Bodkin / Headford Road roundabout replacement [Lights are on!]

ballinadog

it'll all be sound, don't worry!!

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps Except walking or cycling through will no longer be a game of Russian Roulette, as it is with roundabouts.

Don't be such a drama queen! Russian roulette implies 1 in 6 chance of dying / injury!

Or care to back up your statement with some facts?

galwaycyclist

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Don't be such a drama queen! Russian roulette implies 1 in 6 chance of dying / injury!

Or care to back up your statement with some facts?

Here you go

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/roundabouts.html

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/roundabout/roundabout01.html

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Here you go

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/roundabouts.html

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/roundabout/roundabout01.html

How many pedestrians were killed/injured at roundabouts vs pedestrian lights in Galway?

We know several people died at the (now removed) pedestrian lights on this road.

Iwannahurl

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Don't be such a drama queen! Russian roulette implies 1 in 6 chance of dying / injury!

Or care to back up your statement with some facts?

It was a pun: Las Vegas, roulette...

Not to be taken literally, you understand, like the original Las Vegas allusion.

The problem with Galway's roundabouts is that pedestrians and cyclists are left to take their chances. Irish roundabouts are especially difficult for older people, disabled people and children.

Have you forgotten what the Bodkin Roundabout was like?

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

How many pedestrians were killed/injured at roundabouts vs pedestrian lights in Galway?

We know several people died at the (now removed) pedestrian lights on this road.

An absence of deaths or injury does not equal safety. It may simply indicate that people are so scared to cross the road that they dont bother trying.

Accident figures are of limited value by themselves they need to be related to other figures such as the number, and type, of people crossing the road.

Saying that because there are no deaths there is no problem is the kind of self-serving propaganda that the Garda and others use to explain that they arent going to do anything to improve safety.

antoobrien

galwaycyclist wrote: »

An absence of deaths or injury does not equal safety.

There's so much wrong with that statement it's not even funny.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Saying that because there are no deaths there is no problem is the kind of self-serving propaganda that the Garda and others use to explain that they arent going to do anything to improve safety.

Am no, if more people are being killed at traffic lights than at roundabouts it actually undermines the notion that lights are safer.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Accident figures are of limited value by themselves they need to be related to other figures such as the number, and type, of people crossing the road.

So you've no actual stats to back up your belief.

Carry on.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

There's so much wrong with that statement it's not even funny.

There's nothing wrong with galwaycyclist's statement at all.

To take the argument to an absurd extreme, just for the purposes of illustration, the number of pedestrians killed on motorways is infinitesimal compared to the number killed on urban, local and residential roads. Does that make motorways the safest place for pedestrians to be? Only a fool would answer yes.

In everyday terms, the absence of death or injury is not an indication that a road or junction is inherently safe for all categories of road user. Firstly, crashes are comparatively rare overall, and secondly it may well be the case that the objective or subjectively perceived risks are such that vulnerable road users stay away.

Making roads and junctions so intimidating that cyclists and pedestrians, including children and older people, avoid them is not what I would call an ethical, sensible or sustainable road safety strategy.

You have argued strenuously here and on other forums for the retention of roundabouts.

Are you still claiming that this is acceptable:

Micilin Muc

@anto, are you seriously saying that the roundabouts are safer than traffic lights?

Carry on.

Iwannahurl

The number of deaths does not tell the whole story when so many people continue to sustain serious injuries on the roads. And of course, safety is a much broader concept that the absence of death and injury alone. The fear of injury from motor traffic is a deterrent to walking and cycling and to the freedom of children. The casualty figures for cyclists and pedestrians are less impressive and the absence of rate-based measures means we have only part of the picture.

Source: UK Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, Annual Review 2012/2013

But sure that's just the UK Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, and they would say that, wouldn't they.

Anto knows better than the lot of them, or us.

Carry On, indeed.

goalscoringhero

antoobrien wrote: »

So you've no actual stats to back up your belief.

Carry on.

Would you perhaps care to provide evidence and analysis to back up your line of argumentation?

Iwannahurl

Before we go down that, er, road, I would like to emphasise that we are talking about Irish roundabouts.

Roundabout enthusiasts, including people who should know better, seem to believe that every roundabout (and all roundabout-related legislation) is the same everywhere. This is demonstrably untrue.

Also, any death/injury stats should include data on junction design, casualty rates by category, pedestrian/cyclist numbers etc.

galwaycyclist

antoobrien wrote: »

So you've no actual stats to back up your belief.

One of the beauties of that kind of challenge in Galway is that our city council generally do not conduct,or publish, any detailed analysis of walking or cycling trips. Nor do they generally conduct counts of pedestrians and cyclists and certainly not with the level of effort they put into counting cars.

This is off the topic of the Headford Rd and is being posted purely for illustration.

The funniest or possibly most tragic example of this was the Eyre Square redevelopment. The pedestrian crossings were replanned and rearranged and among reasons given for the scheme were improvement of pedestrian access. At the oral hearing on the scheme it transpired that, before drafting their plans, the city council had never actually counted the number of people crossing the road in Eyre Square or tried to establish where they were coming from or where they were going to. You couldnt make it up.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Our city council generally do not conduct,or publish, any detailed analysis of walking or cycling trips. Nor do they generally conduct counts of pedestrians and cyclists and certainly not with the level of effort they put into counting cars.

They certainly put a lot of effort into counting cars in the run-up to the Bodkin scheme, eg clever use of ANPR to analyse vehicle movements in general and rat-running in particular.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You have argued strenuously here and on other forums for the retention of roundabouts.

Are you still claiming that this is acceptable:

Getting rid of the roundabouts and the other rearrangements that went with it, such as having traffic lights for cars exiting dunnes terryland rather than a special lane and the new exit from the Galway shopping centre has been one of the worst things ever to happen in Galway transport. It's a complete sham.

As for that picture, personally I was happy to cross there and if you are not able to run there were pedestrian lights on the other side of the roundabout.

snubbleste

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

Getting rid of the roundabouts and the other rearrangements that went with it, such as having traffic lights for cars exiting dunnes terryland rather than a special lane and the new exit from the Galway shopping centre has been one of the worst things ever to happen in Galway transport. It's a complete sham.
As for that picture, personally I was happy to cross there and if you are not able to run there were pedestrian lights on the other side of the roundabout.

I don't think many would share either opinion.

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

I don't think many would share either opinion.

Apart from a few people who post on this forum, who have massive anti-car agenda, I would say that vast majority of people in Galway would prefer to have kept the roundabouts.

I constantly hear people complain about the lights.

Iwannahurl

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

I constantly hear people complain about the lights.

"People"? I suspect you mean a few motorists in your circle. In any case, not to be taken seriously, imo.

Mind you, I'm not 100% happy myself, but that's mainly because the last time I was there it took far too long to cross the road. Plus the Galway Shopping Centre access/exit situation is dire.

goalscoringhero

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

... I was happy to cross there and if you are not able to run there were pedestrian lights on the other side of the roundabout.

Your last statement does not make sense at all:
in order to get to those traffic lights you mentioned, those people who are unable to run would have had to cross another unsignalled entrance into the roundabout, as I'm sure you'll remember.

I think your post is a perfect example of the mindset of some demographics of road users, who show very little consideration for other road users' needs. It can even be seen by the way you phrase it: "I was happy with xyz..."

That's fine for you, but what about others who are not so lucky?

When using the car, personally, I am very happy to sit out the red lights in order to let families with a pram, or old folks, or anyone cross the road safely. I know I might be in that position one day.

goalscoringhero

goalscoringhero wrote: »

Your last statement does not make sense at all:
in order to get to those traffic lights you mentioned, those people who are unable to run would have had to cross another unsignalled entrance into the roundabout, as I'm sure you'll remember.

If walking towards town you could cross at the lights near the entrance to Gort Na coribe. You could not find yourself at that roundabout on foot without passing very close to them lights. Walking out from town there was/is a raised island and the road was very easy to cross as you only had to cross half way at a time, that or have crossed sooner where there are lights at the junction with the dyke road.

Iwannahurl

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

If walking towards town you could cross at the lights near the entrance to Gort Na coribe. You could not find yourself at that roundabout on foot without passing very close to them lights. Walking out from town there was/is a raised island and the road was very easy to cross as you only had to cross half way at a time, that or have crossed sooner where there are lights at the junction with the dyke road.

"Very easy" for who?

Mind you, why are we even discussing the former situation? The fact is that the Bodkin Roundabout fan club have now only their fond (though distorted) memories to enjoy.

Although there are still problems with the new junction, imo, at least the signals provide an opportunity for optimising the signal timings for the benefit of active travel and sustainable transport.

I haven't been there in a while so I don't know whether the pedestrian crossing times have improved.

thesandeman

There was a serious crash there this morning according to AA Roadwatch. I didn't hear the details though.

boardzz

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

If walking towards town you could cross at the lights near the entrance to Gort Na coribe. You could not find yourself at that roundabout on foot without passing very close to them lights. Walking out from town there was/is a raised island and the road was very easy to cross as you only had to cross half way at a time, that or have crossed sooner where there are lights at the junction with the dyke road.

Old and disabled people? They are supposed to go out of there way to get to their destination because you want some unlined roundabout where driver didn't know what lane to get in and where/when to indicate.

boardzz

boardzz wrote: »

some unlined roundabout where driver didn't know what lane to get in and where/when to indicate.

The only people who had a problem with that roundabout were people lacking the ability to drive. I never had a single problem using it.

Whatever about that particular roundabout the replacement of the roundabout at huntsman in particular is really the biggest joke. Massive tailbacks now even at off peak times due to the lights. The Tuam road also worked much better with a roundabout and I can see similar crap happening when the replace the Headford road roundabout. Menlo and dyke road will get even more popular when that roundabout is replaced.

gordongekko

The one at the bridge works reasonably well but some major works on the bridge for traffic turning left and from woodquay towards the lights are required. Some minor tweeting of the light sequences would also help. The rest of the lights don't work for the vast majority of the time.

MadYaker

Once all the roundabouts are gone and the sync the lights things should be a lot better. I never had any problems using the bodkin roundabout but there is no doubt that the lights work better.

goalscoringhero

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

The only people who had a problem with that roundabout were people lacking the ability to drive. I never had a single problem using it.

Do you seriously believe that labelling a problem that is real for many as non-existing just because it's not a problem for you is constructive in any way.
Rather than acknowledging that it could have been a problem* for some people, you go and insult them.

* change from 2 to 3 lanes in the middle of the roundabout, no markings, no lights in the darkness, how the hell is any non-local supposed to know of the line change when it's dark? That still doesn't include the issues for pedestrians who wish to cross roads.

Arielle Mango Rip-off wrote: »

Whatever about that particular roundabout the replacement of the roundabout at huntsman in particular is really the biggest joke. Massive tailbacks now even at off peak times due to the lights. The Tuam road also worked much better with a roundabout and I can see similar crap happening when the replace the Headford road roundabout. Menlo and dyke road will get even more popular when that roundabout is replaced.

I'd love it if you quantified those off-peak tailbacks you are talking of. Any time I pass that junction off-peak (e.g. 7pm), there doesn't appear to be any build up that is worth mentioning, on any road leading into the junction.
Similarly for the Tuam Road junction, which to me appears to be clearing any build up very quickly at off-peak times.

There was a thread here recently examining the positive and negative illusions we as traffic producers have.
Ciaran Hayes wrote this piece about a year ago.

Perhaps it is time you re-examined your perception in a quiet moment?

Iwannahurl

boardzz wrote: »

Old and disabled people? They are supposed to go out of there way to get to their destination because you want some unlined roundabout where driver didn't know what lane to get in and where/when to indicate.

They are supposed to go out of their way, or just go away altogether. There are people, some of them in positions of authority and influence unfortunately, who don't care much in any event.

By way of example, a couple of years ago I asked one such senior person (not a Local Authority engineer or official) why there were no 30 km/h zones in Galway City despite the existence of enabling legislation dating back to 2004 and despite the proven benefits in terms of casualty reduction as well as the facilitation of walking, cycling and public transport. His response was that the national reduction in road fatalities was ahead of target. In other words, not enough people were dying to justify the introduction of a 30 km/h speed limit anywhere in the city.

You can be quite sure that the same attitude 'informs' some people's attitude to pedestrian/cyclist-hostile infrastructure, such as those infernal Irish roundabouts.

I just found this today:

Measures of safety and danger
One of the main messages of this study*, which has been discussed in earlier studies, is that road accident statistics are a very bad, and often misleading, measure of safety or danger. Where danger is perceived, the perception is acted upon - people try to get out of the way if they see that something is about to hit them. If certain areas or situations are seen as dangerous they are avoided, or entered with a high level of vigilance, with the result that the danger is not reflected in the accident statistics.

Yet, the only 'proof' that many highway authorities will accept that a road is dangerous, and merits measures to slow or divert traffic, is a large number of accidents. People are frequently told that their fears are groundless because their road has a good accident record. The 'good' accident record is usually explained by the fact that children are forbidden to play in the street or even cross it, old people are afraid to cross it, and fit adults cross it quickly and extremely carefully. This point is routinely missed by many road engineers to whom people complain that the roads on which they are living are dangerous.

*ONE FALSE MOVE: A Study of Children's Independent Mobility. By Mayer Hillman, John Adams & John Whitelegg. Policy Studies Institute, 1990.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/one%20false%20move.pdf

KevR

thesandeman wrote: »

There was a serious crash there this morning according to AA Roadwatch. I didn't hear the details though.

The traffic lights were out of order when I passed through yesterday morning at approximately 07:35...

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

By way of example, a couple of years ago I asked one such senior person (not a Local Authority engineer or official) why there were no 30 km/h zones in Galway City despite the existence of enabling legislation dating back to 2004 and despite the proven benefits in terms of casualty reduction as well as the facilitation of walking, cycling and public transport. His response was that the national reduction in road fatalities was ahead of target. In other words, not enough people were dying to justify the introduction of a 30 km/h speed limit anywhere in the city.
:

To ask a possibly inappropriate question. Would the same person be someone who might have had the ability to log into PULSE and cancel penalty points for his buddies?