Pedestrians on regional roads.

I love Sean nos

Lord Nikon wrote: »

I never suggested they shouldn't be walking there, I'm merely highlighting the fact that walking/running in these areas is quite dangerous. Is it necessary to walk in dangerous areas, because someone is entitled to?

Probably as necessary as it is to drive there. However, that question never seems to get asked.

magicbastarder

regarding 'entitlement' to walk; to walk along the road requires no permission, no entitlement, nothing.
to drive along the road, you need to be licenced, taxed, insured, and your vehicle must meet minimum standards. the pedestrian has thus more of a right/entitlement/call it what you will, to be there.

AndrewJRenko

Lord Nikon wrote: »

I never suggested they shouldn't be walking there, I'm merely highlighting the fact that walking/running in these areas is quite dangerous. Is it necessary to walk in dangerous areas, because someone is entitled to?

Walking/running isn't dangerous. It is the driving that is dangerous - that is where the danger and harm arises. The real question is - is it necessary to drive in these potentially dangerous areas, just because someone is entitled to?

Lord Nikon

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Walking/running isn't dangerous. It is the driving that is dangerous - that is where the danger and harm arises. The real question is - is it necessary to drive in these potentially dangerous areas, just because someone is entitled to?

Walking and running isn't dangerous, nor is driving, but when you have pedestrians and drivers on the same road, and introduce speed, the likelihood of an accident increases. It would be potentially dangerous for the walker/runner, not the driver.

magicbastarder

so the car is introducing the danger, but your posts seem to suggest limiting the walker?

Pinch Flat

Car centric group think in Ireland is really getting ridiculous at this stage.

Lord Nikon

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the car is introducing the danger, but your posts seem to suggest limiting the walker?

Oh my god, do you just troll daily? What part of the country do you live?
Roads are not intended for pedestrians, they are for vehicles, and this is why we have such things as paths. Just because walking on the road is legal, doesn’t make it safe to do so. I never stated that pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road, I’m merely highlighting that there is a danger of walking on a road where traffic is travelling at high speed. Dublin and the greater Dublin area/commuter belt it very populated and the majority of traffic in Ireland is the Dublin area.
Sure because it’s legal to walk on the road, there wouldn’t be any problem of pedestrians on any national/regional road, regardless of traffic or speed.

ThisRegard

That's the problem though isn't it, there isn't always paths. The road you mention (in Meath) is pretty good, has decent hard shoulders, a gravel trap and then a wide grass verge on both sides. But even within Dublin itself there's many places that don't have footpaths so the road is used instead.

Pinch Flat

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Oh my god, do you just troll daily? What part of the country do you live?
Roads are not intended for pedestrians, they are for vehicles.....

Really? Given that a huge amount of our roads pre-date the invention of the car, how is this the case?

Lord Nikon wrote: »

and this is why we have such things as paths.

It's a while since I've been on rural roads. Have they constructed paths on each and every one of them in the past while?

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Just because walking on the road is legal, doesn’t make it safe to do so.

It's rare enough you hear of a pedestrian tripping and injuring or killing themselves while walking on rural roads. Yet there seems to be quite a few hit and (mostly) killed by passing cars. Where do you think the problem lies in making roads unsafe?

Lord Nikon wrote: »

I never stated that pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road, I’m merely highlighting that there is a danger of walking on a road where traffic is travelling at high speed.

So, they could do something radical. Like maybe lowering the speeds, or relying on drivers cop on. This would involve an element of personal responsibility on the part of the driver, which seems to be missing from our national psyche. The speed limits are that - a limit, not a target. just a suggestion.[/QUOTE]

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Dublin and the greater Dublin area/commuter belt it very populated and the majority of traffic in Ireland is the Dublin area.
Sure because it’s legal to walk on the road, there wouldn’t be any problem of pedestrians on any national/regional road, regardless of traffic or speed.

And consequently it's probably better served with better infrastructure, including paths for pedestrians. I'd see the fast and irresponsible drivers as more of a problem, rather than the pedestrians themselves.

magicbastarder

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Oh my god, do you just troll daily? What part of the country do you live?
Roads are not intended for pedestrians, they are for vehicles, and this is why we have such things as paths.

i give up.

Lord Nikon

magicbastarder wrote: »

i give up.

As a non-motorist, how would you notice the danger from a motorist point of view?

07Lapierre

Lord Nikon wrote: »

As a non-motorist, how would you notice the danger from a motorist point of view?

Macy0161

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Walking and running isn't dangerous, nor is driving, but when you have pedestrians and drivers on the same road, and introduce speed, the likelihood of an accident increases. It would be potentially dangerous for the walker/runner, not the driver.

Reducing the speed seems to be the solution.

I love Sean nos

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Oh my god, do you just troll daily? What part of the country do you live?
Roads are not intended for pedestrians, they are for vehicles, and this is why we have such things as paths. Just because walking on the road is legal, doesn’t make it safe to do so. I never stated that pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road, I’m merely highlighting that there is a danger of walking on a road where traffic is travelling at high speed. Dublin and the greater Dublin area/commuter belt it very populated and the majority of traffic in Ireland is the Dublin area.
Sure because it’s legal to walk on the road, there wouldn’t be any problem of pedestrians on any national/regional road, regardless of traffic or speed.

So much wrong. I don't know where to begin...

Pinch Flat

I love Sean nos wrote: »

So much wrong. I don't know where to begin...

Maybe here?

I love Sean nos

Lord Nikon wrote: »

As a non-motorist, how would you notice the danger from a motorist point of view?

I find that most of it happens outside the big window at the front of the car, so I look in that direction quite a bit.

Hope that helps.

lucernarian

Lord Nikon wrote: »

As a non-motorist, how would you notice the danger from a motorist point of view?

I find not being inside a 1 tonne metal box on wheels all the time gives me a reasonable sense of what it's like for other road users. I also walk and cycle the roads I drive on and amazingly I don't find it hard to slow down where I need to.

I've had a look some govt. maps of the area around M3 parkway, and I've drive past there a few times, and your claim about there being no housing nearby is completely incorrect. I would be unsurprised to see people walking towards reasonable-quality public transport to the nearby train station... Or should they all drive to it and to Hell or Connaught with the rest?

ThisRegard

You get a lot of people out walking for fitness and running there, I would reckon originating out of Dunboyne and as part of a greater loop around the general area.

07Lapierre

A lot of cyclists are also Motorists
A lot of Pedestrians are also Motorists
Very few motorists are cyclists.
ALL cyclists AND Motorists are Pedestrians.

OP... just let that sink in for a bit.

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder

bk wrote: »

This also shows why we desperately need lots more Greenways, they aren't just for tourists.

We have destroyed our countryside with roads, one off houses and lack of access due to lack of rambling laws, forcing people to walk on roads, where trust me they would much rather not be, but have no other choice.

Back to this. The number of people driving in the countryside is far higher than it should be, because they've chosen to live at least a half hour walk from the nearest shop. Irish people are great at placing themselves in situations where they cannot get by without a car and then complain about the lack of public transport or safe walking facilities, neither of which they'd use anyway because of the sunk cost fallacy of car ownership.

jelutong

magicbastarder wrote: »

Back to this. The number of people driving in the countryside is far higher than it should be, because they've chosen to live at least a half hour walk from the nearest shop. Irish people are great at placing themselves in situations where they cannot get by without a car and then complain about the lack of public transport or safe walking facilities, neither of which they'd use anyway because of the sunk cost fallacy of car ownership.

What a load of codswollop. The main problem is too many drivers model themselves on The Toad of Toad Hall in their attitude to other road users.

AndrewJRenko

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Oh my god, do you just troll daily? What part of the country do you live?
Roads are not intended for pedestrians, they are for vehicles, and this is why we have such things as paths.

Though on the rural roads we're talking about here, they don't have paths. So the roads are literally intended for pedestrians.

We've had roads for a lot longer than we've had cars.

Rubberchikken

Where there's no path isn't there any responsibility on both the pedestrian and driver to be extra cautious
Via vest are helpful. Some kind of fluorescent stripes on clothes or shoes even. Drivers slowing down a bit. Or even driving at under the speed limit on these roads if that wasn't completely unacceptable to so many of them.

I drive enough rural roads to dislike them. Meet enough dark/unlit pedestrians (and cyclists) to make me very wary at all times and hyper vigilant. So I go below the speed limit and use my eyes and brain!
I avoid walking these kinds of roads. It's too stressful trying to avoid injury or even possible death.

lucernarian

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Where there's no path isn't there any responsibility on both the pedestrian and driver to be extra cautious
Via vest are helpful. Some kind of fluorescent stripes on clothes or shoes even. Drivers slowing down a bit. Or even driving at under the speed limit on these roads if that wasn't completely unacceptable to so many of them.

I drive enough rural roads to dislike them. Meet enough dark/unlit pedestrians (and cyclists) to make me very wary at all times and hyper vigilant. So I go below the speed limit and use my eyes and brain!
I avoid walking these kinds of roads. It's too stressful trying to avoid injury or even possible death.

Not so ideal if you live on one, for better or worse. Lights are unfortunately a necessity.

rebel456

Pedestrians on any road bar a Motorway (or routes like the N3 Blanch by pass) should not be a problem. The issue, and same goes for city streets, is motorists driving too fast.

I'm from the countryside with small country roads. Everyone bar the my 80yr old neighbour drives too fast. There's a straight by my home place that has taken the life of every cat we had. No-one keeps below the speed limit on that stretch.


Same goes for city streets. Only from cycling do I notice how fast cars go on city streets, even the solely residential streets where kids could run out - drivers zoom along. No wonder ramps have to be deployed to slow motorists down, same goes for the 30km/h speed limit in the city centre. It's a Max limit, not a Target or lower limit.

And finally, roads are not just for the car owner. Walkers and cyclists have a right to avail of them too, slow down, drive expecting something to come out in front of you.

bebeman

magicbastarder wrote: »

so given that someone may be living in an area without footpaths, what is your solution? you seem to suggest they should not be walking there.

Personal responsibility!
Walk where ever you want, but if you you get hit by a vehicle its on you.
Problem solved.

amcalester

bebeman wrote: »

Personal responsibility!
Walk where ever you want, but if you you get hit by a vehicle its on you.
Problem solved.

Thats not how personal responsibility works.

Awful attitude from someone who claims to be a professional driver.

G-Man

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Where there's no path isn't there any responsibility on both the pedestrian and driver to be extra cautious
Via vest are helpful. Some kind of fluorescent stripes on clothes or shoes even. Drivers slowing down a bit. Or even driving at under the speed limit on these roads if that wasn't completely unacceptable to so many of them.

You are trolling right? So the pedestrians have to wrap themselves in all sorts of special gear, and motorists can drive at 1km under speed limit (if it wasn't completely unnaceptable) and think they are safely driving

Do motorists actually think at all when they drive - the speed limits are not meant to be target even under them is not a target. You must drive at speeds safe at all times. How about slowing down a lot when there is a possibility there are pedestrians.

Motorists are killing people every day, its not pedestrians killing, its not cyclists.

Adults driving cars are killing elderly and children weekly, who are just going about their business they only way many can - by walking or cycling.

Please please, drive with consideration for vulnerable users.

bebeman

amcalester wrote: »

Thats not how personal responsibility works.

Awful attitude from someone who claims to be a professional driver.

If you choose to put yourself in harms way , accept the consequences. Walking on a road with no footpath is a danger, no law is stopping you, but know the possible outcome.