Bizarre/Illegal things on motorways

The fact that all the signs are BLUE should be enough to indicate that it's a motorway you're entering, unless you're in the habit of joining main roads by jumping over fences!

etchyed

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Guards or no guards, if the first intimation a cyclist gets that they are on the wrong road is the sign above then to be frank that is not good enough. In Germany if I read a road sign for a route it will tell me well in advance if it implies an Autobahn - alternative routes will be clearly indicated. Is that the case in this country?

Ehm, yes.

Any road sign that directs road users towards a motorway has the motorway's route number in brackets on a blue background. This indicates that following that sign will lead you to a motorway.

Is it the case that a cyclist coming to the sign above will always have been made aware of alternative routes?

Once again, yes.

Generally, motorway-alternative regional routes do not sign the terminal destination of the adjacent motorway, but they sign the next town along the route. Cyclists are not likely to be travelling the length of a motorway in any case, so local destinations are likely to be more appropriate.

If the answer is "no" then a proportion of cyclists will keep going - that is human nature.

It's also human nature to lie, cheat and steal. That's why we have these funny little things called laws.

Again those responsible for signing our roads bear a contributory responsibility.

No, they don't. Any cyclist deciding to proceed past a motorway sign is immediately breaking the law and putting themselves and others in danger. They bear 100% of the responsibility.

The picture you paint of crap signage around motorways simply isn't true. And even if the signs were crap it would still be the responsibility of the cyclist not to enter the motorway. I'd love to see you try to argue otherwise in court.

nacimroc

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However, I had a certain level of fitness - somebody else might not have bothered.

Then they are breaking the law out of shear laziness. But still breaking the law!!!

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Guards or no guards, if the first intimation a cyclist gets that they are on the wrong road is the sign above then to be frank that is not good enough.

Yes it is! Its a big shinny blue sign on EVERY entrance to a motorway saying NO Pedal - cycles! What more do you want ?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In Germany if I read a road sign for a route it will tell me well in advance if it implies an Autobahn - alternative routes will be clearly indicated. Is that the case in this country?

Yes

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Again those responsible for signing our roads bear a contributory responsibility.

From driving in numerous European countries, I can say that I find Ireland is the best country I've driven in for road signs. I drive 50k miles per year without a sat nav around Ireland and it is one great thing about the Irish roads!

Amtmann

nacimroc wrote: »

Yes it is! Its a big shinny blue sign on EVERY entrance to a motorway saying NO Pedal - cycles! What more do you want ?

Two exceptions to this general rule that I know of are M8 junctions 19 and 18, which were redesignated in '09.

jd

They don't put up these signs any more - I queried the NRA regarding the Gorey-Arklow scheme and the lack of such signage (and the use of the motorway by cyclists)

Dear Mr. JD,

Thank you for your email dated 13th June.

In common with most countries we no longer generally implement the detailed information signage indicating motorway regulations. These signs were designed for original motorways in the UK in the 60s and have not been used there for many years. We now indicate start and entry points on the motorway by the statutory blue motorway sign. This is largely an enforcement issue outside of our control.

Thank you for your query.

Regards,

x
Engineering Inspector
National Roads Authority

galwaycyclist

First you gave us this.

etchyed wrote: »

There is not one place along the route of the M3 where a road has been bisected without an adjacent road with a bridge in very close proximity. On the 50km-long M3 there are no fewer than 30 bridges. Every single piddling little local road has had its own bridge built. Farmers with land on either side have had their own tunnels built underneath the road.

Then you give us this.

etchyed wrote: »

You seem to have entirely missed the point of motorways, which is to provide efficient, long distance routes for car journeys. This removes cars from the rest of the road network, making it safer for other road users. Why would a cyclist wish to travel along beside a motorway? They would have nothing to cycle to. By its very nature, a motorway has no amenities along its route and its exits are a distance away from towns.

You had already answered your own question above in your previous paragraph. Cyclists might be trying to get from one minor road that crosses the motorway to another minor road that crosses the motorway. Cyclists might also be trying to get from Dublin to Galway or Limerick to Dublin. Touring cyclists can clock up significant distances daily. As already pointed out, some lengths of our motorways have very obvious and self-evident and attractive amenities in the form of parallel traffic-free tracks constructed at state expense. In case you may have missed it there is significant demand among potential and actual cyclists for traffic-free routes, not just "traffic-reduced" routes. Cycling a traffic free route beside a celtic tiger motorway that is empty for most of the day might sound very attractive to people who have no other access to traffic free routes.

galwaycyclist

etchyed wrote: »

Ehm, yes.
It's also human nature to lie, cheat and steal. That's why we have these funny little things called laws.

With the exception of people who live and work on the family farm or maybe live on military posts the rest of the population must leave one destination and travel to another to carry out normal daily activities. In my view your attempt to compare "travel" to lying, cheating and stealing is puerile.

etchyed wrote: »

No, they don't. Any cyclist deciding to proceed past a motorway sign is immediately breaking the law and putting themselves and others in danger. They bear 100% of the responsibility.

The picture you paint of crap signage around motorways simply isn't true. And even if the signs were crap it would still be the responsibility of the cyclist not to enter the motorway. I'd love to see you try to argue otherwise in court.

That sounds to me like classic Irish local-authority roads engineer gombeenery. "We can build what we like where we like and if user behaviour does not match our design assumptions then we can fall back on the law" - infantile to be honest. Yes lets blame everything on the well known lawlessness among Irish middle aged women. This is the kind of attitude that results, for instance, in pedestrian crossings being put in the wrong place and then people complaining because people cross the road where they always have.

Yes the cyclist in the case above is answerable to the courts. But maybe if we had accountability in our civil service we wouldnt have middle aged ladies feeling some need to cycle on motorways in the first place. Maybe we also need legislation to make Irish roads engineers specifically answerable to the courts.

etchyed

galwaycyclist wrote: »

...your attempt to compare "travel" to lying, cheating and stealing is puerile.

I did nothing of the sort.

How about taking the discussion to another, separate thread and keep this for what it's supposed to be about

nacimroc

Deleted User wrote: »

How about taking the discussion to another, separate thread and keep this for what it's supposed to be about

Cyclists are illegal things on motorways! I don't see the issue.

Chevolution

Bummer1234 wrote: »

Driving down the M3 just near dunshaughlin heading towards cavan and two women walking on the hard shoulder of the motorway,Not a care in the world. Silly Cows!!

did they have bicycles with them?

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that all the signs are BLUE should be enough to indicate that it's a motorway you're entering, unless you're in the habit of joining main roads by jumping over fences!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056586676

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056586676

LOL, I'd like to see a cyclist do that.

mayo23

Noticed driving to Kerry a few days ago, the signs at the entrance to the M18 and M20 are completely different to the usual "Motorway Ahead" signs. Instead of listing all the restricted traffic in English and Irish, there are pictures showing forbidden traffic (like horse and cart), as well as the route number above. Any idea why this is the case? Is it a mistake, lack of standards in road signage or a new format to be rolled out on the rest of the network?

source

mayo23 wrote: »

Noticed driving to Kerry a few days ago, the signs at the entrance to the M18 and M20 are completely different to the usual "Motorway Ahead" signs. Instead of listing all the restricted traffic in English and Irish, there are pictures showing forbidden traffic (like horse and cart), as well as the route number above. Any idea why this is the case? Is it a mistake, lack of standards in road signage or a new format to be rolled out on the rest of the network?

M18 doesn't start until out past Shannon, what you saw was the N18 which runs from Roxboro to Shannon.

corktina

there are these signs at the M20 junction at Patrickswell where the N20 comes in from Cork

munchkin_utd

mayo23 wrote: »

Noticed driving to Kerry a few days ago, the signs at the entrance to the M18 and M20 are completely different to the usual "Motorway Ahead" signs. Instead of listing all the restricted traffic in English and Irish, there are pictures showing forbidden traffic (like horse and cart), as well as the route number above. Any idea why this is the case? Is it a mistake, lack of standards in road signage or a new format to be rolled out on the rest of the network?

maybe the NRA had a sudden realisation that a heap of text in English and Irish is
- too much info for a motorist to try and digest all at once whilst driving , and even then theres double the text to have it in 2 languages. A picture tells a thousand words as they say!
- unreadable for iliterate folks. Theres a large traveller community down that part of the world, and illiteracy is common amongst them. And theres a forgotten swathe of older settled folks who also have very poor reading skills that these signs would mean nothing to.
- difficult for non-english/irish speakers to read. They would need to be parked for 10 mins with a dictionary to figure what the signs are telling - with symbols they have the message in a second.

corktina

if the horse and cart is aimed at Travellers, they have it wrong as it shows a wild-west style horse and cart rather than a Sulky.

celticbest

Anyone got a picture of this style sign?

source

celticbest wrote: »

Anyone got a picture of this style sign?

I'll get one on the way home later if no one else can supply one.

munchkin_utd

corktina wrote: »

if the horse and cart is aimed at Travellers, they have it wrong as it shows a wild-west style horse and cart rather than a Sulky.

as i said, theres LOTS more illiterate folks out there than travellers.

According to the last international survey, one in four or 25% of Irish adults have literacy difficulties. This compares with 3% in Sweden and 5% in Germany.
<snip>
Currently in Ireland up to 30% of children from disadvantaged areas leave primary school with literacy difficulties.

http://www.nala.ie/literacy-ireland

munchkin_utd

actually, the new sign with symbols isnt in the 2010 road signs manual at all!

The plain text signs are though and theres a nice bit of text to go with it in the manual:

The Motorway Prohibitions sign, Sign F 331, may be
used to indicate the restrictions on traffic entering
the motorway. This sign should be used in advance
of the start of the motorway at a point where the
restricted driver can carry on their journey, while
avoiding entering onto the motorway. Since the
signs contain so much text, two signs are required at
each location – one in English and the other in Irish.

so even the official road sign manual alludes to the fact that that the text content is on the high size on the (old?) signs

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/12971-TSM_CHAPTER_4-4.PDF page 35

funnyname

Speaking of signs on motorways, these signs for vehicles allowed to use the motorway must be worst places signs in all of Ireland.

The are at the entrance of the M6 west at Athenry and there are none at the entrance of the M6 east.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Athenry&hl=en&ll=53.286692,-8.761811&spn=0.005016,0.013797&sll=53.286807,-8.761919&sspn=0.005067,0.013797&oq=athenry&hnear=Athenry,+County+Galway&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.286808,-8.761915&panoid=oLEqwLOyT3YE5e1_tBcp-g&cbp=12,0,,0,0

The should have been placed somewhere here between these two roundabouts and it would have covered both directions.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Athenry&hl=en&ll=53.288892,-8.757852&spn=0.002533,0.006899&sll=53.286807,-8.761919&sspn=0.005067,0.013797&oq=athenry&hnear=Athenry,+County+Galway&t=m&z=17

celticbest

funnyname wrote: »

Speaking of signs on motorways, these signs for vehicles allowed to use the motorway must be worst places signs in all of Ireland.

The are at the entrance of the M6 west at Athenry and there are none at the entrance of the M6 east.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Athenry&hl=en&ll=53.286692,-8.761811&spn=0.005016,0.013797&sll=53.286807,-8.761919&sspn=0.005067,0.013797&oq=athenry&hnear=Athenry,+County+Galway&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.286808,-8.761915&panoid=oLEqwLOyT3YE5e1_tBcp-g&cbp=12,0,,0,0

The should have been placed somewhere here between these two roundabouts and it would have covered both directions.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Athenry&hl=en&ll=53.288892,-8.757852&spn=0.002533,0.006899&sll=53.286807,-8.761919&sspn=0.005067,0.013797&oq=athenry&hnear=Athenry,+County+Galway&t=m&z=17

Pretty normal location to me....

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=M1,+Coolock&hl=en&ll=53.397967,-6.239076&spn=0.000051,0.027552&sll=53.286968,-8.761243&sspn=0.003566,0.006888&oq=m1,+cool&hnear=M1,+Coolock,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.397939,-6.239325&panoid=WMEKI5eUGgiPsCZ14L3nCg&cbp=12,50.22,,0,15.47

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=M1,+Coolock&hl=en&ll=53.431296,-6.229978&spn=0.014216,0.027552&sll=53.286968,-8.761243&sspn=0.003566,0.006888&oq=m1,+cool&hnear=M1,+Coolock,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.431133,-6.229964&panoid=Tv4OpJz8JBB003Kp071j5Q&cbp=12,197.2,,0,16.95

icdg

munchkin_utd wrote: »

maybe the NRA had a sudden realisation that a heap of text in English and Irish is
- too much info for a motorist to try and digest all at once whilst driving , and even then theres double the text to have it in 2 languages. A picture tells a thousand words as they say!
- unreadable for iliterate folks. Theres a large traveller community down that part of the world, and illiteracy is common amongst them. And theres a forgotten swathe of older settled folks who also have very poor reading skills that these signs would mean nothing to.
- difficult for non-english/irish speakers to read. They would need to be parked for 10 mins with a dictionary to figure what the signs are telling - with symbols they have the message in a second.

The "NO" signs were gotten rid of in the UK in the mid-1980s (around the same time we got our first motorways and imported that "NO" signs almost unchanged from the UK version. The UK decided that the Start of Motorway Regulations sign (the motorway symbol and route number) was enough to indicate that prohibitions started and that users were familiar enough with the restrictions associated with motorways that "NO" signs were no longer needed. (They do sign "Non-motorway traffic" to use the last exit before the start of regulations though).

Seems like we've eventually come to the same conclusion ourselves - they didn't appear on the redesignated motorways and I was surprised to see them in TSM 2010. That said I hadn't heard of this new prohibitions sign - it certainly hasn't been seen around Dublin yet - it sounds very like the tunnel prohibitions signs.

munchkin_utd

icdg wrote: »

<snip>
Seems like we've eventually come to the same conclusion ourselves - they didn't appear on the redesignated motorways and I was surprised to see them in TSM 2010. That said I hadn't heard of this new prohibitions sign - it certainly hasn't been seen around Dublin yet - it sounds very like the tunnel prohibitions signs.

indeed!

like this at the limerick tunnel with the horse and cart : http://maps.google.de/maps?q=Limerick+Tunnel,+Limerick,+County+Limerick,+Irland&hl=de&ll=52.660129,-8.692181&spn=0.010946,0.027874&geocode=FfxqIwMdGIJ7_w&hnear=Limerick+Tunnel,+Limerick,+County+Limerick,+Irland&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=52.659893,-8.692102&panoid=Q5gXcMcizqEup2ABHJ1_6w&cbp=12,127.66,,1,-3.01

source

Didn't get one yesterday, but here's one from google

icdg

That's the tunnel prohibition sign at any rate - the height restriction on it is a dead giveaway.

source

icdg wrote: »

That's the tunnel prohibition sign at any rate - the height restriction on it is a dead giveaway.

Same sign is at the entrance of j29 on M7.

icdg

source wrote: »

Same sign is at the entrance of j29 on M7.

With the height restriction?

Unless heading "southbound" perhaps? I know that still gives you two opportunities to exit before the tunnel, but I see no other reason why the height restriction would be signed? There's no general height restriction on motorways...

I'd also question why you'd need to sign a clearway on a motorway...