Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Good news for Condell Road

135

Comments

  • #62
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    tooManyChoices wrote: »
    I was hoping people might throw up what they think...but hey.

    The numbers say that under ideal conditions, the time saving is less than 1 minute.

    When it's busy this figure will drop off to little or nothing because you'll just have bigger loading at junctions (ie. you'll get through the road quicker, but will spend longer waiting at the lights/roundabout, or some other junction on your way).

    ...I just think we get in a fuss about nothing on things like this. We like going faster because it feels like we're getting there much quicker, not because we are.
    I replied. Why don't we put in a really low limit and just tell people to leave earlier and calm down?

    If everyone went 5km/h you wouldn't need the traffic lights for the pedestrian crossings, pedestrians could just time it right and walk in between cars. You wouldn't need the lights just before the bridge because again people would have so much time and space between cars you could just time it right and keep moving at 5 km/h. Even if there was an accident, nobody is going to die at 5km/h. You can take your eyes off the road for 30 or 40 seconds at that speed and nothing bad would happen

    When you take that into account then it would actually be faster because nobody would be stuck at the lights (you are doing 0km/h while stopped at the lights, how frustrating is that !!!!)


  • #63
    thesimpsons
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,694 ✭✭✭thesimpsons


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    What I think people are forgetting here is that the speed limit isn't enforced properly, so in practice most vehicles on the Condell Road tend to travel a bit over 60 kmph already. A change would just be recognising the reality of how the road is used, as opposed to suddenly making it less safe.

    the problem I'd see is that if 80km is the new limit, cars will speed to 90/100km. as a motorist and frequent cyclist on this stretch, 60km would be fine taking into account its got 3 pedestrian crossings, and 2 roundabouts. It would be rare as a motorist that I don't see at least 1 cyclist on the road in each direction and that's at all different times of the day. Putting a 80km limit with quite narrow cycle paths makes it more dangerous for the cyclist (also taking into account that 9 times out of 10, the cycle lane is narrowed due to sludge and the portion that is almost always flooded. re the bridges - I just cycle down the middle of the lane. too dangerous to do anything else as the cars will try squeeze you into the path.

    on a side note - anyone else think it so strange the article comments on 30mph. we started using kms 12 years ago !


  • #64
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    thesimpsons wrote: »
    on a side note - anyone else think it so strange the article comments on 30mph. we started using kms 12 years ago !

    An interesting over-lap, perhaps, with the current thread about the state of the Limerick Leader and how much of its content seems to belong to a bygone era. ;)


  • #65
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    An interesting over-lap, perhaps, with the current thread about the state of the Limerick Leader and how much of its content seems to belong to a bygone era. ;)

    More evidence of how they are stuck in the 50's :pac: Another 20 years and The Leader will start using the metric system no doubt!


  • #66
    hobie14
    Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭hobie14


    I would be happy with an increase to 60km/hr ....... although doubt it would stop tail gating or undertaking ..... :(


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,435 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    I don't think the problem with the speed limit is at 8:30am. It's at 1am when the road is empty and there's a requirement to drive at 50km/h and almost fall sleep driving dead straight at walking speed.

    Perhaps a variable speed limit might be useful tok


  • #68
    Vanquished
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Vanquished


    On a broader note, it's very difficult to identify whether the council even has a clear, coherent transport strategy for Limerick. As usual we're hearing lots of loose talk but very little in the way of commitment or action. When are we going to see the next bus or cycle lane being rolled out?

    I think the council's attitude to transport matters is best illustrated by their portrayal of Limerick over the last number of years as a city with little in the way of a traffic congestion problem in comparison to other Irish cities! Folly in the extreme considering any spare road capacity has most certainly been filled now, with the resultant traffic jams on the likes of the Ballysimon road, Dock road, Dublin road, Dooradoyle etc. Despite all that though, the council are still more than happy to plough ahead with projects like the 1,000 extra houses in Mungret. An area with already chronic traffic problems and zero public transport services!


  • #69
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    marno21 wrote: »
    I don't think the problem with the speed limit is at 8:30am. It's at 1am when the road is empty and there's a requirement to drive at 50km/h and almost fall sleep driving dead straight at walking speed.

    Perhaps a variable speed limit might be useful tok

    Walking speed is now 50km/h - what planet are you on?


  • #70
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Walking speed is now 50km/h - what planet are you on?

    a planet where people can understand colloquial language


  • #71
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Interesting post here over at Hlymrekr blog on this. As always it's well thought out and well researched. Certainly provides food for thought.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    a planet where people can understand colloquial language

    That's a good one alright. So is this just Limerick where to say "I was driving at walking speed" means you are inferring that you driving at 50kmph?


  • #73
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    what_traffic wrote: »
    That's a good one alright. So is this just Limerick where to say "I was driving at walking speed" means you are inferring that you driving at 50kmph?

    Yes keep being so obtuse it doesn't at all make it seem like you're more interested in an argument than a discussion


  • #74
    tooManyChoices
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭tooManyChoices


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    Yes keep being so obtuse it doesn't at all make it seem like you're more interested in an argument than a discussion

    ...
    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    If everyone went 5km/h you wouldn't need the traffic lights for the pedestrian crossings, pedestrians could just time it right and walk in between cars. You wouldn't need the lights just before the bridge because again people would have so much time and space between cars you could just time it right and keep moving at 5 km/h. Even if there was an accident, nobody is going to die at 5km/h. You can take your eyes off the road for 30 or 40 seconds at that speed and nothing bad would happen

    When you take that into account then it would actually be faster because nobody would be stuck at the lights (you are doing 0km/h while stopped at the lights, how frustrating is that !!!!)


    ???


  • #75
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    tooManyChoices wrote: »
    ...



    ???

    I'd be just as impressed as you are now if I was in your shoes. Shut down two posters who could have mustered many many replies if allowed to drag people into silly arguments. :cool:


  • #76
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    I'd be just as impressed as you are now if I was in your shoes. Shut down two posters who could have mustered many many replies if allowed to drag people into silly arguments. :cool:

    You are only shutting yourself out of the conversation if you are making silly arguments that driving at 50kmph is like driving at walking speed.


  • #77
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    what_traffic wrote: »
    You are only shutting yourself out of the conversation if you are making silly arguments that driving at 50kmph is like driving at walking speed.

    I never described 50km/h as walking speed. lol. do you want to talk about the topic of the thread or are you here to argue semantics because I have no interest in that


  • #78
    phog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,337 ✭✭✭✭phog


    I'm a frequent user of the Condell Road and while driving within the current speed limit can sometimes feel like crawling along the road is there any real benefit to increasing the speed limit. The section that has the reduced rate is less than 3km long so increasing the limit will probably save a driver no more than a minute along the route but decrease the safety of the road for all users.

    I'd go with the earlier suggestion of removing the bus lane or at the least reducing it and allowing traffic use it further back from the lights near the Salesian's. The queues there in the morning are unnecessary considering the bus lane is almost unused.


  • #79
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,435 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    phog wrote: »
    I'm a frequent user of the Condell Road and while driving within the current speed limit can sometimes feel like crawling along the road is there any real benefit to increasing the speed limit. The section that has the reduced rate is less than 3km long so increasing the limit will probably save a driver no more than a minute along the route but decrease the safety of the road for all users.

    I'd go with the earlier suggestion of removing the bus lane or at the least reducing it and allowing traffic use it further back from the lights near the Salesian's. The queues there in the morning are unnecessary considering the bus lane is almost unused.
    By that logic we should make all city roads 50km/h. One of the main reasons I would suggest increasing it is that it requires such concentration to remain at 50km/h given the straightness of the road that it takes away from people's concentration of the surroundings. Constant watching of the speedometer incase the gards are around decreases the safety of the road.

    The Condell Road is wide enough and straight enough for more than 50km/h. If it were outside of the city it could easily take a 100km/h limit.


  • #80
    zulutango
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    marno21 wrote: »
    The Condell Road is wide enough and straight enough for more than 50km/h. If it were outside of the city it could easily take a 100km/h limit.

    But it's not outside the city. It's used by a lot of cyclists, it's got four pedestrian crossings on it, and it goes through a leisure amenity and wildlife sanctuary.

    The argument that speed limits should be increased to force motorists to concentrate is utterly bizarre. It's as ridiculous as the earlier suggestion that the limit should be increased so that people would not gaze at their phones.


  • #81
    LimerickCity
    Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭LimerickCity


    Tax, insurance, NCT, VRT, VAT on petrol/diesel all contribute to our roads. What does a cyclist contribute? Even the bike they cycle can be purchased tax free. 
    I understand that some of you have cars and also cycle before anyone goes off in a rant.
    No insurance no accountability whatsoever. Breaking red lights. I am not saying all cyclists but as someone who drives a lorry for a living i can tell you that some cyclists in this country are total idiots.
    Anyone who has driven down the quays in Dublin will attest to this.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Berty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,152 ✭✭✭✭Berty


    Here is an image from Salthill in Galway where they have segregated the cycle lane.


  • #83
    zulutango
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    LimerickCity wrote: »
    Tax, insurance, NCT, VRT, VAT on petrol/diesel all contribute to our roads. What does a cyclist contribute? Even the bike they cycle can be purchased tax free. 

    Bikes ...

    - don't damage roads
    - don't take up as much valuable space
    - don't have poisonous or greenhouse gas emissions associated with them
    - don't kill people or injure people to a fraction of a degree that motorised vehicles do
    - enhance the health of the user
    - reduce traffic congestion
    - reduce the financial burden on the State

    LimerickCity wrote: »
    Breaking red lights. I am not saying all cyclists but as someone who drives a lorry for a living i can tell you that some cyclists in this country are total idiots.
    Anyone who has driven down the quays in Dublin will attest to this.

    That is certainly true. Some cyclists are total idiots. As are some lorry drivers and some motorists. The argument doesn't particularly get us anywhere. The key difference between the idiocy of lorry drivers and cyclists, however, is that the former sometimes results in very tragic consequences. So, while you might rail against the actions of some cyclists, it might be useful to bear in mind that they're not going to crush anyone under their wheels.


  • #84
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    LimerickCity wrote: »
    Tax, insurance, NCT, VRT, VAT on petrol/diesel all contribute to our roads. What does a cyclist contribute? Even the bike they cycle can be purchased tax free. 
    I understand that some of you have cars and also cycle before anyone goes off in a rant.
    No insurance no accountability whatsoever. Breaking red lights. I am not saying all cyclists but as someone who drives a lorry for a living i can tell you that some cyclists in this country are total idiots.
    Anyone who has driven down the quays in Dublin will attest to this.

    FFS, don't start that stupid argument. :rolleyes: It's got nothing at all to do with tax, or "us versus them".


  • #85
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    zulutango wrote: »
    Bikes ...

    - don't damage roads
    - don't take up as much valuable space
    - don't have poisonous or greenhouse gas emissions associated with them
    - don't kill people or injure people to a fraction of a degree that motorised vehicles do
    - enhance the health of the user
    - reduce traffic congestion
    - reduce the financial burden on the State




    That is certainly true. Some cyclists are total idiots. As are some lorry drivers and some motorists. The argument doesn't particularly get us anywhere. The key difference between the idiocy of lorry drivers and cyclists, however, is that the former sometimes results in very tragic consequences. So, while you might rail against the actions of some cyclists, it might be useful to bear in mind that they're not going to crush anyone under their wheels.

    How many cyclists do you see in this city go through red lights???? not amber. RED. It is common practice here.

    Motorists wrongly often drive through amber lights but there is a huge difference in red and amber.

    Cycle lanes should not be on a main road. Have them beside the footpath where it is safer.

    No place on the road with motorists who can travel even at 50Kph. Same goes for horse and traps. Should be banned from the road


  • #86
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Mr.H wrote: »
    How many cyclists do you see in this city go through red lights???? not amber. RED. It is common practice here.

    Motorists wrongly often drive through amber lights but there is a huge difference in red and amber.

    Have a look at Punch's Cross, or anywhere on Henry Street, or the junction of Mulgrave Street and Cathedral Place. Cars stream through on red all the time, at all times of the day.


  • #87
    zulutango
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    If you stand on any junction in the city centre, you will see that at almost every change of lights motorists will go through red, not amber, but red. Try it some day. Motorists don't have any moral authority on this issue.


  • #88
    LimerickCity
    Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭LimerickCity


    zulutango wrote: »
    Bikes ...

    - don't damage roads
    - don't take up as much valuable space
    - don't have poisonous or greenhouse gas emissions associated with them
    - don't kill people or injure people to a fraction of a degree that motorised vehicles do
    - enhance the health of the user
    - reduce traffic congestion
    - reduce the financial burden on the State




    That is certainly true. Some cyclists are total idiots. As are some lorry drivers and some motorists. The argument doesn't particularly get us anywhere. The key difference between the idiocy of lorry drivers and cyclists, however, is that the former sometimes results in very tragic consequences. So, while you might rail against the actions of some cyclists, it might be useful to bear in mind that they're not going to crush anyone under their wheels.

    Come back to me when you drive for a living mate.


  • #89
    zulutango
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    LimerickCity wrote: »
    Come back to me when you drive for a living mate.

    Sorry, what's your point?


  • #90
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Have a look at Punch's Cross, or anywhere on Henry Street, or the junction of Mulgrave Street and Cathedral Place. Cars stream through on red all the time, at all times of the day.

    As a motorist and someone who lives in the city center I do see people trying to beat the amber. Sometimes its close. The odd time its a little "what the flip are you doing?" but my point is that cyclists come up the a solid red light where cars are stopped, and they go straight through. Thats my point on going through a red light. It seems to happen in Limerick more than other places.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    zulutango wrote: »
    If you stand on any junction in the city centre, you will see that at almost every change of lights motorists will go through red, not amber, but red. Try it some day. Motorists don't have any moral authority on this issue.

    I can tell you that cyclists have much better form when it comes to breaking red lights, don't pretend that they don't. It seems to be ingrained in some of them that they can go straight through junctions that traffic has stopped at, potentially putting themselves at risk from motorists entering the junctions and who are obeying the rules of the road by moving on a green light. Just stand in Dooradoyle any evening, or even the city centre and watch the **** who sail straight through them.


Advertisement