

    What's the origin and destination of your journey?

    Spiddal > Parkmore and back, Monday-Friday, although I go via Moycullen to avoid the awful Bóthar Chois Fharraige, that's another thread!

    You're right about the two remaining roundabouts. I do Kirwan Roundabout twice a day, but still wouldn't recommend it except to the most experienced of cyclists. There's just no safe way to join the cycle lanes once exiting the roundabouts. I heard the council have no input to the cycle lanes along the N6 - apparently that's under the remit of the NRA?

    The one reason I use Bóthar na dTreabh is because it gives you a whole 2kms without any interaction with traffic. That's a whole 4 minutes+ of relative peace!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Micilin Muc wrote: »
    Spiddal > Parkmore and back, Monday-Friday, ..!
    Táim tóghta


  • Options
    #788
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    galwaycyclist wrote: »

    The way these lights are set up is a straightforward abuse of this young mother and her child. Of course we don't have a good history in this country when it comes to official attitudes to young women with babies.

    Are you seriously trying to say that the traffic planners intentionally set out to target young women who happen to have children with a particular light sequence? Why on earth would the states historical failings be intentionally copied by traffic planners?


  • Options
    #789
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Time wrote: »
    Are you seriously trying to say that the traffic planners intentionally set out to target young women who happen to have children with a particular light sequence? Why on earth would the states historical failings be intentionally copied by traffic planners?


    Perhaps neglect is a more accurate word?

    By way of example, the motorists who drive up on the footpath as my daughter and I walk to and from school are not abusing us (in the historical sense alluded to earlier) but they are neglecting both our safety and our right to walk unhindered on the public footway.

    The law enforcers who ignore this illegal behaviour day in and day out are not abusing us, but they are neglecting our safety and our right to walk unhindered on the public footway.

    The local authority which fails to provide traffic calming, pedestrian-priority crossings and other such infrastructure is not abusing vulnerable road users, but is neglecting our needs.

    It's systemic neglect rather than institutional abuse, but it doesn't happen by chance. "Traffic planners" make decisions, and their decisions have consequences.


  • Options
    #790
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Time wrote: »
    Are you seriously trying to say that the traffic planners intentionally set out to target young women who happen to have children with a particular light sequence? Why on earth would the states historical failings be intentionally copied by traffic planners?

    It is quite clear that someone sat in an office and made a decision on this point. I didnt say that they targeted any group in particular, you can take that straw man somewhere else, but it remains a fact that the group penalised by these "traffic planners" includes mothers with young children.

    I am happier to use the term "abuse" than "neglect" in this case - someone decided to selectively make someone else stop and waste their time for no apparent useful purpose. It is clear from other junctions around the city that this is a systematic policy and not something that happened by mere oversight at this particular location.


  • Options
    #791
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perhaps neglect is a more accurate word?

    By way of example, the motorists who drive up on the footpath as my daughter and I walk to and from school are not abusing us (in the historical sense alluded to earlier) but they are neglecting both our safety and our right to walk unhindered on the public footway.

    The law enforcers who ignore this illegal behaviour day in and day out are not abusing us, but they are neglecting our safety and our right to walk unhindered on the public footway.

    The local authority which fails to provide traffic calming, pedestrian-priority crossings and other such infrastructure is not abusing vulnerable road users, but is neglecting our needs.

    It's systemic neglect rather than institutional abuse, but it doesn't happen by chance. "Traffic planners" make decisions, and their decisions have consequences.

    Exactly, to say it's abuse is absolutely ludicrous. By saying that i your basically saying that its intentional, which there would be no logical reason for. Also it should be noted that a traffic planners main concern is traffic on the road, not pedestrians.

    As we don't have jaywalking here i think that entirely reasonable. A pedestrian can cross the road at any point they wish if they feel its safe, although clearly crossings are still necessary. However traffic cannot do the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    It is quite clear that someone sat in an office and made a decision on this point. I didnt say that they targeted any group in particular, you can take that straw man somewhere else, but it remains a fact that the group penalised by these "traffic planners" includes mothers with young children.

    I am happier to use the term "abuse" than "neglect" in this case - someone decided to selectively make someone else stop and waste their time for no apparent useful purpose. It is clear from other junctions around the city that this is a systematic policy and not something that happened by mere oversight at this particular location.

    If its a systematic policy as you claim then you should have no problem obtaining the relevant documentation to prove this with an FOI request. But unless you get that and thus can prove your theory, its pure speculation at best.


  • Options
    #793
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Time wrote: »
    Exactly, to say it's abuse is absolutely ludicrous. By saying that i your basically saying that its intentional, which there would be no logical reason for. Also it should be noted that a traffic planners main concern is traffic on the road, not pedestrians.

    Clearly the design of the junction is intentional.

    A "traffic planner" whose "main concern is traffic on the road, not pedestrians" is by that fact, in my view, unfit to advise on the design of junctions in the middle of a city. In any case under the Roads Acts, roads authorities are required to consider the needs to of all road users.
    As we don't have jaywalking here i think that entirely reasonable. A pedestrian can cross the road at any point they wish if they feel its safe, although clearly crossings are still necessary. However traffic cannot do the same.

    Not true. If they are within 15m of a controlled crossing point pedestrians are required to use it.

    In any case someone who has gone out of their way to walk to a particular crossing should be treated in a reasonable manner once they get there. Making them stop and press a button to cross traffic that is not going to move anyway is, in my view, unreasonable and offensive.


  • Options
    #794
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Clearly the design of the junction is intentional.

    A "traffic planner" whose "main concern is traffic on the road, not pedestrians" is by that fact, in my view, unfit to advise on the design of junctions in the middle of a city. In any case under the Roads Acts, roads authorities are required to consider the needs to of all road users.

    By putting in the crossings they are taking pedestrians into consideration. Show me where it says pedestrians are to be given equal consideration?

    You can feel they're unfit but the fact is they are highly qualified and experienced in this area and you as far as i'm aware are not. If you feel you know better why don't you make a proper submission to the city council on the matter? Call into the office (its to the right of the main city council building) and they'll tell you how to do it.


  • Options
    #795
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Time wrote: »
    By putting in the crossings they are taking pedestrians into consideration. Show me where it says pedestrians are to be given equal consideration?

    More straw man arguments. Who mentioned "equal" treatment? What is being dicussed is unreasonable treatment.
    You can feel they're unfit but the fact is they are highly qualified and experienced in this area .

    Their "qualifications" and "experience" lead them to force people to press a button to "request" to cross traffic that is not going to move anyway.

    Therefore their "qualifications" and "experience" are inappropriate and, I would argue, clearly unfit for purpose.

    It would therefore be a mistake use to qualifications as a defence.


  • Options
    #796
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    More straw man arguments. Who mentioned "equal" treatment? What is being dicussed is unreasonable treatment.



    Their "qualifications" and "experience" lead them to force people to press a button to "request" to cross traffic that is not going to move anyway.

    Therefore their "qualifications" and "experience" are inappropriate and, I would argue, clearly unfit for purpose.

    It would therefore be a mistake use to qualifications as a defence.

    Well in my opinion the treatment is reasonable, so anything above that would basically see them receive equal priority at a major junction to actual traffic which is outrageous given the volume of pedestrians alone is significantly less.

    You might believe that their qualifications and experience are inappropriate but in the real world both of those count for something, and luckily in society we tend to generally tend to let those qualified in an area manage it.

    Unless you have either of these then you aren't qualified to make an assessment on the matter above giving your opinion, which of course your entitled to do, hence my suggestion you make a formal submission on the matter for proper analysis.


  • Options
    #797
    Micilin Muc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭Micilin Muc


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Their "qualifications" and "experience" lead them to force people to press a button to "request" to cross traffic that is not going to move anyway.
    Time wrote: »
    Well in my opinion the treatment is reasonable, so anything above that would basically see them receive equal priority at a major junction to actual traffic which is outrageous given the volume of pedestrians alone is significantly less.

    @Time, I think you're just misunderstanding Galwaycyclist.

    If traffic outbound from Lough Atalia to Monivea Road has a red light because traffic from Dublin Road has a green light, then why not let the pedestrian cross across the traffic that has the red light anyway? It wouldn't change the waiting time for motorised traffic at all, but allows the pedestrian to cross sooner.


  • Options
    #798
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    Micilin Muc wrote: »
    @Time, I think you're just misunderstanding Galwaycyclist.

    If traffic outbound from Lough Atalia to Monivea Road has a red light because traffic from Dublin Road has a green light, then why not let the pedestrian cross across the traffic that has the red light anyway? It wouldn't change the waiting time for motorised traffic at all, but allows the pedestrian to cross sooner.

    Your right i thought the scenario was different, however his/her claims that its a systematic abuse and those who are qualified in the area are unfit are quite frankly ridiculous. There are mechanisms in place to address issues such as this, and if this was actually raised via the proper channels, one of two things would happen. Either the council will amend the cycle of the lights accordingly or they'll provide a written response as to why they can't/won't change it.

    Honestly if there's an issue bring it to attention rather than accusing people of systematic abuse of pedestrians, being unfit for their position and other claims that have absolutely no basis in fact.


  • Options
    #799
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Time wrote: »
    Well in my opinion the treatment is reasonable, so anything above that would basically see them receive equal priority at a major junction to actual traffic which is outrageous given the volume of pedestrians alone is significantly less.

    More straw man arguments - are you planning to address the point at any stage?

    What is being discussed is allowing pedestrians to cross the road when the other traffic is stopped anyway.

    This makes no difference whatsoever to the allocation of "priority" within the signal sequence.

    Your outrage at people crossing the road when traffic is stopped is noted.

    In case you hadnt noticed this thread is for discussing walking in the city. It you were looking for the motors thread then that is over here.
    You might believe that their qualifications and experience are inappropriate but in the real world both of those count for something, and luckily in society we tend to generally tend to let those qualified in an area manage it.

    Unless you have either of these then you aren't qualified to make an assessment on the matter above giving your opinion, which of course your entitled to do, hence my suggestion you make a formal submission on the matter for proper analysis.

    In the real world we have a traffic choked city due to the reliance on advisors whose advice and therefore also qualifications were clearly unsuitable.

    Clearly to make progress we need to acknowledge that certain qualifications and experience are unfit for purpose and seek alternative advice.

    We can already see the results of analyses carried out by certain staff in city hall thats why we are having this discussion.


  • Options
    #800
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    More straw man arguments - are you planning to address the point at any stage?

    What is being discussed is allowing pedestrians to cross the road when the other traffic is stopped anyway.

    This makes no difference whatsoever to the allocation of "priority" within the signal sequence.

    Your outrage at people crossing the road when traffic is stopped is noted.

    In case you hadnt noticed this thread is for discussing walking in the city. It you were looking for the motors thread then that is over here.



    In the real world we have a traffic choked city due to the reliance on advisors whose advice and therefore also qualifications were clearly unsuitable.

    Clearly to make progress we need to acknowledge that certain qualifications and experience are unfit for purpose and seek alternative advice.

    We can already see the results of analyses carried out by certain staff in city hall thats why we are having this discussion.

    As i stated in my last post i mis-understood the situation. Clearly the situation makes no sense at first glance but perhaps their is a reason for it, although what that could be i have no idea, but i don't work in that dept. so i like you am only speculating. If you have an issue raise it to the council, your accusations of systematic abuse are unfounded.

    Secondly i stand by my assertion that road traffic should take priority over pedestrians in general. I like many other people on here may not like the decisions planners make, but i'm smart enough to know that they are far more knowledgeable than you or i are on the matter.

    Unless you have one to the effort of finding all information and options the council have been given over the years and then can show that they made the wrong choices with actual evidence then your opinion is not based in facts and is uninformed.

    If you think you know better make your submissions to them.


  • Options
    #801
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Time wrote: »
    Secondly i stand by my assertion that road traffic should take priority over pedestrians in general. I like many other people on here may not like the decisions planners make, but i'm smart enough to know that they are far more knowledgeable than you or i are on the matter.


    Prioritising motorised traffic over pedestrians in a city like Galway is absolutely not smart, and is one of the reasons why our compact city is often clogged with cars.

    Engineers could choose to give pedestrians the green light when there is no conflict with traffic. Why don't they?

    If the "traffic planners" are as knowledgeable as you say, then they know exactly what they doing when they subordinate pedestrian access and mobility in order to prioritise traffic flow.

    In which case we're back in the realm of deliberate neglect, imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,896 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Time wrote: »
    Secondly i stand by my assertion that road traffic should take priority over pedestrians in general. I like many other people on here may not like the decisions planners make, but i'm smart enough to know that they are far more knowledgeable than you or i are on the matter.
    Why and why do you think this?
    On your second point.
    I met a recently retired Civil Engineering college lecturer from a University bemoan the fact the local authority roads/traffic engineers that he sees in his local authority were some of the weakest students in his former classes. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
    So I think it is perfectly fine of galwaycyclist to question these decision makers based on what we see on the streets of our town/city.


  • Options
    #803
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    If the "traffic planners" are as knowledgeable as you say, then they know exactly what they doing when they subordinate pedestrian access and mobility in order to prioritise traffic flow.

    In which case we're back in the realm of deliberate neglect, imo.

    Yes but in this specific case it manifestly cannot be about prioritising traffic flow - that justification is not available.

    So we are left with a conclusion they are subordinating pedestrian access and mobility in order to subordinate pedestrian access and mobility.

    In this case I feel that abuse is a more accurate description of the behaviour involved.


  • Options
    #804
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Prioritising motorised traffic over pedestrians in a city like Galway is absolutely not smart, and is one of the reasons why our compact city is often clogged with cars.

    Engineers could choose to give pedestrians the green light when there is no conflict with traffic. Why don't they?

    If the "traffic planners" are as knowledgeable as you say, then they know exactly what they doing when they subordinate pedestrian access and mobility in order to prioritise traffic flow.

    In which case we're back in the realm of deliberate neglect, imo.

    I agree I see no reason not to allow pedestrians cross, my point is simply that I am not qualified to assess if there is a reason for that decision. Also it is possible it's a simple oversight and was not done intentionally I.e it was simply programmed incorrectly.

    Either way a query with the council would alleviate your concerns as they'll fix it or explain why it needs to be that way


  • Options
    #805
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Why and why do you think this?
    On your second point.
    I met a recently retired Civil Engineering college lecturer from a University bemoan the fact the local authority roads/traffic engineers that he sees in his local authority were some of the weakest students in his former classes. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
    So I think it is perfectly fine of galwaycyclist to question these decision makers based on what we see on the streets of our town/city.

    Because to become a traffic planner you need a degree and experience before you become a senior decision maker in that field. Even the poor students with qualifications out qualify us.

    Questioning is of course fine but to say that they are not qualified for the job is simply not true. Nor is it ok to say that they're is systematic policies that allow abuse of pedestrians without a shred of factual evidence to support this.


  • Options
    #806
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,896 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Time wrote: »

    Questioning is of course fine but to say that they are not qualified for the job is simply not true. Nor is it ok to say that they're is systematic policies that allow abuse of pedestrians without a shred of factual evidence to support this.
    You have just been given evidence? I can concur with the findings that galwaycyclist outlines at this junction. I go through it every day on the way to work and see this with my own two eyes. It's not just junction by the way. Have it any junction that has a round robin type of sequencing. You might have a problem with the language galwaycyclist use's but the facts on the ground do speak for themselves.
    You still have not answered why in yourassertion "road traffic should take priority over pedestrians in general. "? Is it simply because it's what you see?


  • Options
    #807
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Time wrote: »
    Because to become a traffic planner you need a degree and experience before you become a senior decision maker in that field. Even the poor students with qualifications out qualify us.

    Questioning is of course fine but to say that they are not qualified for the job is simply not true. Nor is it ok to say that they're is systematic policies that allow abuse of pedestrians without a shred of factual evidence to support this.

    Just to remind you - you are the one who raised the issue of qualifications. If you want to bring qualifications into it then that works in both directions.

    Let forget traffic planning for the moment. Lets take a hypothetical situation...

    Your wife, sister etc is pregnant and suffering from morning sickness. Your family doctor prescribes Thalidomide.

    You do not need any qualifications to immediately question that advice.

    If you question that advice and the response is that the doctor is qualified and you are not then that defence has certain direct implications. If the defence for apparently incompetent practice is that it is justified and explained by particular educational qualifications then - by that fact - the competence of that education is also called into question.

    Persons who hold that qualification can then no longer be considered suitable for the position of family doctor.

    Retraining or persons with a different educational background are then needed to fill that role.


  • Options
    #808
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    what_traffic wrote: »
    You have just been given evidence? I can concur with the findings that galwaycyclist outlines at this junction. I go through it every day on the way to work and see this with my own two eyes. It's not just junction by the way. Have it any junction that has a round robin type of sequencing. You might have a problem with the language galwaycyclist use's but the facts on the ground do speak for themselves.
    You still have not answered why in yourassertion "road traffic should take priority over pedestrians in general. "? Is it simply because it's what you see?

    If you reread what I said you'll see that I said there is no factual evidence that the planners and systematically abusing pedestrians or that this was not a simple error.

    Road traffic should be given priority because roads are designed for traffic and at junctions like that there's a bottleneck as it is, and the volume of pedestrians is significantly lower than the volume of traffic


  • Options
    #809
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Just to remind you - you are the one who raised the issue of qualifications. If you want to bring qualifications into it then that works in both directions.

    Let forget traffic planning for the moment. Lets take a hypothetical situation...

    Your wife, sister etc is pregnant and suffering from morning sickness. Your family doctor prescribes Thalidomide.

    You do not need any qualifications to immediately question that advice.

    If you question that advice and the response is that the doctor is qualified and you are not then that defence has certain direct implications. If the defence for apparently incompetent practice is that it is justified and explained by particular educational qualifications then - by that fact - the competence of that education is also called into question.

    Persons who hold that qualification can then no longer be considered suitable for the position of family doctor.

    Retraining or persons with a different educational background are then needed to fill that role.

    Thats not a valid comparison any dr who prescribed thalidomide did so believing it to be safe. It's also been banned so cannot be prescribed. And if I had issues with sonething someone was prescribed I'd ask for a second opinion.

    You also need people with medical training to be a dr you don't just retrain an accountant. Becoming a dr is one of the hardest qualifications to gain out there taking a minimum of 7 years.

    Also your saying they're incompetent without actually having any evidence to support this. Again there may be valid reasons for things you don't like.

    You need to accept that it is a fact that these people have access to more information and are more knowledgeable than anyone on this thread. If you don't like what they do fine but you have not provided a shred of actual evidence hat they are systematically abusive or incompetent.

    As I've said already make a submission to the council and they'll explain the reason it's like that and needs to stay/why they won't change it. Or they'll change it


  • Options
    #810
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Time wrote: »
    Road traffic should be given priority because roads are designed for traffic and at junctions like that there's a bottleneck as it is, and the volume of pedestrians is significantly lower than the volume of traffic

    1. Are you suggesting that ALL roads are, and were originally, designed for motor traffic?

    2. If roads are designed not to accommodate pedestrians is that (a) smart, (b) fair and (c) sustainable?

    3. Do you think there might be a causal relationship between (a) the secular trend towards designing pedestrians out of the road system and (b) the secular trend towards decreased modal share for walking?

    Time wrote: »
    I like many other people on here may not like the decisions planners make, but i'm smart enough to know that they are far more knowledgeable than you or i are on the matter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec4ZDW1GB64


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    GDSGR8
    Registered Users Posts: 76 ✭✭GDSGR8


    Wow, pressing a button is such a demanding activity.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement