WTF is going on with the Briarhill roundabout?

softmee

Which one is Lynch Roundabout?

kabakuyu

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056192455

Interesting thread with many varied opinions.From personal experience,the lights have been a disaster for me(adds 20 mins to my journey out of city)and I do recall the considerable realingment and additions of signage that was ongoing for some months after they were installed.Some of this work was only carried out after pressure from the public and public representatives.I remember being at a meeting where engineers swore the public were wrong and their figures were correct, but eventually they changed some aspects of the design.So, sorry ,I would not have the same faith in city hall and their associates that you have.

Iwannahurl

I disagree with (local) authorities all the time!

But as a general rule when good evidence conflicts with my opinion, I have to change my opinion.

Re Moneenageisha: you may have had 20 minutes added to your personal commute, but what has the overall effect been on average commuting times? I'd have to see proper survey data on that before accepting any particular position.

kabakuyu

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I disagree with (local) authorities all the time!

But as a general rule when good evidence conflicts with my opinion, I have to change my opinion.

Re Moneenageisha: you may have had 20 minutes added to your personal commute, but what has the overall effect been on average commuting times? I'd have to see proper survey data on that before accepting any particular position.

Thats good to know.
I would deem the Moneenageisha project a success if it improved commuting times for all users,clearly this has not been achieved.As regards proper survey data on commuting times, I too would consider it, as long as it was gathered and evaluated by an independent entity and not just a "justification survey" conducted by the project engineers and city hall.
Regards,
KK.

Iwannahurl

kabakuyu wrote: »

Thats good to know.
I would deem the Moneenageisha project a success if it improved commuting times for all users,clearly this has not been achieved.As regards proper survey data on commuting times, I too would consider it, as long as it was gathered and evaluated by an independent entity and not just a "justification survey" conducted by the project engineers and city hall.
Regards,
KK.

"All users"? By which you mean...?

What is the independent evidence that the Moneenageisha signalised junction has not improved things, on average, for "all users"?

kabakuyu

"All users"? By which you mean...?

Motorists outbound on College road and Lough Atalia road are still experiencing long delays and they are part of the group "all users"

What is the independent evidence that the Moneenageisha signalised junction has not improved things, on average, for "all users"?

Thats the problem, there is is no independent evidence, but if it exists I would consider it.

Iwannahurl

These are among the reasons why debate about roundabouts versus signals can be so unsatisfactory.

Firstly, there is a marked tendency to use terms like "people" and "all [road] users" when what is really being referred to is motorists.

Pedestrians, cyclists and bus users are people and road users too, and I have argued elsewhere that not only do they deserve a better level of service, they should be prioritised for reasons of safety, sustainability and social capital.

Secondly, there is a tendency for motorists' experiences and perceptions to be regarded as primary information sources, with similar qualitative information from non car users being seen as of less importance, and consultants' analysis as inherently suspect if it does not give the 'right' answer, ie a proposed solution that favours private car use.

Don't get me wrong. I'm as sceptical about our local authorities and their consultants as anyone else. The excessive and inappropriate use of (badly designed) roundabouts in Galway City illustrates, IMO, a long-established pro-car bias. The same people who repeatedly swore blind in the past that roundabouts were good for cyclists and pedestrians are now insisting the exact opposite in order to justify conversion to traffic signals.

WIKI, other European cities with much higher levels of cycling, walking and use of public transport have nowhere near the same number of roundabouts. When they do have roundabouts, they are of a significantly different design and typically afford vulnerable road users much greater levels of priority and safety.

What Galway City Council is now doing is what they should have done many years ago. Perhaps they are primarily motivated by the availability of funds for such projects, rather than by recent conversion to Smarter Travel principles?

kabakuyu

Ah I walked in to that one;),but you are right, I was giving a personal and perhaps selfish view of my own experiences as a motorist,now I just avoid the 2 roads mentioned and take an alternative route home,unfortunately the nature of my employment precludes me from using other modes of transport.I would concur with your concerns regarding city hall's conversion to "Smarter Travel principles" but hopefully a balance that suits everybody can be achieved.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Firstly, there is a marked tendency to use terms like "people" and "all [road] users" when what is really being referred to is motorists.

No that's just you, the rest of us don't want to have to type out and exhaustive classification i.e. pedestrians & cyclists & private motorists & motorcyclist & public transport & etc etc etc ad nauseum to be told we've missed someone or that we've ignored some category, all of which are implied by the use of inclusive plural terms like people and road users.

Your bias shows up every time you (regularly) have an argument with someone over it. What I can't understand is how people are still bothering to try to explain to you that we're being inclusive when we use the term, because people clearly use motorist, pedestrian, cyclists & public transport when making points about each of these classes of road users.


Mods - could we have a sticky somewhere with a glossary so issues like this don't get derailed by lazy assumptions and classifications.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

No that's just you, the rest of us don't want to have to type out and exhaustive classification i.e. pedestrians & cyclists & private motorists & motorcyclist & public transport & etc etc etc ad nauseum to be told we've missed someone or that we've ignored some category, all of which are implied by the use of inclusive plural terms like people and road users.

But the subsequent post from kabakuyu proved that Iwannahurl's point was valid!

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

No that's just you, the rest of us don't want to have to type out and exhaustive classification i.e. pedestrians & cyclists & private motorists & motorcyclist & public transport & etc etc etc ad nauseum to be told we've missed someone or that we've ignored some category, all of which are implied by the use of inclusive plural terms like people and road users.

Your bias shows up every time you (regularly) have an argument with someone over it. What I can't understand is how people are still bothering to try to explain to you that we're being inclusive when we use the term, because people clearly use motorist, pedestrian, cyclists & public transport when making points about each of these classes of road users.


Mods - could we have a sticky somewhere with a glossary so issues like this don't get derailed by lazy assumptions and classifications.

Clarity is necessary. Not all categories of road user are the same; their needs may be quite different, and their experiences of the same environment may be very different.

If posters mean motorists specifically then they should say so.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

But the subsequent post from kabakuyu proved that Iwannahurl's point was valid!

If kabakuyu was the 1st, 2nd or 3rd poster that 'hurl has had this "discussion" with it'd be understandable, but it's not (I've had to explain it several times and have seen a few more people taken up on it) and it increasingly looks like grandstanding an is getting more obnoxious every time it happens.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

If kabakuyu was the 1st, 2nd or 3rd poster that 'hurl has had this "discussion" with it'd be understandable, but it's not (I've had to explain it several times and have seen a few more people taken up on it) and it increasingly looks like grandstanding an is getting more obnoxious every time it happens.

Your not making much sense. What did you have to explain? What is obnoxious about Iwannahurl pointing out that road users includes people who walk, people who cycle, people who push prams and buggies, people who use wheelchairs, people who use the bus, people who drive motor vechicles?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Your not making much sense. What did you have to explain? What is obnoxious about Iwannahurl pointing out that road users includes people who walk, people who cycle, people who push prams and buggies, people who use wheelchairs, people who use the bus, people who drive motor vechicles?

The term road users implies all categories of road user that is taken as a given - 'hurl takes it to mean motorists every single time and takes it out on other posters. What I (and other posters) have had to explain is that it is an inclusive term. What's obnoxious is that 'hurl never seems to learn and wants everyone to use an exhaustive list.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

the term road users implies all - 'hurl takes it to mean motorists every single time and explains that. What I (and other posters) have had to explain is that it is an inclusive term. What's obnoxious is that 'hurl never seems to learn.

This is incorrect. Iwannahurl does not make this argument. He/She takes issue with other posters who use the term "road users" and who are only referring to drivers of motor vechicles.
Can you point to a post where Iwannahurl has stated the opposite of this?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

This is incorrect. Iwannahurl does not make this argument. He/She takes issue with other posters who use the term "road users" and who are only referring to drivers of motor vechicles.
Can you point to a post where Iwannahurl has stated the opposite of this?

Even (in several threads) where it is pointed out that 'hurl is the one assuming they mean motorists? As I've said already, several people have replied to hurl (in various threads) saying that he's the one taking the meaning to be motorist not the poster. It's getting worse than annoying.

So how about suggesting a classification that can be used to describe all categories of users of public roadways, since (according to 'hurl) the majority of us seem to believe term "road users" are exclusively motorists (imo this is blatantly untrue and 'hurl is attempting to derail every thread that discusses traffic into motorists v pedestrians).

Iwannahurl

I think it's clear who's doing the derailing.

For the record, this is the relevant post that gave rise to this side-argument in the present thread:

kabakuyu wrote: »

Thats good to know.
I would deem the Moneenageisha project a success if it improved commuting times for all users,clearly this has not been achieved.As regards proper survey data on commuting times, I too would consider it, as long as it was gathered and evaluated by an independent entity and not just a "justification survey" conducted by the project engineers and city hall.
Regards,
KK.

IMO this is an example of where the experiences of some motorists is conflated with the experiences of road users generally. Kabakuyu has sportingly acknowledged this point already, and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

Why do these distinctions matter? Because in debates over issues like roundabouts versus traffic signals, it cannot be assumed that (a) the motoring experience is what counts, and (b) that motorists can speak for road users in general.

In my experience of public and online debate regarding issues such as road safety, traffic management and transport policy, the dominant discourse is about cars and the needs and desires of motorists, and it is therefore necessary time and time again to keep other modes of travel on the agenda. I make no apology for that.