Good news for Condell Road

Mr.H

LimerickCity wrote: »

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

To be fair some of the people that "drive for a living" are the biggest culprits.

Taxi drivers are a law to themselves. They double park everywhere, dont use indicators and are often the ones that are trying to beat the "red light" (not getting through on amber at all)

zulutango

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

Cars do that too, though. They gamble on the slight delay in the alternate light turning green. They go straight through, not on amber, but on red.

Cyclists going through red lights is illegal, but it's certainly not as dangerous. In an increasing number of jurisdictions cyclists are legally allowed to go through red lights, at their own discretion.

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

Cars do that too, though. They gamble on the slight delay in the alternate light turning green. They go straight through, not on amber, but on red.

Cyclists going through red lights is illegal, but it's certainly not as dangerous. In an increasing number of jurisdictions cyclists are legally allowed to go through red lights, at their own discretion.

see this is the attitude that I despise. You dont think its dangerous to go through a red light on a bike?? What about the truck that will slam into you for doing so?? Or the pedestrian you might hit???

Cyclists go through red lights when traffic is stopped at a red light. Cars dont go through when traffic is stopped at a red light obviously.

But this is probably taking this way off topic to be fair.

I for one think that the condell road needs to be at a higher speed because its such a ling stretch of road with very little obstacle. The wildlife sanctuary is no excuse. The pedestrain crossings are one but they are even pointless to have out there. No need to allow pedestrians to cross the road out there. Whats on the far side?? more walkway??

zulutango

Mr.H wrote: »

see this is the attitude that I despise. You dont think its dangerous to go through a red light on a bike?? What about the truck that will slam into you for doing so?? Or the pedestrian you might hit???

Please read what I said again, and a bit more carefully this time. I did not say it wasn't dangerous for cyclists to go through red lights, but it is not as dangerous as if a motorised vehicle does it. Also, what is very important to note is that the risk when the cyclist goes through is almost fully taken by the cyclist themselves, but when the motorist goes through the risk is to themselves and also vulnerable road users. This is the basis for other jurisdictions allowing cyclists to go through red lights.

With regard to your point about the welfare of the pedestrian, this is very important. And it's a good reason to be very careful about allowing a situation where cyclists can legally go through red lights. I'm not in favour of it and am not arguing for it, but am mentioning it in the context of the whataboutery argument raised by one of the posters above. While not in favour of it, I am open to an intelligent discussion about it. But bear in mind that historically a miniscule number of pedestrians have been killed or injured by bikes as compared to the number killed by motorised vehicles.

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

Please read what I said again, and a bit more carefully this time. I did not say it wasn't dangerous for cyclists to go through red lights, but it is not as dangerous as if a motorised vehicle does it. Also, what is very important to note is that the risk when the cyclist goes through is almost fully taken by the cyclist themselves, but when the motorist goes through the risk is to themselves and also vulnerable road users. This is the basis for other jurisdictions allowing cyclists to go through red lights.

With regard to your point about the welfare of the pedestrian, this is very important. And it's a good reason to be very careful about allowing a situation where cyclists can legally go through red lights. I'm not in favour of it and am not arguing for it, but am mentioning it in the context of the whataboutery argument raised by one of the posters above. While not in favour of it, I am open to an intelligent discussion about it. But bear in mind that historically a miniscule number of pedestrians have been killed or injured by bikes as compared to the number killed by motorised vehicles.

Minuscule numbers are obscured by the ratio of cars to bikes straight away.

I just wish there was a license to cycle on the road. At least then there can be more responsibility and punishment for braking the law when cycling.

panda100

How far is this proposal through the council? An organisation I am involved with wish to object to the increased speed limit. How do they go about this? Has the motion actually been passed by councillors?

kevin7

Raising that speed limit is a great idea. The speed limit has always been far too low on this road, in my opinion.

The argument that you only save a minute by going 30kmph slower is disingenuous. A minute here, a minute there, they all add up! (Anyway, I think over 3.4km from traffic lights to Coonagh the time saving is more like 90 seconds).

A minute is actually important to me and probably to everyone else who would needlessly waste this minute. Maybe if someone has nothing better to do, so be it, but most people do have better things to be doing.

There's also nothing particularly dangerous about cycling a bike in a hard shoulder or bike lane with traffic passing by at 80kph.

Cycling through town with all the junctions, traffic lights, kerbs, turns, damaged road surfaces, etc has a far far higher danger than cycling along this nice wide straight smooth bit of road, so I don't think we should get too worried about that part of the argument.

what_traffic

panda100 wrote: »

How far is this proposal through the council? An organisation I am involved with wish to object to the increased speed limit. How do they go about this? Has the motion actually been passed by councillors?

Best start would be to contact your local ward Cllr's.

zulutango

panda100 wrote: »

How far is this proposal through the council? An organisation I am involved with wish to object to the increased speed limit. How do they go about this? Has the motion actually been passed by councillors?

The newspaper report is unclear. I suspect it came up in the context of a speed limit review of the metropolitan area, which the Council are conducting. That was probably why it was on the agenda of the Metropolitan meeting. The organisation could raise it through the Councillors who sit on the Travel & Transport strategic policy committee or the representatives of the Limerick PPN who also sit on that committee and have it added to the agenda there.

tooManyChoices

kevin7 wrote: »

There's also nothing particularly dangerous about cycling a bike in a hard shoulder or bike lane with traffic passing by at 80kph.

Cycling through town with all the junctions, traffic lights, kerbs, turns, damaged road surfaces, etc has a far far higher danger than cycling along this nice wide straight smooth bit of road, so I don't think we should get too worried about that part of the argument.

It's not just the likelihood of a crash, it's how hard you hit.

A 50 to 60kmh increase is a 44% increase in force of impact
50 to 80 is a 156% increase.

ie. people will get hit two and a half times as hard if they increase the limit to 80

what_traffic

kevin7 wrote: »

A minute is actually important to me and probably to everyone else who would needlessly waste this minute. Maybe if someone has nothing better to do, so be it, but most people do have better things to be doing.

I say that in an average week, you waste far more of your minutes kevin7 sitting in your car traffic?

frozenfrozen

what_traffic wrote: »

I say that in an average week, you waste far more of your minutes kevin7 sitting in your car traffic?

the minute also affects motorbikes who don't sit in traffic

hairyhiker

Mr.H wrote: »

I for one think that the condell road needs to be at a higher speed because its such a ling stretch of road with very little obstacle. The wildlife sanctuary is no excuse. The pedestrain crossings are one but they are even pointless to have out there. No need to allow pedestrians to cross the road out there. Whats on the far side?? more walkway??

The pedestrian crossings are far from pointless. There isn't just a wildlife sanctuary (which is, in and of itself, a popular amenity). There is also a public park opposite Barrington's pier. The walkway you seem so dismissive of is a very popular walking and running route. All this is more than enough justification for the pedestrian crossings. You also refer to the fact there are very little obstacles. It might be a nice straight stretch of road but you still have to allow for the unexpected. Stopping distances are far greater at 80 kph than 50 kph.

hairyhiker

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.

Cyclists do contribute actually. Numerous studies have shown both the physical and mental health benefits of cycling. Cycling is also a greener, more sustainable form of transport so why would you start taxing it. You mention that tax, insurance etc contributes to our roads which is actually flawed. Taxation in Ireland is not ring fenced in the sense that revenue from motor tax is not put back into roads and in fact motor tax alone would come nowhere near covering the cost of maintaining and building roads every year.

mgbgt1978

Mr.H wrote: »

To be fair some of the people that "drive for a living" are the biggest culprits.

Taxi drivers are a law to themselves. They double park everywhere, dont use indicators and are often the ones that are trying to beat the "red light" (not getting through on amber at all)

Bit of a generalisation there in fairness. You could at least put the word 'some' at the start of that sentence.
William Street for example is constantly full of non taxi Double-Parkers.
Many motorists couldn't be bothered (or don't know how) to use indicators.
The motorist who will go through a light as it changes to red is simply the last car to chance it in a queue....could be any type of Car.

In other words it's pretty much all motorists who will take a chance sometimes.

what_traffic

frozenfrozen wrote: »

the minute also affects motorbikes who don't sit in traffic

LOL. You know very little about motorbiking. Would they really be filtering past stationary car traffic at 80kmph?

frozenfrozen

what_traffic wrote: »

LOL. You know very little about motorbiking. Would they really be filtering past stationary car traffic at 80kmph?

Try reading it again but slower

mgbgt1978

panda100 wrote: »

How far is this proposal through the council? An organisation I am involved with wish to object to the increased speed limit. How do they go about this? Has the motion actually been passed by councillors?

Not the most organised of organisations if you have to ask for these details here :D:D

what_traffic

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Try reading it again but slower

I did, still laughing.

yop

**mod note: what_traffic and frozenfrozen keep it on topic and no personal spats. Bring it to pm if you want to continue it. No more warnings

panda100

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Not the most organised of organisations if you have to ask for these details here :D:D

I am well used to lobbying the local council but it wasn't that clear from the article at what stage the proposal was at or where the proposal had come from. Thankfully the knowledgable boardies have clarified that for me now

Insect Overlord

Some absolute gobshite overtook me on the way out the road this morning, swerving from one side to the other to give people the hint that he wanted more space. :rolleyes: The lad must've been going over 90kmph. I had to laugh when he got caught behind a line of other vehicles at the Clonmacken Roundabout. :cool:

TychoCaine

LimerickCity wrote: »

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

I drive ~50,000km for work every year, and pay motor tax, VRT, insurance, VAT on petrol etc. just like you. I also chose to cycle for recreation & exercise, or when I just need to pop down to the shops. It's true that there are some total morons on bikes running red lights, riding on footpaths and giving the rest of us a bad name. Worst case they'll kill themselves. If they do then it's their own fault and I don't really care. I'd be a lot happier if the gardaí did their jobs and started ticketing them. What I do care about is the assholes in cars who use the behaviour of a minority as justification for their aggressive & dangerous behaviour like close passing, brake-testing and tailgating me. One slip and I'll be under the wheels of a car.

Do you honestly believe that children and adults who chose to take up less space on the roads than you, pollute the air less than you, take up less parking space than you, exercise more to take up fewer beds in hospital than you, should put their lives at risk as well, just so you can get where you're going at maximum possible speed all the time?

thesimpsons

I used to always be vigilant at the lights and be quick enough off the mark soon as my light went green - I've stopped this practice now as the amount of red light jumpers has grown enormously in the last few years. Twice in last month I was very close to being struck at Mallow Street/Henry street by cars coming down Mallow St. Drive 20k + kms a year, cycle 5k+ kms a year. There's minimal time saved on a 3km stretch of Condel Rd. the river bank walk and the 2 cycle lanes are one of the real free amenities the city has to offer - taking them away or making them harder to access, by raising the road limit to an unneeded limit, so a motorist can get somewhere a fraction faster, would be a massively backwards step imo

LimerickCity

TychoCaine wrote: »

I drive ~50,000km for work every year, and pay motor tax, VRT, insurance, VAT on petrol etc. just like you. I also chose to cycle for recreation & exercise, or when I just need to pop down to the shops. It's true that there are some total morons on bikes running red lights, riding on footpaths and giving the rest of us a bad name. Worst case they'll kill themselves. If they do then it's their own fault and I don't really care. I'd be a lot happier if the gardaí did their jobs and started ticketing them. What I do care about is the assholes in cars who use the behaviour of a minority as justification for their aggressive & dangerous behaviour like close passing, brake-testing and tailgating me. One slip and I'll be under the wheels of a car.

Do you honestly believe that children and adults who chose to take up less space on the roads than you, pollute the air less than you, take up less parking space than you, exercise more to take up fewer beds in hospital than you, should put their lives at risk as well, just so you can get where you're going at maximum possible speed all the time?

Take a look at any bus in Dublin City centre and look at the marks which run along the side of it. All cause intentionally by cyclists on the quays.

I can only assume that you do not drive an articulated lorry for a living as you would then understand that there is almost 2 metres of of a black spot when turning. Try driving in an Irish city centre to understand what i am talking about. I look in the mirror before turning, all fine, two seconds later some idiot on a bike appears and starts banging on the cabin saying that i almost killed him. This despite large signage on the back of the lorry NOT TO OVERTAKE ON THE INSIDE WHEN TURNING LEFT.

Then you have the idiots on the footpaths, no accountability whatsoever.

For someone who drives for a living i can say for certain that the majority of everyday bicycle users in this country have no notion on the rules of the road and take their lives into their own hands once they jump on the bike. Everyone be it a taxi, car, lorry or pedestrian is at fault. It is never the cyclist.

In addition is see cyclists out in the evening and at weekends, with bikes and clothing that cost an absolute fortune. These guys are responsible, upstanding cyclists and someone the average cyclist should aspire to.

zulutango

I certainly sympathise with you having to shoulder the responsibility of navigating a large truck through towns and cities. It is a massive responsibility and you cannot predict or fully observe the actions of the other, more vulnerable road users. There's no doubt that many pedestrian and cycling fatalities are caused by carelessness of the pedestrian or cyclist themselves. I don't envy you having that responsibility to be honest.

But I really am confused as to why your response to the careless behaviour of some cyclists (on the quays in Dublin) is to suggest that it is a good idea that speed limits be increased on the Condell Road, a road that is used frequently by sport and leisure cyclists as well as commuter cyclists. It just doesn't add up.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

But I really am confused as to why your response to the careless behaviour of some cyclists (on the quays in Dublin) is to suggest that it is a good idea that speed limits be increased on the Condell Road, a road that is used frequently by sport and leisure cyclists as well as commuter cyclists. It just doesn't add up.

Perhaps he supports the proposal for Condell road as it also plans to segregate cyclists from traffic which I sure is a good thing for all road users.

zulutango

Fair enough. They can't increase the speed limits without full segregration anyway, and that will cost a huge amount of money. When you factor in the other reasons not to increase the speed limit (the fact that the area is a leisure amenity, has four pedestrian crossings, is a wildlife sanctuary, etc), and that only about one minute driving time can be saved, then it seems quite irresponsible to even consider it.

LimerickCity

zulutango wrote: »

I certainly sympathise with you having to shoulder the responsibility of navigating a large truck through towns and cities. It is a massive responsibility and you cannot predict or fully observe the actions of the other, more vulnerable road users. There's no doubt that many pedestrian and cycling fatalities are caused by carelessness of the pedestrian or cyclist themselves. I don't envy you having that responsibility to be honest.

But I really am confused as to why your response to the careless behaviour of some cyclists (on the quays in Dublin) is to suggest that it is a good idea that speed limits be increased on the Condell Road, a road that is used frequently by sport and leisure cyclists as well as commuter cyclists. It just doesn't add up.

I drive on the Condell Road at least four times everyday. I rarely if ever witness cyclists on the route. I am all for the protection of cyclists but there are many other routes in the country with higher speed limits which are used more frequently by them. Fair enough these routes may not contain cycle lanes but they are a lot more dangerous and they are frequented by a lot more cyclists.

As it currently stands the Condell Road at its current speed limit provides no additional protection to cyclists.

In my experience upon approaching the city on the Condell Road it is much more likely that you will be under taken by a bus or a taxi in the bus lane than it is you will see someone cycling on the road.

The reason for the current speed limit is that the road is an accident black spot whereby a number of motorists have been killed or received serious injury over the past number of years.

My ask would be at the planning stage to get it right, either protect the cycle lanes by way of barriers or move the cycle lane off the road entirely.

LimerickCity

zulutango wrote: »

Fair enough. They can't increase the speed limits without full segregration anyway, and that will cost a huge amount of money. When you factor in the other reasons not to increase the speed limit (the fact that the area is a leisure amenity, has four pedestrian crossings, is a wildlife sanctuary, etc), and that only about one minute driving time can be saved, then it seems quite irresponsible to even consider it.

Just popped into my head there, the speed limit from Clonmacken Roundabout to Coonagh Roundabout is 60 and there are no cycle lanes. Do the cyclists get off their bikes at Clonmacken Roundabout and walk to Coonagh or must they cycle round by Ivans and join up with it on the Ennis Road?