Kingston "Road"

dilallio

biko wrote: »

Ok this is much worse and kinda off topic but:

"Pavement driver ordered to wear 'Idiot' sign in Cleveland"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20252212

There was a similar case in Tuam a good few years ago.

The local sergeant was on duty in the square when he noticed a gentleman driving a Honda 50 on the pavement towards him.

He shouted and waved at the man to get off the pavement, but he was ignored.
When the Honda 50 finally reached him, he asked the man what he was at, driving on the footpath.

"Sure I have to drive on the footpath now" said the man.

"Why, in the name of God" asked the sergeant.

"Cos I was in court last week, and Judge Garavan put me off the road for a year" was the reply.

antoobrien

dilallio wrote: »

There was a similar case in Tuam a good few years ago.

The local sergeant was on duty in the square when he noticed a gentleman driving a Honda 50 on the pavement towards him.

He shouted and waved at the man to get off the pavement, but he was ignored.
When the Honda 50 finally reached him, he asked the man what he was at, driving on the footpath.

"Sure I have to drive on the footpath now" said the man.

"Why, in the name of God" asked the sergeant.

"Cos I was in court last week, and Judge Garavan put me off the road for a year" was the reply.

That's so funny it might actually be true - link please that's something that'd have to have made the news.

dilallio

dilallio wrote: »

There was a similar case in Tuam a good few years ago.

The local sergeant was on duty in the square when he noticed a gentleman driving a Honda 50 on the pavement towards him.

He shouted and waved at the man to get off the pavement, but he was ignored.
When the Honda 50 finally reached him, he asked the man what he was at, driving on the footpath.

"Sure I have to drive on the footpath now" said the man.

"Why, in the name of God" asked the sergeant.

"Cos I was in court last week, and Judge Garavan put me off the road for a year" was the reply.

antoobrien wrote: »

That's so funny it might actually be true - link please that's something that'd have to have made the news.

As far as I know, it never went to court - the sergeant saw the funny side and gave him a warning.

ZzubZzub

amiable wrote: »

I've often been stuck in the traffic waiting to go down Taylors Hill and you hear people honk their horns at other drivers in front of them if they don't mount the footpath.

I actually thoroughly enjoy being at this part of the road when people start honking their horn to mount the footpath. Watching how angry they get brings me joy.

Now, I'm short enough, a small wee lass. Once, a huuuuge fella, at least 6ft, got out of his car to knock furiously on my window and give out to me for delaying him because I didn't drive on the path. He seemed like he was trying to intimidate me, so I fought rudeness with rudeness and just stared at him, turned up my radio, and slowly put the window up.

He then flipped the bird. Such a gent.

And thus concludes my epic tale of epicness.


As for the people who park outside Pearse Stadium and surrounding area on footpaths... Makes me wish I was a traffic warden. Oh it'd be soo much fun!

delthedriver

Cleeo wrote: »

I actually thoroughly enjoy being at this part of the road when people start honking their horn to mount the footpath. Watching how angry they get brings me joy.

Now, I'm short enough, a small wee lass. Once, a huuuuge fella, at least 6ft, got out of his car to knock furiously on my window and give out to me for delaying him because I didn't drive on the path. He seemed like he was trying to intimidate me, so I fought rudeness with rudeness and just stared at him, turned up my radio, and slowly put the window up.

He then flipped the bird. Such a gent.

And thus concludes my epic tale of epicness.


As for the people who park outside Pearse Stadium and surrounding area on footpaths... Makes me wish I was a traffic warden. Oh it'd be soo much fun!

Wild West indeed!

Iwannahurl

Cleeo wrote: »

I actually thoroughly enjoy being at this part of the road when people start honking their horn to mount the footpath. Watching how angry they get brings me joy.

Now, I'm short enough, a small wee lass. Once, a huuuuge fella, at least 6ft, got out of his car to knock furiously on my window and give out to me for delaying him because I didn't drive on the path. He seemed like he was trying to intimidate me, so I fought rudeness with rudeness and just stared at him, turned up my radio, and slowly put the window up.

He then flipped the bird. Such a gent.

And thus concludes my epic tale of epicness.

As for the people who park outside Pearse Stadium and surrounding area on footpaths... Makes me wish I was a traffic warden. Oh it'd be soo much fun!

Galway's traffic wardens apparently wish they were someone (or somewhere) else. Or so their chronic absence would suggest.

Here's a suitably epic pic to go with your epic tale.

Iwannahurl

yer man! wrote: »

I think the lanes are just too narrow, there really shouldn't have been an extra lane added to the road if the entire road wasn't made wider. It's the same with loads of roads around the city, they aren't built properly

Fair point. All over the city there are cheap and shoddy Irish solutions to Irish traffic problems. It has been City Council practice over many years -- perhaps decades -- to bung in a couple of lanes of sub-standard width in a penny-pinching attempt to add extra capacity at junctions. Here's one example, though it may not be the worst. As with roundabouts and one-way streets etc, there was no regard for the adverse effects on cyclists, pedestrians and public transport.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Simply remove the left turn lane and the left-turn filter arrow on the lights.

What is "driving" this behaviour is the fact that the people in cars can see a green left-arrow that they can only reach by driving on the footpath.

Remove the left arrow signal head and you remove much of the incentive to drive on the footpath. This would also provide space for cyclists to filter forward to the lights without having to hop on the footpath themselves.

What is the engineering equivalent of Occam's Razor?

This seems like a simple solution. All the 'left turn lane' and left-turn arrow do is raise expectations and prompt a sense of entitlement.

I would be less sanguine about space for cyclists though. The road further back is narrow, and this part here (by the ESB pole) is a real choke point.

Sponge Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Actually the solution is probably easier than that. Simply remove the left turn lane and the left-turn filter arrow on the lights.

Remove the left arrow signal head and you remove much of the incentive to drive on the footpath. This would also provide space for cyclists to filter forward to the lights without having to hop on the footpath themselves.

That could work but as it is only an 'issue' on school mornings why not ban left and right turns for eastbound traffic between 8am and 9.30am thereby emptying the lane.

Plod can go on revenue duty in those hours amd make a killing

Iwannahurl

Can't see that as a runner.

Presumably there are people turning right down Threadneedle Road to access the various schools in the neighbourhood.

A left-turn ban would be routinely ignored. This is Galway, Ireland after all.

Cyclists would have to be exempted from banned turns also, and that would require thinking, planning, considering, accommodating, facilitating and other horrors.

As for "Plod" and alleged "revenue duty" there's nothing stopping them from carrying out such operations at present, at this site and other suitable locations across the city. (BTW, glad to see AGS had a checkpoint on the Western Distributor Road recently.)

Time for another pic:

swine

In the interest of balance are you going to start posting pictures of cyclists and pedestrians disobeying the law Iwannahurl? At such a busy junction and with all the time you've invested in taking pictures of an inch of a tyre on a path there must be hundreds of juicy photos of law breaking.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can't see that as a runner.

Presumably there are people turning right down Threadneedle Road to access the various schools in the neighbourhood.

A left-turn ban would be routinely ignored. This is Galway, Ireland after all.

There are dozens if not hundreds of left turn or right turn bans off main roads in Dublin to stop vehicles using rat runs through estates in the mornings.

Probably the best place to start is by enforcing the current rules, then decide what extra tweaks need to be made.

Iwannahurl

swine wrote: »

In the interest of balance are you going to start posting pictures of cyclists and pedestrians disobeying the law Iwannahurl? At such a busy junction and with all the time you've invested in taking pictures of an inch of a tyre on a path there must be hundreds of juicy photos of law breaking.

I have thousands of photos of cars up on footpaths (two wheels up good, four wheels up even better) to get through first.

In the meantime, if you think there's an unmet need for such material feel free to address the subject yourself.

The value of such imagery, in my opinion, is that it prompts discussion on why such behaviour might be occurring. There's often more to it than meets the eye, and a picture is worth a thousand words.

Please bear in mind, by the way, that Galway City Council has been fighting hard in recent times to defend its practice of directing cyclists up on footpaths.

Oh yes, and the Garda Siochana regularly defend their practice of allowing cars to drive up and park on footpaths so that pedestrians have to walk on the road.

Walking on the road in front of traffic is known as "jay-walking", or so we're led to believe. I've yet to see a robust and uncontestable definition of the concept, however.



It's all a bit of a mess, in my opinion, but this is Ireland after all. Happy snapping -- you'll be busy!

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have thousands of photos of cars up on footpaths (two wheels up good, four wheels up even better) to get through first.

2 wheels good 4 wheels bad you mean.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Probably the best place to start is by enforcing the current rules

Noticing the law is there, respecting it, complying with it, enforcing it as required, and striving if necessary to improve it for the greater good, is always the best place to start, IMO.

Here are some regulations I'd like to see enforced rigorously and consistently, with particular emphasis on this provision:

Dangerous parking
If you park in a way that is likely to cause danger to other road users, for example, if it forces a pedestrian out onto the roadway, a Garda can decide that this is dangerous parking and prosecute you.

Almost never heeded, in my experience. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2 wheels good 4 wheels bad you mean.

No. It's two wheels bad...





...four wheels worse (or better, depending on perspective):

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No. It's two wheels bad...

It's a pity I don't have a picture of the cyclist that nearly put me in hospital this morning on my way to work. Coming around a corner a cyclist flew by me before I'd a chance to react. If I'd have been a step or two quicker I'd have at least torn tendons and ligaments, if not broken bones.

Not only were they (she? not sure, lots of rain gear and only saw them from behind) cycling on a footpath when they nearly ruined the rest of my year, but they - when I turned in that direction to vent another cyclist ahead - cycled straight through a red light to turn right at a t-junction.

As bad and all as it is to see those parked cars (and I haven't noticed anybody defending the practice either) are not going to hurt anyone if everyone has a bit of common sense, situations like this morning are far more likely to do so.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

..

I cant believe someone didn't get out a make for you taking photos of them sitting at the lights, if you were taking photos of my car without my consent I'd be out like a shot! You really have little for doing with your time, patrolling the streets of Galway.

amiable

Walker Sticky Stepchildren wrote: »

I cant believe someone didn't get out a make for you taking photos of them sitting at the lights, if you were taking photos of my car without my consent I'd be out like a shot! You really have little for doing with your time, patrolling the streets of Galway.

Do you need consent to take a photograph in a public place?

snubbleste

No you do not amiable.

connemara man

amiable wrote: »

Do you need consent to take a photograph in a public place?

not yet Ireland were meant to bring in legislation where you own your own copyright like it is in France, when brought in you wouldn't be able to be filmed or a photo taken of you without your permission

antoobrien

connemara man wrote: »

not yet Ireland were meant to bring in legislation where you own your own copyright like it is in France, when brought in you wouldn't be able to be filmed or a photo taken of you without your permission

All the same I wouldn't want to publish a photo of another's person child, as IWH has done there a few times.

Edit - sorry, I didn't mean to scare the bejaysus out of anyone, I just don't want to see anyone getting into trouble for an innocently taken photo.

I know you don't legally need consent , I just mean my consent to take the photo, also I even hide my own reg when I put up photos of my own car anywhere online so I would go ape if someone else was putting up photos with my reg on show. I wouldn't normally care about my photo or my cars photo (with reg blocked) being taken but I've no time for the sort of bo*locksology the op is up to.

Sponge Bob

Well the good news is that there are only another 1880 photos (minimum) to go by my count. He should get it all out of his system by christmas at this rate of going.

Carry on Hurl. I'll tell you when I spot my motor in one of them.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

As bad and all as it is to see those parked cars (and I haven't noticed anybody defending the practice either) are not going to hurt anyone if everyone has a bit of common sense, situations like this morning are far more likely to do so.

You have characterised people who objected to certain lawbreaking as whiney and grouchy. In the same post you labeled people who object to motorists' regular and widespread obstruction of footpaths as being members of the "anti car brigade" creating "hassle".

You also claimed that you've "never seen a car driving on a footpath" and requested that I "post some video of this phenomenon" as if it was as rare as UFOs or something.

There are inherent risks in driving and parking on footpaths, to say nothing of the inconvenience and annoyance caused to pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, vision-impaired people, elderly people who may be unsteady on their feet etc. Hence this thread.

Galway City Council has defended their inaction in this area by spinning the line that "common sense must prevail". Sounds familiar? Likewise they are currently defending their practice of directing cyclists onto footpaths.

The trouble with "common sense" is that what is common is not necessarily sensible, and what is sensible is not necessarily common. I would imagine that some of the footpath drivers in Kingston would defend their behaviour on the grounds that they're using common sense. I would regard this post as an example of the "common sense" justification:

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I've often driven on that footpath.

...

They would be tailed right back to Barna in the morning if people did not do so.

With regard to daft, dangerous and dastardly cyclist behaviour, I haven't noticed anyone defending that either, or at least no more than motorists defend their own misdemeanours (check out attitudes to speeding and speed controls in Motors, for example).

My view is that even if five times as many cyclists as motorists are breaking the Rules of the Road, it remains the case that cyclists kill and injure far fewer other road users. That said, there is a clear need for better engineering, education and enforcement in relation to cycling. It's national policy after all, so what are we waiting for?

Iwannahurl

amiable wrote: »

Do you need consent to take a photograph in a public place?

Nope. It is not illegal to take photos in a public place. If it was, we could kiss goodbye to our tourism trade for a start.

I've even double-checked this point with the Garda Press Office.

I think the main caveat is the intended use of the photos, and clearly sensitive subject matter is a no-no.

Photographing motoring misdemeanours, eg obnoxious parking, does not fall into that category, although some motorists are obviously sensitive subjects themselves!

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I'll tell you when I spot my motor in one of them.

What would be a good time to set up the camera?

biko

antoobrien wrote: »

All the same I wouldn't want to publish a photo of another's person child, as IWH has done there a few times.

What times? If you think that some sort of rule breach has been committed then report the post in question.

antoobrien

biko wrote: »

What times? If you think that some sort of rule breach has been committed then report the post in question.

No rule breech that I'm aware of or I'd have reported it. The children aren't the subject of the photo either, so I'd have no personal objection to it. It's more a general be careful when posting images that contain children, there may be an objection to it (kinda sad really but that's the sate of the world we live in). As IWH has said, a garda has been asked about the use of pictures, so it's probably kosher.

The nature of my concern is o.t., so I'll send you a pm about it and we'll see what, if any, information should be published to this thread.

Iwannahurl

Walker Sticky Stepchildren wrote: »

I've no time for the sort of bo*locksology the op is up to.

Given your apparent disregard for road traffic law and its enforcement I wouldn't rely on your definition of "bo*locksology".

Sponge Bob

More photos there Hurl.

biko

IWH, don't bring in old stuff from other forums here.
This thread is inflamed as it is.
It started out really well because that intersection lane is indeed a problem, and everyone seems to agree it is - but don't take it too far or this will be locked.