Kingston "Road"

Mrs OBumble

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.

What exactly would you do when you got "out like a shot"?

Beat him up? (assault is illegal)

Take his camera? (theft)

Complain to the guards? (about what - you own driving?)

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

You are completely anti-car and have a massive agenda against motorists why would anyone think the stuff you come out with is anything but bo*locksology.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What exactly would you do when you got "out like a shot"?

Beat him up? (assault is illegal)

Take his camera? (theft)

Complain to the guards? (about what - you own driving?)

I could eat the head off them at the very least, something that I would get great satisfaction out of with the particular poster in question. I could also request my photo be deleted, I will look into it but I wouldn't be surprised if holding photos of the reg numbers of other peoples cars is at least in shady territory legally, they could be listing up cars they intend on stealing etc.

To be honest I think someone standing by the side of the road taking photos of passing cars as if they had some authority should be removed by the guards for being a nuisance.

EDIT: Just as a matter of interst you wouldn't be seeing me mounting that footpath in any case, I treat my car much better than that. Its the whole idea of some busy body going around with an agenda against all things car related which drives a car enthusiast like myself mad.

antoobrien

Walker Sticky Stepchildren wrote: »

To be honest I think someone standing by the side of the road taking photos of passing cars as if they had some authority should be removed by the guards for being a nuisance.

Being a nuisance is not illegal, causing concern (of possible attack) or danger is.

You'd be better off trying loitering.

?Cee?view

flynnlives wrote: »

god forbid!! a prison service van driving in SALTHILL!

...except it's not Salthill so not quite sure what you're on about...

Pappa Charlie

I think the expressions on most drivers faces say's it all!

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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".

Hysteria 1 Grammar 0.

I merely stated that it was a common complaint of the anti car bridge, not that everyone who has that complaint is a member of the anti car complaint. Characterising what I said in that fashion is the same thing equating the word Christian with Catholic, as we know not all Christians are Catholic.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

It's true that I have never witnessed an incident like the one shown in the video biko posted.

I suppose the difference being that I do not see either of the following as "driving on a footpath" - since the objective is not to continue to drive on the path:
mounting a footpath to park
mounting a footpath to avoid a minor obstruction (no more than the length of a car) that's blocking the road

It's a practice that, as long as it is done in a safe manner, I don't have a particular problem with. I'm of the same opinion - as long as it's done with due care and consideration for pedestrians and motorists alike - of cycling on a path. Incidents like this morning or bunny hopping off pavements and cycletracks in and out of traffic are dangerous (mostly to the individual doing it) and can not be tolerated.

If a cyclist is on a footpath, they should be moving no faster than a brisk jog (or joggers shouldn't be allowed on paths either). The thing that annoyed me about the incident this morning was the speed that the cyclist was going. Again I'll re-iterate, if I had been a couple of steps quicker, I'd have ended up in hospital this morning (and likely the cyclist too as it'd have been a spectacular fall).

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

Your argument would be helped if you didn't post pictures that clearly show adequate walking space either on grass or on the path itself around some of the offending vehicles.

As I said a little common sense is required from ALL concerned. I'm not sparing anyone here, I'm pointing the finger at the people responsible for the scenes on front of the lens, those who can't see the space around parked vehicles in their pictures as well as those who cycle on paths filled with pedestrians at road speeds. No wait I'm going to have to widthdraw that, sine we have no videos of it happening it must be "as rare as UFOs or something":rolleyes:.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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:

This being a prime example of the hypocracy inherent in your arguments - you have no apparent problem with the direction of cyclists onto footpaths, creating an actual dangerous situation that is out of the control of the pedestrian as in the one I described that happened to me this morning, but when a car mounts a path on to avoid an obstruction or park where the pedestrian is in control of when they choose to leave the path - the reaction is hypocritical outrage.

Should either happen, no. The prime difference between a cyclist being on a pathway vs a stationary car being on one is that the pedestrian is not in control of the former situation, but is in control of their actions in the latter. Anybody who can not see that should not be styling themselves a protector of pedestrian's rights.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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).

You can't have it both ways, which is it - you haven't noticed it or you have but you'll allow it because the other side is being just as hypocritical by arguning their corner. You can't have your cake an eat it, to complain about the one issue means that the other issue must also be objectionable or the grounds for the objection is rendered null and void.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

One problem with comparing the safety of driving and cycling is that the population that cycles differs from that which drives. The average driver is trained, tested, will have about two decades of experience, and is to a degree regulated. The average cyclist is young, male, untutored, unregulated, not wealthy, riding a badly equipped machine on busy urban streets, and in the minority.

The problem with stats around motorists vs cyclists and their behaviour all in one nice neat quote.

:pac: So lets start treating cyclists motorists equals: NBT every two years and have to pass a driving test and carry a license to use a bike. Bike needs to be taxed every year and mandatory insurance (3rd party liability at least, preferably also income protection & health).:eek:

Now I'm not belitting the consequences of parking on footpaths, but I haven't heard of many incidents of pedestrians injured when walking around parked cars. So in the interests of quantifying the potential danger, are there any stats available for this?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Being a nuisance is not illegal, causing concern (of possible attack) or danger is.

You'd be better off trying loitering.

This is descending into farce.

No surprise there.

Just lock it, Biko. The point is made (and more besides).

?Cee?view

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just lock it, Biko. The point is made

Not often I agree with this guy, with the caveat that while I agree a point has indeed been made, I don't believe it's the one that IWH intended.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

This being a prime example of the hypocracy inherent in your arguments - you have no apparent problem with the direction of cyclists onto footpaths,

Spelling 0, Logic 0, Veracity 0.

Quote please.

By the way, here's the relevant section of the RoTR again, to refresh your memory. The fact that you have "no problem" with such footpath abuse is irrelevant.

Galway City Council does have a problem with it, by the way, since they fine about 1500 motorists a year for the offence. About a tenth of what's needed, IMO, but it's better than nothing.

Sponge Bob

churchview wrote: »

...except it's not Salthill so not quite sure what you're on about...

Hurl was in Rahoon when he photographed the Prison Van. More pics there Hurl like a good lad.

Iwannahurl

churchview wrote: »

Not often I agree with this guy, with the caveat that while I agree a point has indeed been made, I don't believe it's the one that IWH intended.

Really? What do you suppose the point is then?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Now I'm not belitting the consequences of parking on footpaths, but I haven't heard of many incidents of pedestrians injured when walking around parked cars. So in the interests of quantifying the potential danger, are there any stats available for this?

Getting OT, but here are a couple of examples that make your personal indifference irrelevant.

National Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, Action 12.

The Pedestrian Road Safety Action Plan Technical Report (2009 -- find it yourself) states that “walking with or against traffic accounts for a significant number of injuries each year, and suggests that footways may not be provided”. However, the footnote to this point suggests another possibility: “a built up/ non-built up comparison would be expected to reveal that these are occurring in the latter, but in fact approximately 60% of these injuries occur in areas defined as ‘built up’.”

Apart from alcohol intoxication, a common cause of walking in the road, where a footpath exists, is obstruction of the footpath.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Getting OT,

No pics in that so deffo OT. Post more pics of parked Galway Cars there Hurl.

Iwannahurl

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

I think the expressions on most drivers faces say's it all!

I think your attitude says a lot more.

I'd like to see those drivers' faces if AGS unexpectedly show up to enforce road traffic law at that spot.

They'll be surprised, very surprised.

biko

It's sad but this isn't working out.
Another traffic thread bites the dust in this forum, and a big step closer to another total ban.