Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

patrickbrophy18

I heard that a cyclist was in an accident in the last week on the Killiney Towers Roundabout and is now on life support. Again, this is a problem that was non existent prior to the construction of the new layout and further demonstrates how it's design is fundamentally flawed. I also saw the entry in the Dun Laoghaire Gazette in which the headline reads "Roundabout is cited as unsafe". The article has even reported accidents on the roundabout with it's new layout. If this were the United States, the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council would be done for reckless endangerment. As such, I hope the council see sense and get rid of the modifications made because it is clearly not working and is, in fact causing problems.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I heard that a cyclist was in an accident in the last week on the Killiney Towers Roundabout and is now on life support.

Unless you have a credible source that you can name and who can confirm the exact details, that's called a rumour and it's nothing more than a rumour until you can provide a source and details.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The article has even reported accidents on the roundabout with it's new layout.

If it is the same article that I read with that headline then there was also zero details and the newspaper did not report any accident, it reported claims that such happened with no details whatsoever.

le petit braquet

The article quoted Councillor Stewart asserting that
"Nowadays I'm hearing of more and more accidents"

As Monument says there are no specific accidents referenced.

She also asserted that
"If a bicycle comes on to the roundabout, the car driver must stop and give it right of way"

If her accident statement is as factual as this, then I wouldn't give it much credence.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

If it is the same article that I read with that headline then there was also zero details and the newspaper did not report any accident, it reported claims that such happened with no details whatsoever.

In the first paragraph of the article, it says that the roundabout is "a cause of accidents in the area" which is quoted by two politicians, John Bailey and Patricia Stewart. With all due respect, I think they would know a hell of a lot more about the area than you. Most (if not all) people I have talked to about this abomination of infrastructure have all said the same thing "Complete waste of money". BTW, many of these people are cyclists.

le petit braquet

Whether the roundabout is a waste of money and the cause of accidents are two completely different topics. As it happens, I agree that at the quoted cost it was a waste of money. However the main cause of accidents (and I have been involved in three near misses as a cyclist) is the failure of motorists to obey the the prominent signs which tell them to "give way to cyclists". Maybe illiteracy is a bigger problem than I thought.

monument

Your main claim about a cyclist getting hurt last week is a rumour and remains and rumour until you back it up.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In the first paragraph of the article, it says that the roundabout is "a cause of accidents in the area" which is quoted by two politicians, John Bailey and Patricia Stewart. With all due respect, I think they would know a hell of a lot more about the area than you.

This is the start of the article (page 7 here), says:

"A €300,000 cycle-friendly roundabout at Killiney Towers has been criticised by two local councillors as unsafe and a cause of accidents in the area."

So, I'll say again: The article did not report any accidents, it only reported vague claims of accidents of unknown type and unknown severity, and thus unknown importance.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Most (if not all) people I have talked to about this abomination of infrastructure have all said the same thing "Complete waste of money".

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

BTW, many of these people are cyclists.

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Fratton Fred

A cyclist was hurt on Friday evening around 9pm opposite the Saval park road junction, between the roundabout and Centra.

I'm not sure of their condition but it didn't look good.

monument

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A cyclist was hurt on Friday evening around 9pm opposite the Saval park road junction, between the roundabout and Centra.

I'm not sure of their condition but it didn't look good.

Sorry to hear about the cyclist, but, that's not on the roundabout, is it?

patrickbrophy18

le petit braquet wrote: »

Whether the roundabout is a waste of money and the cause of accidents are two completely different topics.

Not really. It was the spending of the vast sum of cash which resulted in the new layout which in turn resulted in accidents. The person or group of persons behind the new design of the roundabout are completely incompetent and one sided. I certainly don't agree with the prioritization of cyclists which results in tailbacks as it is completely idiotic. There is nothing at all clever about slowing down cars, public transport or logistics transportation.

Cyclists pay a very small price for their bikes, gear and the odd maintenance job. On the other hand, motorists pay many times more which can be thousands. Ergo, motorists make a far better contribution to the exchequer. I've seen many people here trying to dissociate motor tax with infrastructure development. If motor tax doesn't fund infrastructure development, than why are car, bus and truck owners paying tax for their vehicles and not cyclists?

I would like to ask people like monument and seaswimmer if there was indeed a problem with the roundabout before the new layout was applied?

Finally, anyone who found the previous layout a problem or was afraid of it has to be the biggest wimp on the planet. For those who think like this, "man up". If someone feels inferior, that's their problem and it doesn't excuse compromising those around them. Unfortunately, the re-engineering of the roundabout was an example of such compromise.

Fratton Fred

monument wrote: »

Sorry to hear about the cyclist, but, that's not on the roundabout, is it?

Just off the roundabout, but that may be the accident referred to earlier.

The additional volume of traffic up Castlepark Road and on to this roundabout may have contributed to it as well, some evenings it is very congested up there.

Edit: Just heard, sadly the cyclist died last night.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Not really. It was the spending of the vast sum of cash which resulted in the new layout which in turn resulted in accidents

If you're sure there has been an increase in crashes then you must know details... so tell us:

Where, when, and how did these crashes happen? What did the gardai conclude and what has happened in court? What's your source?

Patrick you're claiming that there's been a load of crashes at the roundabout since the design was changed. The problem is you can't back up what you are saying, and the politicians's claims are weak because no detail have been given whatsoever.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Finally, anyone who found the previous layout a problem or was afraid of it has to be the biggest wimp on the planet. For those who think like this, "man up". If someone feels inferior, that's their problem and it doesn't excuse compromising those around them. Unfortunately, the re-engineering of the roundabout was an example of such compromise.

Should children, women and old people "man up"? :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just off the roundabout, but that may be the accident referred to earlier.

The additional volume of traffic up Castlepark Road and on to this roundabout may have contributed to it as well, some evenings it is very congested up there.

Next thing we'll be blaming shopping centres and factories for road crashes because they can cause congestion too. Edit: Sorry, misunderstood what you were talking about!

Seaswimmer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cyclists pay a very small price for their bikes, gear and the odd maintenance job. On the other hand, motorists pay many times more which can be thousands. Ergo, motorists make a far better contribution to the exchequer. I've seen many people here trying to dissociate motor tax with infrastructure development. If motor tax doesn't fund infrastructure development, than why are car, bus and truck owners paying tax for their vehicles and not cyclists.

the vast majority of cyclists and pedestrians are also car owners and users. You could argue that we are subsiding you and other car drivers as our standing charges are the same but we dont use our cars as much..

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I would like to ask people like monument and seaswimmer if there was indeed a problem with the roundabout before the new layout was applied.

I am not sure whether there was a problem or not. I personally never had a problem cycling around that area and I still dont have any problems. I have 3 children who cycle in that area regularly and none of them has ever mentioned having a problem with the new layout.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Finally, anyone who found the previous layout a problem or was afraid of it has to be the biggest wimp on the planet. For those who think like this, "man up". If someone feels inferior, that's their problem and it doesn't excuse compromising those around them. Unfortunately, the re-engineering of the roundabout was an example of such compromise.

I suggest you reread Monuments very good response to this..

also maybe look up phrases like "the common good"

le petit braquet

monument wrote: »

Next thing we'll be blaming shopping centres and factories for road crashes because they can cause congestion too.

In fairness I think that Fratton Fred is pointing out that because of the resurfacing of the Lower Glengageay Road there is a diversion in force which has increased the volume of traffic in the area.

I don't have any details of the accident and am loath to speculate as to cause. However as I travel that stretch a few times a week, I know that the surface near Saval Park heading to the Killiney roundabout is pretty poor and potholed and I have seen cyclists taken unaware by it.

monument

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A cyclist was hurt on Friday evening around 9pm opposite the Saval park road junction, between the roundabout and Centra.

I'm not sure of their condition but it didn't look good.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just off the roundabout, but that may be the accident referred to earlier.

The additional volume of traffic up Castlepark Road and on to this roundabout may have contributed to it as well, some evenings it is very congested up there.

Edit: Just heard, sadly the cyclist died last night.

The gardai have said to me that they have no record of such a crash as you described involving a cyclist. Are you sure it happened on Friday?

To be clear: I checked with them because it would be a story for me elsewhere if it had happened.

le petit braquet

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Not really. It was the spending of the vast sum of cash which resulted in the new layout which in turn resulted in accidents.

Non sequitur - you would be complaining even if the roundabout had been provided free by a pro-cycling billionaire!

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cyclists pay a very small price for their bikes, gear and the odd maintenance job. On the other hand, motorists pay many times more which can be thousands. Ergo, motorists make a far better contribution to the exchequer. I've seen many people here trying to dissociate motor tax with infrastructure development. If motor tax doesn't fund infrastructure development, than why are car, bus and truck owners paying tax for their vehicles and not cyclists?

I presume that using this logic, you yield at every opportunity to trucks as they have paid more taxes, and are therefore higher beings on your "food chain"?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I would like to ask people like monument and seaswimmer if there was indeed a problem with the roundabout before the new layout was applied?

Compared with the Sallynoggin or Killiney Shopping Centre roundabouts, it was the least problematic in the area and I would far prefer that resources
were devoted to sorting those out first.

However given that it is with us now, I still can't see why motorists can't yield as the signs mandate them to. This is is the cause of accidents - perhaps you could address that point.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Finally, anyone who found the previous layout a problem or was afraid of it has to be the biggest wimp on the planet. For those who think like this, "man up". If someone feels inferior, that's their problem and it doesn't excuse compromising those around them. Unfortunately, the re-engineering of the roundabout was an example of such compromise.

Have you ever tried cycling around either of the Sallynoggin or Killiney Shopping Centre roundabouts at peak hour? Are you man enough? Why should it require physical courage to use a means of transport?

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

Should children, women and old people "man up"? :rolleyes:

Where do women come into the equation?

Anyway, all I'm saying is that "children, women and old people" (as you put it) need to take extra caution when crossing roads. I have said it time and time again that looking left and right before crossing the road is a lesson learned in junior infants. Failure to do so makes you a nuisance and irresponsible. Simple as.

I also think that parents wishing to see their offspring making their own way to school need to teach them basic observation skills and not expect the commuting public to be held up due to parental complacency. As a frequent pedestrian myself, I can respect that those who are in a rush to get somewhere shouldn't be compromised or held up if I decide to be oblivious to my surroundings. As such, I am setting an example to my fellow pedestrians on how to be safe and having a bit of "cop on".

Having said all of that, if a driver is approaching a junction well in advance of point where an observant pedestrian has started crossing the road, it would be ignorant and highly dangerous if they decided to plough through the pedestrian. In any case, observation is key.

Seaswimmer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Having said all of that, if a driver is approaching a junction well in advance of point where an observant pedestrian has started crossing the road, it would be ignorant and highly dangerous if they decided to plough through the pedestrian. In any case, observation is key.

As well as being highly illegal. I suggest you read the following extract from the rules of the road..

Pedestrians

As a driver, you must not put a pedestrian at risk. In particular, you must give way to pedestrians:

• on or at a zebra crossing (even if they are only waiting to cross),
• on or at a pelican crossing, when the amber light is flashing,
• crossing the road, if you are moving off from a stationary position (for example at a traffic light or a parking space), and
• at a junction, if they have started crossing the road.

Watch out for pedestrians who might attempt to cross the road suddenly from between parked vehicles. Make extra allowances for older people, people with disabilities and children. Watch for pedestrians walking to and from buses.

patrickbrophy18

le petit braquet wrote: »

Non sequitur - you would be complaining even if the roundabout had been provided free by a pro-cycling billionaire!

In that hypothesis, it would only be a single tax payer. However, I would still think the investment was idiotic!:eek:

le petit braquet wrote: »

I presume that using this logic, you yield at every opportunity to trucks as they have paid more taxes, and are therefore higher beings on your "food chain"?

A little bit of a dramatic analogy. Anyway, to answer your question, they are delivering goods to shops and other places which contribute to the economy and have a certain amount of time to get them there. I would yield to them so that they can reach their deadline. So, yeah!:D

le petit braquet wrote: »

However given that it is with us now, I still can't see why motorists can't yield as the signs mandate them to. This is is the cause of accidents - perhaps you could address that point.

Again, there wasn't a problem there before. So, why fix it?

I always see motorists yielding to cyclists at this roundabout. However, this causes tailbacks. Tailbacks are a classic form of congestion and hence, unacceptable. Essentially, "turn the clock back "solutions:rolleyes:"" are my main problem because they are regressive. Any money spent on regressive measures is a waste.

le petit braquet wrote: »

Have you ever tried cycling around either of the Sallynoggin or Killiney Shopping Centre roundabouts at peak hour?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have and not a problem for yours truly! I also cycled Killiney Towers Roundabout in it's previous form and again, not a problem!:D

le petit braquet wrote: »

Are you man enough?

Given that I didn't have a problem, yeah...I am man enough!:D;)

Are you?;)

le petit braquet wrote: »

Why should it require physical courage to use a means of transport?

Courage shouldn't come into the equation as long as you have your wits about you! Observation and responsibility are among those wits!:D

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Where do women come into the equation?

Anyway, all I'm saying is that "children, women and old people" (as you put it) need to take extra caution when crossing roads. I have said it time and time again that looking left and right before crossing the road is a lesson learned in junior infants. Failure to do so makes you a nuisance and irresponsible. Simple as.

I also think that parents wishing to see their offspring making their own way to school need to teach them basic observation skills and not expect the commuting public to be held up due to parental complacency. As a frequent pedestrian myself, I can respect that those who are in a rush to get somewhere shouldn't be compromised or held up if I decide to be oblivious to my surroundings. As such, I am setting an example to my fellow pedestrians on how to be safe and having a bit of "cop on".

Having said all of that, if a driver is approaching a junction well in advance of point where an observant pedestrian has started crossing the road, it would be ignorant and highly dangerous if they decided to plough through the pedestrian. In any case, observation is key.

How dare children and old people get in the way of those "in a rush"! :rolleyes:

And I love how you're implying that everybody on foot are not in a hurry and need to respect that those driving are in a hurry. Like it or not but the people on foot and on bicycle are also the "commuting public".

Might be time some drivers had a bit of "cop on" and learned how to use the roundabout?

patrickbrophy18

Seaswimmer wrote: »

As well as being highly illegal. I suggest you read the following extract from the rules of the road..

Pedestrians

As a driver, you must not put a pedestrian at risk. In particular, you must give way to pedestrians:

• on or at a zebra crossing (even if they are only waiting to cross),
• on or at a pelican crossing, when the amber light is flashing,
• crossing the road, if you are moving off from a stationary position (for example at a traffic light or a parking space), and
• at a junction, if they have started crossing the road.

Watch out for pedestrians who might attempt to cross the road suddenly from between parked vehicles. Make extra allowances for older people, people with disabilities and children. Watch for pedestrians walking to and from buses.

It's okay Seaswimmer, I already know the rules of the road and it's a given and also the law that cars obey them. They aren't rules for nothing. Whenever I drive, I do so by the book! However, the same should be enforced on cyclists as well.

Thinkingaboutit

DLRCC seem to be on a mission to destroy economic activity in their area. The town centre is half empty and most of that half is charity shops thanks to how they permit and police parking and access.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It's okay Seaswimmer, I already know the rules of the road and it's a given and also the law that cars obey them. They aren't rules for nothing. Whenever I drive, I do so by the book! However, the same should be enforced on cyclists as well.

If you do, you seem to be one of the few who do know them.

Seaswimmer

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

DLRCC seem to be on a mission to destroy economic activity in their area. The town centre is half empty and most of that half is charity shops thanks to how they permit and police parking and access.

Well thats a whole other debate and there are people on this forum more qualified than I am to explain the multitude of reasons why Dun Laoghaire is struggling. While parking and access is no doubt a factor I would say the proximity of large modern centres like Dundrum, Blackrock, Carrickmines and Cornelscourt is the main reason for lack of footfall in DL..

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It's okay Seaswimmer, I already know the rules of the road and it's a given and also the law that cars obey them. They aren't rules for nothing. Whenever I drive, I do so by the book! However, the same should be enforced on cyclists as well.

I think we can all agree on traffic law enforcement for ALL road users but its unlikely to happen. All road users are sometimes guilty to a greater or lesser degree. Stand at any junction or set of lights anywhere in Dublin for 20 minutes and observer everyones behaviour..

Fratton Fred

monument wrote: »

The gardai have said to me that they have no record of such a crash as you described involving a cyclist. Are you sure it happened on Friday?

To be clear: I checked with them because it would be a story for me elsewhere if it had happened.

Positive.

I drove past the scene on my way home. It was around 8:30 to 9pm.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

If you do, you seem to be one of the few who do know them.

Why, thank you monument!

I've seen so many drivers out there with phones up to their ears and who fail to signal at all when doing their respective diverts. It's a wonder that they are still on the road and not behind bars due to their blatant disregard for road safety. If you know the Dalkey (Squareabout ) at all, I often see drivers going the wrong way around it as well as committing the aforementioned offenses. The Gardai Traffic Corp would have a field day with it.:D

I will say it again that, be you a motorist (car, bus, truck, ambulance, fire brigade and tractor), cyclist or pedestrian, observation is vital!

patrickbrophy18

Seaswimmer wrote: »

While parking and access is no doubt a factor I would say the proximity of large modern centres like Dundrum, Blackrock, Carrickmines and Cornelscourt is the main reason for lack of footfall in DL..

Many of these modern centres have excellent infrastructure leading to them. Dundrum and Carrickmines are situated very near to the M50 and are also equipped with at least one QBC or dual carriageway. Cornelscourt and Blackrock also have QBCs or dual carriageways which help in facilitating smooth and swift traffic flow. The word in bold is the operative word in this case.

The flow of traffic acts very much like the flow of blood around the body in which the organs (businesses) near to the thicker arteries will get a better supply (exposure) of blood (trade). The coastal road system south of Blackrock and as far as Shankill is all over the place with particularly thin roads (veins) around Sandycove, Glasthule, Dalkey and North Killiney. Killiney Towers Roundabout (KTR) is part of a road system which feeds directly into these towns. The recent tightening of the KTR will reduce the circulation of traffic (blood) to these towns.

I'm well aware that other factors are responsible for the downfall of business. The recession is the primary cause. However, other measures imposed on the coastal towns recently include the following:

1. Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA): A lot of the conditions which come with an ACA designation are so tight that they prevent even moderately creative ways of boosting business or competing with the larger modern centres. Some of these conditions include the discouragement or banning of advertisement panels which provide secondary revenue streams. While I do understand and appreciate the more general purpose of an ACA, I think needless nitpicking such as the discouragement or banning of advertisement panels is only a ploy to satisfy NIMBYs.
2. Pay And Display Parking: The increasing prices and stringent policing of Pay And Display Parking also hinders accessibility by making such areas less welcoming.
3. Traffic Calming: The work done to the KTR is a prime example of such.

Thinkingaboutit

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Well thats a whole other debate and there are people on this forum more qualified than I am to explain the multitude of reasons why Dun Laoghaire is struggling. While parking and access is no doubt a factor I would say the proximity of large modern centres like Dundrum, Blackrock, Carrickmines and Cornelscourt is the main reason for lack of footfall in DL..



I think we can all agree on traffic law enforcement for ALL road users but its unlikely to happen. All road users are sometimes guilty to a greater or lesser degree. Stand at any junction or set of lights anywhere in Dublin for 20 minutes and observer everyones behaviour..

Not to bring this too much off topic (while there is a connection as the DLRCC have a belligerent attitude to motorised transport), the town is hobbled completely by incredible difficulty of parking and the ferociously strict enforcement of parking controls. That is definitely an issue in the town. If driving through and parking in DL becoming too stressful, people will go somewhere else. Traffic calming that the CC engages in, is bringing economic ruination. Shopping areas compete - fact of life - but DL isn't in the competition thanks to the local authority.

Cycling down narrowed roads is not always that pleasant. If cars are going too fast, a traffic bump or two, will keep all but the most reckless in check.

nomdeboardie

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

... Anyway, all I'm saying is that "children, women and old people" (as you put it) need to take extra caution when crossing roads. ...

That's much better :pac:
Carry on

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cyclists pay a very small price for their bikes, gear and the odd maintenance job. On the other hand, motorists pay many times more which can be thousands. Ergo, motorists make a far better contribution to the exchequer.

motorists also cause lots of traffic congestion costing the economy money, the pollution they emit costs millions in carbon credits and the wear they cause on the road is also far far more than bike ever could...

But I still think that roundabout is one of the stupidest bits of road ever built in the country and benefits nobody. There was nothing wrong with the previous version. I cycled it dozens and dozens of times without issue.

Larbre34

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Not to bring this too much off topic (while there is a connection as the DLRCC have a belligerent attitude to motorised transport), the town is hobbled completely by incredible difficulty of parking and the ferociously strict enforcement of parking controls. That is definitely an issue in the town. If driving through and parking in DL becoming too stressful, people will go somewhere else. Traffic calming that the CC engages in, is bringing economic ruination. Shopping areas compete - fact of life - but DL isn't in the competition thanks to the local authority.

Cycling down narrowed roads is not always that pleasant. If cars are going too fast, a traffic bump or two, will keep all but the most reckless in check.

Parking is far from incredibly difficult in Dun Laoghaire, you can pretty much breeze up any street in the town at any time of day and find a space and pay your few shekels. The enforcement regime is another matter but theres no doubt it frees up spaces.

Traffic calming hasnt brought about economic ruin to Dun Laoghaire, Dundrum has. Dundrum village is far more congested traffic wise than DL, however its Councillors took the decision to allow the town centre with all its pros and consanyway and thats what attracts people. Make no mistake about it, the reason Dun Laoghaire is stuck in the dark ages is strong lobby groups and weak local Councillors who are afraid of any progressive development, DL is dying on its feet because of Nimbyism, not a few speed humps or cobbles