Seamus Quirke roadworks merge

Iwannahurl

Sorry, I was thinking of Gleann Dara rather than Glen Oaks. The two names are obviously related, and I mixed them up.

What's the arrangement for cyclists coming from the Glen Oaks side who wish to turn right towards Shantalla at this junction?

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What's the arrangement for cyclists coming from the Glen Oaks side who wish to turn right towards Shantalla at this junction?

Schematic of that manouvre posted in this thread some time back ( assuming it is fully marked ) . Have a trawl.

connemara man

I hope they change the lights so you hit every green light if you get one and you are driving the limit, it makes no sense of having the timings so that its go stop go stop,
I drove down it in half hour ago took me 4 times longer than it should of if lights were sequenced right,

connemara man

connemara man wrote: »

I hope they change the lights so you hit every green light if you get one and you are driving the limit, it makes no sense of having the timings so that its go stop go stop,
I drove down it in half hour ago took me 4 times longer than it should of if lights were sequenced right,

Sorry, not having a go at you personally but I keep seeing this come again and again.

It seems silly that the following has to be stated but here goes...

There is NO WAY to do that for traffic for both directions and still allow traffic to exit from the other side roads in a timely manner while at the same time giving pedestrians decent time to cross at the various junctions

Sponge Bob

The most you will get is a 'tidal flow' priority, a longer green sequence east in the morning and a green sequence west in the evening. Other movements must still be catered for.

That will not happen for a year, sorting out the 'flow' now will only land them at the roadworks on teh Headford Road roundabout come August and then at the Sandyvale Roundabout. The flow will collide with other significant flows ( from/to E and N) at the Tuam Road-Ballybrit section anyway.....both morning and evening.

jkforde

Deleted User wrote: »

There is NO WAY to do that for traffic for both directions and still allow traffic to exit from the other side roads in a timely manner while at the same time giving pedestrians decent time to cross at the various junctions

thought the whole idea of the revamp, as well as installing the bus corridors, was to get coordinated free flow going during peak times via the Urban Traffic Management Centre? won't some coordination be enforced by them during peak flows?

connemara man

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, not having a go at you personally but I keep seeing this come again and again.

It seems silly that the following has to be stated but here goes...

There is NO WAY to do that for traffic for both directions and still allow traffic to exit from the other side roads in a timely manner while at the same time giving pedestrians decent time to cross at the various junctions

I understand what you mean about this but look at the time of my post i don't think its un reasonable at half one in the morning for the main road to stay green, if, as i was driving at 50 k that I hit the next set of lights for its green light etc..

the reason i say this is if you hit one green light you used to from Taylors hill get to the shopping center at Tesco across the bridge at the sped limit and hit every green light as flow worked better that way.
I understand that it will take time to work out the kinks but it's things like that which will allow cars buses and bikes all use the road to its full potential

what_traffic

connemara man wrote: »

I understand what you mean about this but look at the time of my post i don't think its un reasonable at half one in the morning for the main road to stay green, if, as i was driving at 50 k that I hit the next set of lights for its green light etc..

Flashing amber lights on all arms from 00h00 -> 06h00 in the morning would be the ideal scenario for all lights at junctions in the city.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Flashing amber lights on all arms from 00h00 -> 06h00 in the morning would be the ideal scenario for all lights at junctions in the city.

I'd extend the start to 19h30 in the case of certain sets of lights where traffic drops off significantly e.g. Parkmore/Monivea Rd

Leonard Hofstadter

Open on both sides as far as the Glen Oaks now, at long long last.

Not a hope in hell it will be fully complete by this Friday though:rolleyes:.

galah

what_traffic wrote: »

Flashing amber lights on all arms from 00h00 -> 06h00 in the morning would be the ideal scenario for all lights at junctions in the city.

nah, switch them off completely at night apart from the most dangerous junctions, saving the electricity - and put up proper road signs complementing the traffic lights (like they have in other countries) - thus making clear which road is a 'main' road and has priority, and which is a 'yield' road - this would also help when traffic lights are out of order (at the moment, whoever has the biggest car goes first, it seems). Should be sufficient, really (well, provided motorists take heed - but at least then it would be fairly easy to establish who's at fault should an accident occur...).

Sponge Bob

I hate to say it but they won't finish this till AFTER the Volvo starts ...ie in July.
It is highly unlikely to be finished this month. Tansey and Hayes will have a new date for the media tomorrow no doubt.

Iwannahurl

I had a look at the westbound stretch of the SQR today, just outside Aldi and opposite the church and community centre.






My impression was that the "bus lane" is being routinely used as a left-turn lane by a large number of motorists. 30+ vehicles, mostly cars, in 15 minutes approx.

Sponge Bob

Someone has dug through a fibre serving all of S Connemara....nah it couldn't possibly be Coffeys could it??

Storm 10

Look at the guy on the bike going the wrong way !!!

Sponge Bob

Hurl is blind to all cycling misdemeanors. there is a squad car in the same photo and all.

snubbleste

Hey..take a walk on the westside

Iwannahurl

Storm 10 wrote: »

Look at the guy on the bike going the wrong way !!!

A very common sight, and one that irritates me big-time. As I have mentioned previously, I reckon this practice will continue on the new SQR set-up, as it does on the QB and Terryland "cycle paths" and other places I could mention. My belief is that cyclists do this because they have either come through a roundabout, are anticipating a roundabout or are dodging a junction which may or may not be signalised. They also do it because (a) they are invited to do so by the "design" of other cycle facilities and (b) hey, this is Galway and this is, like, the way everybody drives here, right?

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Hurl is blind to all cycling misdemeanors. there is a squad car in the same photo and all.

1. Link/quote or GTFO.

2. Er, who posted the photo?

3. If cycling in this manner is strictly illegal (as opposed to unorthodox, inappropriate, inadvisable or just plain annoying) can you cite the relevant legislation?

4. Blind and all as I am, supposedly, I actually noticed the squad car when I took the photo. Do you think the law enforcement officers in the squad car noticed either the 'wrong way' cycist or the long string of motorists shooting down the bus lane? Will we see AGS doing anything effective about it? And will we get a receipt?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A very common sight

Then could we see the same level of condemnation for the poor behaviour of cyclists (and pedestrians) then as you give to motorists, instead of explaining it away.

The following post is inherently critical about cars in bus lanes (whcih is not not inherently dangerous*):

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My impression was that the "bus lane" is being routinely used as a left-turn lane by a large number of motorists. 30+ vehicles, mostly cars, in 15 minutes approx.

But you don't think to comment at all about the cyclist who cycles the wrong way down the road **

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I had a look at the westbound stretch of the SQR today, just outside Aldi and opposite the church and community centre.

My impression was that the "bus lane" is being routinely used as a left-turn lane by a large number of motorists. 30+ vehicles, mostly cars, in 15 minutes approx.

And worse explain it away in a fashion that indicates that cyclist breaking traffic laws may actually be acceptable

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I reckon this practice will continue on the new SQR set-up, as it does on the QB and Terryland "cycle paths" and other places I could mention. My belief is that cyclists do this because they have either come through a roundabout, are anticipating a roundabout or are dodging a junction which may or may not be signalised. They also do it because (a) they are invited to do so by the "design" of other cycle facilities and (b) hey, this is Galway and this is, like, the way everybody drives here, right?

Now this practice is something I have NEVER done in Galway (I used QB regularly when cycling to NUIG) and I really can not explain or condone either people that carry on like this, or those that refuse to be openly critical about it.

Btw your

Iwannahurl wrote: »

one that irritates me big-time

sounds very much like the kid who just jot a poke in the ribs from mammy when being told to apologize, especially since you usually defend the bad behaviour (per your "understandable explanation") of cyclists and attempt to redirect.

*said as a cyclist who cycles in narrow bus lanes in Dublin

Storm 10

Great pictures and they clearly show proof if ever proof was needed that we do not obey road traffic rules, seems they only apply to other people crazy really, if someone is hit who pays if a cyclist is on the wrong side going against traffic or if you hit a car in a bus lane.

Iwannahurl

Cyclists who travel on off-road cycle paths adjacent to the footway are at a higher relative risk of collision, especially at junctions and driveways. The risk is even higher when they cycle the "wrong way". That's relative risk, by the way -- I'm not sure what their absolute risk would be. The risk is primarily to their own safety, I believe.

Would those who are claiming that wrong-way cycling on such a "cycle path" is outright illegal please point to the relevant legislation? I'm not saying that legislation doesn't exist, nor am I claiming that such cyclist behaviour is legal, just that I don't know of the relevant legislation.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

especially since you usually defend the bad behaviour of cyclists and attempt to redirect.

Links/quotes/pix or GTFO.

what_traffic

Storm 10 wrote: »

Look at the guy salmon cyclist on the bike going the wrong way !!!

Corrected that for ya.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cyclists who travel on off-road cycle paths adjacent to the footway are at a higher relative risk of collision, especially at junctions and driveways. The risk is even higher when they cycle the "wrong way". That's relative risk, by the way -- I'm not sure what their absolute risk would be. The risk is primarily to their own safety, I believe.

This is correct, but try explaining that to the Engineers in City Hall.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would those who are claiming that wrong-way cycling on such a "cycle path" is outright illegal please point to the relevant legislation? I'm not saying that legislation doesn't exist, nor am I claiming that such cyclist behaviour is legal, just that I don't know of the relevant legislation.

Dont know re the paths section, but the on road section (i.e where the cycle lane and bus lane are on road) then do not the normal rules of the road apply?

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

Dont know re the paths section, but the on road section (i.e where the cycle lane and bus lane are on road) then do not the normal rules of the road apply?

True that.

Those "salmon" cyclists may well feel safe, secure and legal on the raised path section, but I would imagine it's a different story when they come to the on-road sections.

Perhaps that's where they switch to the footpaths? Which is of course totally illegal, and extremely annoying IMO.

I've repeatedly tried raising that issue with the Council too, and got absolutely nowhere. My impression is that there is a tacit acceptance of this behaviour in City Hall and AGS, for reasons that best suit themselves.

inisboffin

Iwannahurl wrote: »

True that.

Those "salmon" cyclists may well feel safe, secure and legal on the raised path section, but I would imagine it's a different story when they come to the on-road sections.

Perhaps that's where they switch to the footpaths? Which is of course totally illegal, and extremely annoying IMO.

I've repeatedly tried raising that issue with the Council too, and got absolutely nowhere. My impression is that there is a tacit acceptance of this behaviour in City Hall and AGS, for reasons that best suit themselves.

Isn't there some doubt (whether fact or not) in a *lot* of people's minds as to whether or not these cycle lanes are two way? (my conclusion is that they are NOT btw as it doesn't make any sense when they have to merge with traffic). But I brought this point up earlier on the thread, because of a sign at the cycle path that tells pedestrians to "look both ways" (indicating a bike might come from either side). So at best it is confusing for some motorists/pedestrians/cyclists.

snubbleste

They are not two-way. Council will paint a direction arrow on the surface of the cycle path in due course.

what_traffic

inisboffin wrote: »

Isn't there some doubt (whether fact or not) in a *lot* of people's minds as to whether or not these cycle lanes are two way? (my conclusion is that they are NOT btw as it doesn't make any sense when they have to merge with traffic). But I brought this point up earlier on the thread, because of a sign at the cycle path that tells pedestrians to "look both ways" (indicating a bike might come from either side). So at best it is confusing for some motorists/pedestrians/cyclists.

100% agree with ya. Engineers over engineering there mega schemes. The more money they spend on a scheme then said scheme looks more important on their CV's is the only logic I can come up with regarding these types of designs! Same goes for the black railings on one side of the bus stops, its to hinder people entering the bus stop. This is a blind spot on the cycle paths for cyclists who are going around the back of the bus stop.

what_traffic

snubbleste wrote: »

They are not two-way. Council will paint a direction arrow on the surface of the cycle path in due course.

That does not mean anything though! It has to have a road sign (that are recognised in legislation) for it to have any meaning.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Links/quotes/pix or GTFO.

Haven't I already done that here