Driving on the footpath - Threadneedle Road junction

?Cee?view

zarquon wrote: »

I'm just making a logical assumption, i do not know him. As a bipartisan observer in this case i am far more equipped to form an objective opinion than you.

Regardless of what happened, the only people who would be really concerned by this are people who are kerb driving this stretch while caught on camera doing so. I personally would have no issue of a camera in my vicinity if i wasn't doing something wrong.

No, you're positing a logical fallacy.

You are not equipped to form an objective opinion as you are premising your opinion on misunderstanding and an assumption which is untrue.

You assume that the person only takes pictures of people who he deems to be breaking the law. We cannot know this to be true.

You assumed my wife phoned me when she was driving which she didn't (she phoned "because" not "as").

You assume that only those who are "kerb driving" would be concerned that there is a man taking pictures of people in traffic. This is clearly not true as at least I and my wife are concerned. For your assumption on this to have an element of truth, you resort to accusing me (and my wife by implication) of lying.

Finally, do you not think it's a least a bit strange that there is a random man taking pictures of cars and people in cars?

inisboffin

It's legal to take pictures in public places. If the guy goes on to use your image for sell profit, I believe that is a different issue.

People can photograph license plates etc perfectly legally whether we like it or not.

Redhairedguy

Okay guys. This thread has gotten kinda silly with the 'I said... You said' crap. Stop the sniping, trolling and other malarky, and focus on the ACTUAL discussion on hand. The cops are aware about the budding motoring enthusiast and his snap happy locations thanks to ?Cee?view. Equally whether his wife was doing anything illegal is at this stage hearsay and will only go in circles.

Or as my dear old grandpappy used to say:

LESS MOANING, MORE (kerb) MOUNTING!!!

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

It's legal to take pictures in public places. If the guy goes on to use your image for sell profit, I believe that is a different issue.

People can photograph license plates etc perfectly legally whether we like it or not.

I would of thought that it could be viewed as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

If a lone female were involved it has the likely effect of causing fear or at least concern.

If someone believes that others are breaking the law there should report it to the Guards & not try to act as vigilantes.

Redhairedguy

Discodog wrote: »

If someone believes that others are breaking the law there should report it to the Guards & not try to act as vigilantes.

Careful about throwing that word around here... You may not yet realise its connotations in these parts. :pac:

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

I would of thought that it could be viewed as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

If a lone female were involved it has the likely effect of causing fear or at least concern.
.

Under the law, no afaik. However a lone female would have every right in turn to ring the Guards if she felt the behaviour threatening in some additional way, other than someone just photographing the car. IE if the same person photographed her in a number of locations etc.

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

Under the law, no afaik. However a lone female would have every right in turn to ring the Guards if she felt the behaviour threatening in some additional way, other than someone just photographing the car. IE if the same person photographed her in a number of locations etc.

I would of thought that behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace would be very much up to interpretation.

If the Council thought that the matter was serious they could easily install a few bollards. If the Guards had any concerns they could patrol at the lights.

The fact that neither has happened suggests that it's storm in a teacup.

dloob

Probably a member of that Knocknacarra vigilante gang that was setting up on boards :pac:

inisboffin

Taking pics in a public place is not illegal. Morality and manners are different conversations. Selling those pics without permission from the subject is wher legality comes back in.

Discodog

If, for example, an emergency vehicle is trying to pass it's common for cars to mount the pavement. No one would ever be prosecuted for this unless it endangered pedestrians. It's a matter of common sense. The same would apply to someone briefly mounting the pavement to release a line of traffic.

I heard that there are plans to revise that junction.

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

If, for example, an emergency vehicle is trying to pass it's common for cars to mount the pavement. No one would ever be prosecuted for this unless it endangered pedestrians. It's a matter of common sense. The same would apply to someone briefly mounting the pavement to release a line of traffic.

I'd agree totally with the first part but not the second part. Releasing a line of traffic isn't necessarily an emergency.

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

I'd agree totally with the first part but not the second part. Releasing a line of traffic isn't necessarily an emergency.

I agree but it is a helpful thing to do. Driver frustration is recognised as a cause of accidents.

The cones are still there and they are blocking the path to the same degree as two wheels.

There is also a bike chained to a post & blocking the path. I didn't have time to photograph it :-)

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

I agree but it is a helpful thing to do. Driver frustration is recognised as a cause of accidents.

We'll have to agree to differ. I've seen 'driver frustration' cause a car mount the footpath at speed when a pedestrian was coming around a corner!

(disclaimer: I didn't put the cones there!:P)

Re the bike, this wasn't a move that showed much common sense, if it is blocking the path.

What's the legality about
a) cars driving on footpath
b) bikes tied to poles on paths in general

I'd imagine a) is illegal unless an emergency (though unlikely enforced) but what about b) - anyone know? Most bikes are grand with room to pass if they are tied to a tree rail etc, but the odd time there are the ones that block narrow streets.

Discodog

inisboffin wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ. I've seen 'driver frustration' cause a car mount the footpath at speed when a pedestrian was coming around a corner!

Exactly. So if, by mounting 10 yards of totally empty pavement, one can ease driver frustration that's a good thing.

inisboffin

Discodog wrote: »

Exactly. So if, by mounting 10 yards of totally empty pavement, one can ease driver frustration that's a good thing.

Not sure if I follow you, isn't this junction at a corner. How do drivers see around corners?

biko

The spot where drivers mount the footpath for maybe 10 meters is 50 meters (give/take) away from the corner, where road from Joyce's towards Taylor's divide into two lanes before the junction. Aprox where the white van is here
When mounting you can see all the way to the corner.
No-one stays mounted as there is a light pole at the pedestrian crossing.

inisboffin

Thanks Biko. I haven't seen the cones but assumed it was up at the top, where cars also cut up on that path.

If that's a house entrance there, I wouldn't be surprised if a resident put the cones there though, particularly if they have kids.

Discodog

I have only seen drivers mounting the pavement well before the bend & only to gain access to the left lane.

anamara86

Town planning in Galway is a bit of a joke in my opinion. Like a few others have mentioned, most people just mount the curb when there is space ahead to move up and I have yet to see any one mount a curb and remain on it when there is no space ahead!

I also have a problem with the filter lights at this junction. People coming from the Knocknacarra end turning right tend to hold up loads of traffic because there is no right filter. Same can be said for people turning right from the Taylors Hill end. It seems to me that it would make far more sense for the lights to be changed so that for example only lights from Knocknakarra end go, then only lights from Taylors hill end go etc etc. There would be no reason for cars to mount the curb if that was the case.

Eeden

It's a pretty bad junction, that's true. I think there are plans to change it somehow, but I think I heard that the plans involve allowing no right turns at all? Not sure about that but if true, it could make things pretty awkward generally.

buzz11

The traffic lights at this junction used to have ground sensors, which could adjust to take account of the traffic at each side, however they were not replaced when the surfaces were redone several years ago.

Why doesn't the city council transportation unit deploy the available technology to help traffic more smoothly... (eh...cue episode of "Yes Minister")

Maybe it serves the city council's hidden agenda, not to use modern technology and keep traffic queues mounting...just a thought.

Discodog

Eeden wrote: »

It's a pretty bad junction, that's true. I think there are plans to change it somehow, but I think I heard that the plans involve allowing no right turns at all? Not sure about that but if true, it could make things pretty awkward generally.

I heard about the no right turn idea as well.

snubbleste

Let's put a roundabout there :P

Time

The cones have mysteriously moved to the far side of the road just in time for the Monday morning rush

dilallio

Eeden wrote: »

It's a pretty bad junction, that's true. I think there are plans to change it somehow, but I think I heard that the plans involve allowing no right turns at all? Not sure about that but if true, it could make things pretty awkward generally.

Discodog wrote: »

I heard about the no right turn idea as well.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85697396&postcount=4

Also be aware that the City Council tried at the last city council meeting to push through the new changes to the junction at the top of Threadneedle Rd.

The changes will eliminate right turns for all vehicles travelling on either Kingston Rd or Taylors Hill Rd. So traffic coming in the Kingston Rd won't be able to turn right onto Threadneedle Rd, and cars coming out on Taylors Hill Rd won't be able to turn right onto Bishop O'Donnell Rd.

Unsurprisingly, the proposal makes no reference to any safety issues at the junction such as cars/trucks mounting the pavement on Kingston Rd, or the poor sequencing of lights causing issues for traffic turning right from Threadneedle Rd to Taylors Hill Rd.

This is a pity, as erecting a few bollards and altering the light sequence could fix these issues very cheaply.

Not sure if the proposal was discussed at the recent council meeting - I'm guessing that the removal of the council's refuse service was the main discussion.

?Cee?view

Spotted walking on the prom yesterday. The Caped Cameraman! - I'm trying to think of a suitable superhero name for him :-)

I didn't take a picture of him because he had a child with him...

slideshow bob

?Cee?view wrote: »

Spotted walking on the prom yesterday. The Caped Cameraman! - I'm trying to think of a suitable superhero name for him :-)

I didn't take a picture of him because he had a child with him...

He says he's collecting video material for an urban planning event in NIUG this week and has been for a few days. To be fair, that's a terrible cover story for any self-respecting alienabductor/superhero to use.

antoobrien

slideshow bob wrote: »

He says he's collecting video material for an urban planning event in NIUG this week and has been for a few days. To be fair, that's a terrible cover story for any self-respecting alienabductor/superhero to use.

Call shenanigans the next time you see him as there is no event listed in the NUIG calender that could even be loosely described as urban planning for september

45mhrc7evo1d3n

antoobrien wrote: »

Call shenanigans the next time you see him as there is no event listed in the NUIG calender that could even be loosely described as urban planning for september

This is probably it:
http://www.nuigalway.ie/about-us/news-and-events/latest-news/nui-galway-to-host-galway-2040-infrastructure-and-environment-seminar.html