Limerick improvement projects

kilburn

To be fair I don't think it's unreasonable to expect cyclists not to cycle 4 abreast in the city.

That's just ignorant.

And before the PC brigade and militant cyclists start giving out it is also illegal.... see below section 47 of the Road Traffic 1997 Regulations

47 Pedal Cyclists

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

Limerick74

The NTA held a briefing for Limerick Councillors on the Draft LSMATS today. Interesting to hear what is included or excluded in the strategy.

what_traffic

kilburn wrote: »

To be fair I don't think it's unreasonable to expect cyclists not to cycle 4 abreast in the city.

That's just ignorant.

True - but usually what you think you see and what is actually happening is different.
An optical illusion - especially if one is in a car; visibility of the actual situation can be poor.
Remember seeing a good blog post on it explaining it. Will post it if I can find it again.

johnnyryan89

Limerick74 wrote: »

The NTA held a briefing for Limerick Councillors on the Draft LSMATS today. Interesting to hear what is included or excluded in the strategy.

Think Elisa O'Donovan had something up on twitter about this.

kilburn

what_traffic wrote:

True - but usually what you think you see and what is actually happening is different. An optical illusion - especially if one is in a car; visibility of the actual situation can be poor. Remember seeing a good blog post on it explaining it. Will post it if I can find it again.

Sorry but if I am doing 15km behind 4 cyclists I am fairly sure there are 4 there as it's illegal to drink drug drive !

what_traffic

kilburn wrote: »

Sorry but if I am doing 15km behind 4 cyclists I am fairly sure there are 4 there as it's illegal to drink drug drive !

Don't doubt the numbers - would doubt your minds interpretation of the numbers though unless you have photographic evidence.
Here it is
http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2013/06/16/can-you-ride-two-abreast/
Recreational or competitive bunch riders tend to be singled out the most for claims about riding 3, 4, or more abreast – “I came around the corner and they were all over the road!”. While I’ve no doubt that there is some less than desirable behaviour from some of the roadies out there, I have a sneaking suspicion that sometimes it’s an optical illusion – a platoon of double-file cyclists from a slight angle could look like they’re just a random pile of riders all over the place.

Ignore the law stuff on this site - its for NZ

Cookiemunster

what_traffic wrote: »

Don't doubt the numbers - would doubt your minds interpretation of the numbers though unless you have photographic evidence.
Here it is
http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2013/06/16/can-you-ride-two-abreast/
Recreational or competitive bunch riders tend to be singled out the most for claims about riding 3, 4, or more abreast – “I came around the corner and they were all over the road!”. While I’ve no doubt that there is some less than desirable behaviour from some of the roadies out there, I have a sneaking suspicion that sometimes it’s an optical illusion – a platoon of double-file cyclists from a slight angle could look like they’re just a random pile of riders all over the place.

Ignore the law stuff on this site - its for NZ

And they science to back up this theory is where? Because some guy in New Zealand putting it in his blog doesn't make it true.

mdmix

in 12 years driving in limerick, I have only ever been inconvenienced by a cyclist once or twice. I am inconvenienced every single day by other drivers who don't want to obey simple rules of the road. take lidl and chawkes on the Dublin Road. a specific layout was introduced to stop people making dangerous turns and still people insist on holding up traffic behind them to make dangerous turns while trying to avoid the barriers setup to stop them.

I wonder what is wrong in drivers heads that they can somehow give other drivers a pass for dangerous or stupid driving that we all see every singly day, but can't let go of that one time a cyclist(s) held them up for a few seconds.

Mc Love

Its the same at the Service Station in Ballinacurra. People driving on the opposite side of the road to get in there or exit from there. Thats the reason they put up those cones to stop people from doing it.

73bc61lyohr0mu

what_traffic wrote: »

Don't doubt the numbers - would doubt your minds interpretation of the numbers though unless you have photographic evidence.
Here it is
http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2013/06/16/can-you-ride-two-abreast/
Recreational or competitive bunch riders tend to be singled out the most for claims about riding 3, 4, or more abreast – “I came around the corner and they were all over the road!”. While I’ve no doubt that there is some less than desirable behaviour from some of the roadies out there, I have a sneaking suspicion that sometimes it’s an optical illusion – a platoon of double-file cyclists from a slight angle could look like they’re just a random pile of riders all over the place.

Ignore the law stuff on this site - its for NZ

I lived in Christchurch for 3 years just after the earthquake. You'd be brave to cycle those roads..

Cookiemunster

mdmix wrote: »

in 12 years driving in limerick, I have only ever been inconvenienced by a cyclist once or twice. I am inconvenienced every single day by other drivers who don't want to obey simple rules of the road. take lidl and chawkes on the Dublin Road. a specific layout was introduced to stop people making dangerous turns and still people insist on holding up traffic behind them to make dangerous turns while trying to avoid the barriers setup to stop them.

I wonder what is wrong in drivers heads that they can somehow give other drivers a pass for dangerous or stupid driving that we all see every singly day, but can't let go of that one time a cyclist(s) held them up for a few seconds.

The conversation is about cycle lanes, so cyclists and their behaviour is going to be the main topic of the discussion. Absolutely nobody has said that there are no issue with other motorists, so they're definitely not getting a pass. If you want to start a thread about bad driving affecting other motorists I'll gladly list a number of things I've seen in the last week alone, but it isn't relevant to the conversation about cyclist/motorist conflicts.

keane2097

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The conversation is about cycle lanes, so cyclists and their behaviour is going to be the main topic of the discussion. Absolutely nobody has said that there are no issue with other motorists, so they're definitely not getting a pass. If you want to start a thread about bad driving affecting other motorists I'll gladly list a number of things I've seen in the last week alone, but it isn't relevant to the conversation about cyclist/motorist conflicts.

The reason we need cycle lanes is because motorists are lethal. I don't see how 'I saw cyclists going three abreast' is any more relevant to a discussion about cycle lanes either if you want to be pedantic.

Cookiemunster

keane2097 wrote: »

The reason we need cycle lanes is because motorists are lethal. I don't see how 'I saw cyclists going three abreast' is any more relevant to a discussion about cycle lanes either if you want to be pedantic.

Some motorists are lethal, not all. Just like some cyclists are idiots with no sense of personal responsibility. Ignoring yield signs and red lights, cycling the wrong way down one way streets are just as illegal as they are for motorists.
But while two cars might have a fender bender, a cyclist getting into an accident with a car, while breaking these laws will end up in hospital or worse and it will be their own fault

Better infrastructure is needed, but believe it or not the motorist isn't always to blame.

keane2097

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Some motorists are lethal, not all. Just like some cyclists are idiots with no sense of personal responsibility. Ignoring yield signs and red lights, cycling the wrong way down one way streets are just as illegal as they are for motorists.
But while two cars might have a fender bender, a cyclist getting into an accident with a car, while breaking these laws will end up in hospital or worse and it will be their own fault

Better infrastructure is needed, but believe it or not the motorist isn't always to blame.

Oh look it turns out motorist behaviour is relevant after all :pac:

Cookiemunster

keane2097 wrote: »

Oh look it turns out motorist behaviour is relevant after all :pac:

Find one of my posts where I said it wasn't. I clearly stated that motorist to motorist interactions are not relevant to a conversation about cyclist to motorist interactions. That involves the behaviour of both motorists AND cyclists. But if you want to ignore that to try to have a cheap shot, work away.

keane2097

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Find one of my posts where I said it wasn't. I clearly stated that motorist to motorist interactions are not relevant to a conversation about cyclist to motorist interactions. That involves the behaviour of both motorists AND cyclists. But if you want to ignore that to try to have a cheap shot, work away.

Having re-read your post you're saying that the bad motorist behaviour described by the other poster is irrelevant because it was observed by someone in a car rather than someone on a bicycle. Presumably the drivers would have driven better if there was someone on a bike around.

Apologies for misreading.

EDIT; Also just realised what thread this is, apologies everyone for the veer off-topic

banie01

To change the subject from cyclists

I'm currently on a bus that left William st at @8:10, stuck in traffic by the Travelodge near Groody roundabout.
It's now 8:57.

Surely the case has to be made that somehow?
At least a dedicated bus lane is needed to UL/NTP?

We need to be shifting people out there to public transport ASAP.
The current efforts by some of the employers to manage traffic flow by staggering start/finish times is only extending the issue not addressing it.

Mc Love

Saw someone say last week that it took just over ten minutes on a bus to get from Parkway roundabout to groody roundabout.

damowill

banie01 wrote: »

To change the subject from cyclists

I'm currently on a bus that left William st at @8:10, stuck in traffic by the Travelodge near Groody roundabout.
It's now 8:57.

Surely the case has to be made that somehow?
At least a dedicated bus lane is needed to UL/NTP?

We need to be shifting people out there to public transport ASAP.
The current efforts by some of the employers to manage traffic flow by staggering start/finish times is only extending the issue not addressing it.

The relief road entrance to UL, just after Groody roundabout is flooded so all traffic is directed through UL main gates.

Some work colleagues commuting from Raheen said it took an hour, in what would normally take 15-20mins. it took 45mins to go from tipperary road at Northern Trust to UL and took 30mins to go from the Parkway to UL

pigtown

An interview with the UL president today saw him mention that the university has bought Larkin House near the main entrance with the intention of developing student housing there. Does anyone know where that is? Google maps is failing me

apc

https://ibb.co/tc4Ghfm

Must be here. Few articles online saying it's to the left of the flagpoles.

pigtown

Youd wonder why they needed to buy a site with all of the undeveloped land they have

Cookiemunster

ABP go ahead for the Opera Center given.

https://twitter.com/Limerick_Leader/status/1233351774012149760

dave 27

Massive news, hopefully the start of a much bigger thing for that part of the city.

Anyone know who is the contractor/s and how soon work can begin?

Cookiemunster

dave 27 wrote: »

Massive news, hopefully the start of a much bigger thing for that part of the city.

Anyone know who is the contractor/s and how soon work can begin?

It's just got permission, so it more than likely still has to be put out to tender for construction.

dave 27

Cookiemunster wrote: »

It's just got permission, so it more than likely still has to be put out to tender for construction.

Is there any link to more detailed renders? im curious about the square in the centre of everything, it looks quite bland. Id like to see more greenery and places for people to sit and relax etc

geotrig

Im glad the 14 stories stays , thought it was originally 15??
I have and always have had very mixed feeling on it. It will be sad to see some of these building "go" even though they are being "kept" but they are so wrecked at this stage.

geotrig

dave 27 wrote: »

Is there any link to more detailed renders? im curious about the square in the centre of everything, it looks quite bland. Id like to see more greenery and places for people to sit and relax etc

this is ireland sonny , we dont do green ,anything other than grey

dave 27

geotrig wrote: »

this is ireland sonny , we dont do green ,anything other than grey

I cant help but think the proposed Ceannt Quarter development in Galway looks like it has far more attention to detail in it, this has the potential to be a soulless Smithfield that is a big empty space with offices around it but i will reserve my judgement until its finished.

really great for the city for investment

Glenomra

no detail on whether the 14 storeys will be allowed. Further detail in a matter of days. The important news today is that the project has received planning permission but there could be conditions.