Galway motorists really grinding my gears

what_traffic

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Also pedestrians should not be on the road endangering themselves and then they won't need to worry about getting hurt while cyclists should be well lit and keep out of the way of cars as much as possible.

Can you explain this in more detail? Do you propose to put footpaths and streetlights in every road in Ireland for pedestrians Or are you just spouting out the usual old NOX-nonsense?

charlie_says

Don't drive into the yellow hatched boxes and stop.

Worst offenders are people at Salmon Weir Bridge who then block any bus getting over the river due to the bus needing the hatched box to turn onto the bridge.

Instant gridlock.

snubbleste

charlie_says wrote: »

Don't drive into the yellow hatched boxes and stop.
Worst offenders are people at Salmon Weir Bridge who then block any bus getting over the river due to the bus needing the hatched box to turn onto the bridge...

In fairness now, I've noticed a chunk of those motorists are not local and may not be aware that a bus needs all that space to navigate the corner.

?Cee?view

snubbleste wrote: »

In fairness now, I've noticed a chunk of those motorists are not local and may not be aware that a bus needs all that space to navigate the corner.

But they don't need to be local to know they should keep out of the hatched area.

?Cee?view

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Am I the only one who tries to get the highest speed I can up on them speed detection signs :pac:

I know you think you're being funny here and normally I'm not one to agree with revenue generating speed traps, but in the case of all these in detector things in Galway, I can't think of one that isn't appropriately sited. They're all in residential areas where a child could run on to a road at any stage and no amount of ABS or EBD will deal with that.

dastardly00

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Some of them detection signs are in fairly harmless places too especially if you are travelling late at night or in very light traffic.

Can you reference some of these locations?

WallyGUFC

dastardly00 wrote: »

Can you reference some of these locations?

Sean Mulvoy Road would be fairly harmless but I suppose there was a bad crash there a few years ago due to reckless driving (?) so probably warranted as a deterrent.

Cheshire Cat

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Our motorways are better roads than a lot of the autobahns why do you think it's safe there but not here?

I never said or implied that the Autobahn was safer. All I said, was that it would suit you. The motorway here has a speed limit of 120, far too low for you and your performance car

beardybrewer

snubbleste wrote: »

In fairness now, I've noticed a chunk of those motorists are not local and may not be aware that a bus needs all that space to navigate the corner.

In double fairness, weren't they meant to add a proper pedestrian footpath to Salmon Wier bridge years ago? It's so narrow as it is (for both cars and pedestrians) I'm surprised there aren't accidents/gridlock there all the time.


Regarding the speed indicator signs my bit of feedback would be there are antagonising signs that flash angrily at you even when you're not speeding (e.g. doing 48 in a 50) and then there are the nice ones that say 'thank you'. I think the former undermines their purpose as they're never happy while the friendly ones actually make you want to see a green 'thank you' instead of a red 'too fast'. That may sound stupid to some, but Jonathan Ive is a household name because design matters.

If they are keeping statistics I would bet 90% of traffic is speeding on the Western Distributor. Most don't push 60kph, but most go at or around 50kph. Raising it to 55kph (still not even 35mph) would likely drop that number to 20%.

snubbleste

beardybrewer wrote: »

..
If they are keeping statistics I would bet 90% of traffic is speeding on the Western Distributor. Most don't push 60kph, but most go at or around 50kph. Raising it to 55kph (still not even 35mph) would likely drop that number to 20%.

No need to bet, just go and stand by the sign and observe :cool:

endagibson

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

While pedestrians have not got any stronger cars are designed to minimise the injury done to pedestrians so there is actually a big big difference in the injury you will get being hit by a modern car and one from 50 years ago or even 20 years ago.

Really? Cars have gotten bigger, heavier higher and faster. Physics would disagree.

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

That's on top of the vast difference in braking, handling (thus ability to avoid ovsticles) and lighting (making it much easier to see pedestrians in places they shouldn't be like the middle of the road).

All still reliant upon the driver who, I'm afraid to say, is in general still as rubbish as ever.

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

In any case if you are hit at 100kmh you might as well be hit at 200kmh you are dead either way which is another stupid thing about people's worshipping of speed limits, they assume they are save when observing them when in fact they often aren't or on the other hand it's often safe to exceed them.

So what would happen if you travelled more slowly and didn't hit them at 100km/h or, heaven forbid, didn't hit them at all because you could react correctly?

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Also pedestrians should not be on the road endangering themselves and then they won't need to worry about getting hurt while cyclists should be well lit and keep out of the way of cars as much as possible.

Have you got a plausible alternative for them?

Surely there is some kind of test the RSA could be doing to catch and correct this much wrong?

Chuchote

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Also pedestrians should not be on the road endangering themselves and then they won't need to worry about getting hurt while cyclists should be well lit and keep out of the way of cars as much as possible.

I'd prefer that speed maniacs weren't on the road and cyclists could cycle safely and pedestrians cross safely.

snubbleste wrote: »

In fairness now, I've noticed a chunk of those motorists are not local and may not be aware that a bus needs all that space to navigate the corner.

Is there a huge helpful notice saying "€200 instant fine for cars entering box junction"?

snubbleste

Chuchote wrote: »

Is there a huge helpful notice saying "€200 instant fine for cars entering box junction"?

Not yet! I'll get to work on it

dastardly00

dastardly00 wrote: »

Can you reference some of these locations?

Entering the roundabout before oranmore, loads of space to slow down after the sign before the roundabout, perfect visibility of the road ahead and not a place where cyclists or pedestrians cross the road.

Cheshire Cat wrote: »

I never said or implied that the Autobahn was safer. All I said, was that it would suit you. The motorway here has a speed limit of 120, far too low for you and your performance car

120kmh is pitifully slow, but people have it ingrained in their heads that it's fast so there is no point trying to change their minds.

endagibson wrote: »

Really? Cars have gotten bigger, heavier higher and faster. Physics would disagree.

That shows your ignorance on the topic, pedestrian impact protection is a massive deal in car design infact it's too much of an influence imo as its having an impact on the design of cars making it more difficult for designers to make nice looking front ends. There is an entire division of ncap for testing pedestrian safety.

Faster cars which stop a lot faster too remember and with a lot more driver aids. A car from years ago might be travelling slower and be unable to stop before hitting a person while a modern car travelling faster may be able to come to a complete stop. Go look up how vastly better cars are now at stopping it's not a small difference it's massive.

As for weight, I'd like to see some stats on that as modern cars use a lot of light weight materials and try to minimise weight for fuel consumption compared to other cats which were big lumps of metal.

endagibson wrote: »

So what would happen if you travelled more slowly and didn't hit them at 100km/h or, heaven forbid, didn't hit them at all because you could react correctly?

Sure lets all drive around at 5kmh, everyone eill be safe and we will be able to drive to work in a few hours or have a nice two day trip getting across the country.

Chuchote

Stats on weight: you can look up your own car's weight online. When I sold mine, a 1990s Ford Mondeo, it weighed 3 tonnes.
How many people have died on the roads in Ireland this year?

Mrs OBumble

endagibson wrote: »

Have you got a plausible alternative for them?

They should be in their cars driving to get where-ever they're going, of course!

:pac:



Nox001, congratulations you've really outdone yourself in terms of entertainment-provision in this thread.

endagibson

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

That shows your ignorance on the topic, pedestrian impact protection is a massive deal in car design infact it's too much of an influence imo as its having an impact on the design of cars making it more difficult for designers to make nice looking front ends. There is an entire division of ncap for testing pedestrian safety.

All of that will be moot if you're going to hit them at 100km/h.

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Faster cars which stop a lot faster too remember and with a lot more driver aids. A car from years ago might be travelling slower and be unable to stop before hitting a person while a modern car travelling faster may be able to come to a complete stop. Go look up how vastly better cars are now at stopping it's not a small difference it's massive.

Modern cars are. However, it takes time for these improvements to permeate the national fleet.

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

As for weight, I'd like to see some stats on that as modern cars use a lot of light weight materials and try to minimise weight for fuel consumption compared to other cats which were big lumps of metal.

I know what you mean. My Da had a 1970's mark IV Cortina that was a solid lump. His next motor was a Mazda 323 that he could hammer a dent out of with the heel of his hand.
Just out of curiosity, I looked up some specs and it appears, counterintuitively, that modern cars are heavier. A 2.3l Cortina comes in at 1,128kg and my own 2008 Mazda 3 is 1,485. My car would be considered a small hatchback whereas a Ford Cortina was the Mondeo of its day.

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Sure lets all drive around at 5kmh, everyone eill be safe and we will be able to drive to work in a few hours or have a nice two day trip getting across the country.

Of course, because those are the only two speeds possible irrespective of location or time of day; 100km/h+ or 5km/h.

biko

If this thread is not specifically about Galway city it will be moved or locked.

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

Stats on weight: you can look up your own car's weight online. When I sold mine, a 1990s Ford Mondeo, it weighed 3 tonnes.
How many people have died on the roads in Ireland this year?

There is no way a mondeo weighted 3 tonnes, there is no mondeo that weighs over 2 tonnes, most are between 1500 and 1700kg.

Edit: sorry did't read all the posts and just say the mod warning about non-galway related posts. I won't say anymore on the matter.

snubbleste

No wonder traffic is so bad.
A lack of resources has resulted in the city’s high-tech traffic control unit being left unmanned. http://connachttribune.ie/collective-approach-needed-to-solve-city-traffic-problems/
and
Cllr Mike Crowe says that the roundabouts on the outskirts of the city are one of the major sticking points.
Did he not object to roundabouts being removed at some point?

thesandeman

snubbleste wrote: »

Did he not object to roundabouts being removed at some point?

Only the ones with trees on them.

snubbleste

What's up with motorists stuck in traffic on N6 eastbound, speeding into Tom Hogans's, driving through, re-entering the traffic further down and skipping 20-30 cars in the process? Should everyone be doing it?

joeKel73

They need to bring back the lane splitter at the docks, the amount of lane jumping in the evening traffic is shameless and getting worse...

ronnie3585

J o e wrote: »

They need to bring back the lane splitter at the docks, the amount of lane jumping in the evening traffic is shameless and getting worse...

It's a huge contributory factor to the daily backlog.

Red_Wake

Twice in the last month have seen cars at the briarhill junction breaking red lights, and oncoming traffic needing to break to avoid an accident.

Mad **** altogether.

Discodog

Red_Wake wrote: »

Twice in the last month have seen cars at the briarhill junction breaking red lights, and oncoming traffic needing to break to avoid an accident.

Mad **** altogether.

I can't understand why they don't install cameras & collect the revenue

beardybrewer

Didn't you know those people are more important than you?

The worse the traffic congestion gets the worse behaviour is liable to get. We can complain them here but usually it is the ultimate expression of frustration at the situation which was allowed to get this bad. We're all stuck in No Plan Land.

Discodog

beardybrewer wrote: »

Didn't you know those people are more important than you?

The worse the traffic congestion gets the worse behaviour is liable to get. We can complain them here but usually it is the ultimate expression of frustration at the situation which was allowed to get this bad. We're all stuck in No Plan Land.

Exactly. Traffic congestion is dangerous.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

I can't understand why they don't install cameras & collect the revenue

Trust me it's a pain in the arse having these nanny state measures. Driving in London is total pain for example as you can't do anything without it being caught on camera, even when you aren't doing anything wrong you could get landed with a fine if someone else does something in front of you and you end up stranded with a camera looking at you.

gordongekko

Amalia Melodic Racism wrote: »

Trust me it's a pain in the arse having these nanny state measures. Driving in London is total pain for example as you can't do anything without it being caught on camera, even when you aren't doing anything wrong you could get landed with a fine if someone else does something in front of you and you end up stranded with a camera looking at you.

What? How do you get a fine if you don't do anything wrong?