Galway traffic

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No-one pays for street parking outside their house. Suburban roads aren't designed for parking, which is why we have weekly tweets from DFB begging selfish drivers to not contribute to the deaths of their neighbours through their parking.

They don't pay for exact spaces. But in private estates, people most certainly do pay for the streets, and (through the management company), they own the streets.

Lack of design for visitor parking causes a lot of issues especially for the likes of homecare workers who are required to travel by car to their clients homes.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They don't pay for exact spaces. But in private estates, people most certainly do pay for the streets, and (through the management company), they own the streets.

They don't pay for parking spaces, other than the ones in their own garden or driveway.


But in private estates, if they tried chancing their arms with random parking on random streets, they'd most likely be clamped within the hour. But in the 'burbs, drivers just grab vast amounts of space, putting access for emergency services at risk, just because.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Lack of design for visitor parking causes a lot of issues especially for the likes of homecare workers who are required to travel by car to their clients homes.

I guess people should consider the need for visitor parking when acquiring their properties so.


But who specifically requires these homecare workers to travel by car?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No-one pays for street parking outside their house. Suburban roads aren't designed for parking,

Yes they do, stop taking rubbish you are embarrassing yourself with your cluelessness.

I explained how they pay and you totally ignored it. You would swear black was white if it meant a dig a car owners or drivers.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But who specifically requires these homecare workers to travel by car?

Access to a car is a condition of employment. Use of a car is required to keep to the schedule of home visits.

Requiring individual homes to provide individual visitor patking would be crazy land use.

pure.conya

Discodog wrote: »

What do you use to check the traffic ?

Google maps because they're tracking every android phones location and giving accurate arrival times due to them knowing how so much of the traffic is moving, its a learning system so they're clocking everybody's regular commutes, random traffic in and out of the city etc. and will direct you to your destination the absolute quickest way possible

pure.conya

JCX BXC wrote: »

Utter crap, at least the traffic moves on the Quincentenary bridge, have you ever been stuck on a 405 going out the Tuam road? Utter nightmare, you barely move.

should get the 409 from roscam, ya have cyclists who insist they're cars and although totally legal for them to cycle on the bus lane they're slowing full double decker buses down to a crawl pace when there's literally nobody on the footpath beside them

pure.conya

Discodog wrote: »

How often does it update & where does it get the information ?

Google maps is real-time

what_traffic

pure.conya wrote: »

should get the 409 from roscam, ya have cyclists who insist they're cars and although totally legal for them to cycle on the bus lane they're slowing full double decker buses down to a crawl pace when there's literally nobody on the footpath beside them

Are you advocating for illegal behavior pure.conya.
In road traffic law they are classified as vehicles - footpaths are for feet.
The intelligent observation here would have been - why are there no bike paths along this inbound section of the Dublin Road?

xckjoo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Access to a car is a condition of employment. Use of a car is required to keep to the schedule of home visits.

Requiring individual homes to provide individual visitor patking would be crazy land use.

Weirdly everyone I've ever known that worked for Bluebird Care got around by bike, but that's anecdotal.

As someone that only has on-street parking available, I know for a fact that you are required to get a carers permit from the Council (which I think is registered to a single car reg actually I'm not sure about this part) or buy the old scratch-off time & date cards, which are limited in number. Otherwise it's pay&display

serfboard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But who specifically requires these homecare workers to travel by car?

xckjoo wrote: »

Weirdly everyone I've ever known that worked for Bluebird Care got around by bike, but that's anecdotal.

If the locations of the service users are near to one another, and the scheduling is done correctly, then it would be possible for homecare workers to walk or cycle from one person to another in a reasonable amount of time.

I doubt this happens though.

pure.conya

what_traffic wrote: »

Are you advocating for illegal behavior pure.conya.
In road traffic law they are classified as vehicles - footpaths are for feet.
The intelligent observation here would have been - why are there no bike paths along this inbound section of the Dublin Road?

how exactly was I advocating for illegal behaviour? if cycling on the path was illegal every kid cycling to and from school everyday would be breaking the law, trust me, i had a fixed penalty charge thrown out of court because the judge was shown the gardaí tried to do me for something that isn't in fact illegal, but all means stay cycling on the rise when there's no cycle lane but as far as I'm concerned you're only a fool to do so because its only going to be dangerous for you and not the drivers, by all means continue to cycle on the bus lanes but again its only your personal safety that's at risk while you're also holding up over 100 people that have paid to get into town on a double decker

what_traffic

pure.conya wrote: »

how exactly was I advocating for illegal behaviour?

if you had left out the following in your last jumbled up statement

should get the 409 from roscam, ya have cyclists who insist they're cars and although totally legal for them to cycle on the bus lane they're slowing full double decker buses down to a crawl pace when there's literally nobody on the footpath beside them

then you would NOT be advocating.

Also another "correction" - if the people cycling insisted that they were indeed cars - they would not be cycling in the bus lane (illegal for cars here) but they would be cycling in the general car traffic lane.

AndrewJRenko

pure.conya wrote: »

how exactly was I advocating for illegal behaviour? if cycling on the path was illegal every kid cycling to and from school everyday would be breaking the law, trust me, i had a fixed penalty charge thrown out of court because the judge was shown the gardaí tried to do me for something that isn't in fact illegal, but all means stay cycling on the rise when there's no cycle lane but as far as I'm concerned you're only a fool to do so because its only going to be dangerous for you and not the drivers, by all means continue to cycle on the bus lanes but again its only your personal safety that's at risk while you're also holding up over 100 people that have paid to get into town on a double decker

Cycling on the path IS illegal

Just like speeding while driving IS illegal, though most drivers do it all the time.

The idea that cyclists hold up buses is laughable.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Access to a car is a condition of employment. Use of a car is required to keep to the schedule of home visits.

Requiring individual homes to provide individual visitor patking would be crazy land use.

Unless it is a very rural community (where street parking would not be relevant), a bike or an eBike would allow the carer to keep to their schedule and minimise parking issues.

Allowing individual homes to use public space for their own visitor parking IS crazy land use.

Jazmin Harsh Gold wrote: »

Yes they do, stop taking rubbish you are embarrassing yourself with your cluelessness.

I explained how they pay and you totally ignored it. You would swear black was white if it meant a dig a car owners or drivers.

Eh no, I didn't ignore it. I explained the different between an access road and public parking for you, but YOU seen to have totally ignored that.

what_traffic

pure.conya wrote: »

if cycling on the path was illegal every kid cycling to and from school everyday would be breaking the law, trust me

I would not trust you at all when it came to the law.
Under 12yr of age its not illegal. Diminished responsibility and all that.
Adult. It is not a fixed penalty notice - but its down to the discretion of the Gardai depending on ones behavior when engaged in it.

pure.conya

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cycling on the path IS illegal

Just like speeding while driving IS illegal, though most drivers do it all the time.

The idea that cyclists hold up buses is laughable.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, if it was I'd have been forced by the judge to pay double the fixed penalty charge, i wasnt and THE GARDA ADMITTED IN COURT THAT IT ISN'T ACTUALLY ALLEGAL

and what are you on about that its laughable that cyclists hold up buses? I've given you a factual example of how cyclists hold up the 409 and 412 on weekday mornings, it happens, cyclists know it because they're insisting on cycling on the bus lane and the bus is crawling behind them, bus driver and ALL the passengers know it because they're watching it happening

pure.conya

what_traffic wrote: »

I would not trust you at all when it came to the law.
Under 12yr of age its not illegal. Diminished responsibility and all that.
Adult. It is not a fixed penalty notice - but its down to the discretion of the Gardai depending on ones behavior when engaged in it.

there's absolutely no such distinction in the law that states its not illegal for a minor to cycle on the public footpath, you're talking nonsense now and I've given you a fatual example of a recent court case where an actual garda had issued me with a fixed charge for for cycling on the path, one I refused to pay and risked having to pay double on the day of the court if i didnt prove my case, the judge would have upheld the fine only for my solicitor forced the state prosecution garda to admit in an open public court that it is not illegal to cycle on the footpath here in Ireland

what_traffic

pure.conya wrote: »

there's absolutely no such distinction in the law that states its not illegal for a minor to cycle on the public footpath, you're talking nonsense now and I've given you a fatual example of a recent court case where an actual garda had issued me with a fixed charge for for cycling on the path, one I refused to pay and risked having to pay double on the day of the court if i didnt prove my case, the judge would have upheld the fine only for my solicitor forced the state prosecution garda to admit in an open public court that it is not illegal to cycle on the footpath here in Ireland

Your basing the law on your own one case + your mixing up fixed charge with the statute law.
You were just lucky you got a Garda who did not know this area of road traffic law very well by the looks of it.

jjpep

pure.conya wrote: »

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, if it was I'd have been forced by the judge to pay double the fixed penalty charge, i wasnt and THE GARDA ADMITTED IN COURT THAT IT ISN'T ACTUALLY ALLEGAL

and what are you on about that its laughable that cyclists hold up buses? I've given you a factual example of how cyclists hold up the 409 and 412 on weekday mornings, it happens, cyclists know it because they're insisting on cycling on the bus lane and the bus is crawling behind them, bus driver and ALL the passengers know it because they're watching it happening

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html

Is it legal to cycle on a footpath?
Since 2015 the laws governing cycling have been regulated into specific fixed charge offences. Gardaí have the power to stop and fine a cyclist if they commit a fixed charge offence. Cycling on a footpath is not a fixed charge offence. However other laws do include it as an offence.

Article 11 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 prohibits you from cycling beyond a traffic sign that prohibits bicycles
Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property
Article 45 of the 1997 Regulations (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations 1998), you must not cycle in a pedestrianised street or area during the period indicated by the sign

xckjoo

pure.conya wrote: »

and what are you on about that its laughable that cyclists hold up buses? I've given you a factual example of how cyclists hold up the 409 and 412 on weekday mornings, it happens, cyclists know it because they're insisting on cycling on the bus lane and the bus is crawling behind them, bus driver and ALL the passengers know it because they're watching it happening

They're bus+cycle lanes. It's on all the road signs.

pure.conya

what_traffic wrote: »

Your basing the law on your own one case + your mixing up fixed charge with the statute law.
You were just lucky you got a Garda who did not know this area of road traffic law very well by the looks of it.

no I'm basing it on the fact my solicitor had done his homework and knew there was only one possible answer if he asked the garda to point out where its actually illegal to cycle on the path, the garda eventually obliged him and admitted it in court that it isnt actually illegal, simple

pure.conya

xckjoo wrote: »

They're bus+cycle lanes. It's on all the road signs.

i know all the rules of the road and the signs thanks, I'm currently studying CPC for bus/truck, still doesnt take from the fact that there's limited bus lanes in the city and in that particular stretch from Roscam to GleannNa Ri the bus could be travelling at 80kmph and from there to town 50kmph, instead of crawling behind cyclists doing roughly 20kmph when they could be on the path and allowing the buses to fly passed

at1withmyself

Must you derail 2 threads on this, will you nor just stick to one.

pure.conya wrote: »

i know all the rules of the road and the signs thanks, I'm currently studying CPC for bus/truck, still doesnt take from the fact that there's limited bus lanes in the city and in that particular stretch from Roscam to GleannNa Ri the bus could be travelling at 80kmph and from there to town 50kmph, instead of crawling behind cyclists doing roughly 20kmph when they could be on the path and allowing the buses to fly passed

pure.conya

at1withmyself wrote: »

Must you derail 2 threads on this, will you nor just stick to one.

my initial post that started all this off was

should get the 409 from roscam, ya have cyclists who insist they're cars and although totally legal for them to cycle on the bus lane they're slowing full double decker buses down to a crawl pace when there's literally nobody on the footpath beside them

then posters started claiming what i always thought myself too until recently that its illegal to cycle on the path, both threads went down that route because there's similar discussion going on regarding traffic, I've given an example of how cyclists are ****ing up the limited bus lanes and how they could do loads of people a favour and be safer for themselves too if they stuck to the path when theres no dedicated cycle lane, whats so difficult about all of that?

AndrewJRenko

pure.conya wrote: »

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, if it was I'd have been forced by the judge to pay double the fixed penalty charge, i wasnt and THE GARDA ADMITTED IN COURT THAT IT ISN'T ACTUALLY ALLEGAL

From https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html with my bolding for emphasis

Is it legal to cycle on a footpath?
Since 2015 the laws governing cycling have been regulated into specific fixed charge offences. Gardaí have the power to stop and fine a cyclist if they commit a fixed charge offence. Cycling on a footpath is not a fixed charge offence. However other laws do include it as an offence.

Article 11 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 prohibits you from cycling beyond a traffic sign that prohibits bicycles
Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property
Article 45 of the 1997 Regulations (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations 1998), you must not cycle in a pedestrianised street or area during the period indicated by the sign

pure.conya wrote: »

and what are you on about that its laughable that cyclists hold up buses? I've given you a factual example of how cyclists hold up the 409 and 412 on weekday mornings, it happens, cyclists know it because they're insisting on cycling on the bus lane and the bus is crawling behind them, bus driver and ALL the passengers know it because they're watching it happening

What percentage of their journeys are the 409 and 412 stuck behind cyclists compared to the amount of time they are stuck behind cars?

what_traffic

pure.conya wrote: »

my initial post that started all this off was

should get the 409 from roscam, ya have cyclists who insist they're cars and although totally legal for them to cycle on the bus lane they're slowing full double decker buses down to a crawl pace when there's literally nobody on the footpath beside them

then posters started claiming what i always thought myself too until recently that its illegal to cycle on the path, both threads went down that route because there's similar discussion going on regarding traffic, I've given an example of how cyclists are ****ing up the limited bus lanes and how they could do loads of people a favour and be safer for themselves too if they stuck to the path when theres no dedicated cycle lane, whats so difficult about all of that?

The difficulty is in what you are advocating is all based on your own lucky personal experience.
You are really ****ing up these threads.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What percentage of their journeys are the 409 and 412 stuck behind cyclists compared to the amount of time they are stuck behind cars?

% of journeys is irrelevant. % of travel time is what matters.

The delay is significant and also effects the 401 on the Monivea Rd.

The real solution is fully grade separated cycleways.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

% of journeys is irrelevant. % of travel time is what matters.

The delay is significant and also effects the 401 on the Monivea Rd.

The real solution is fully grade separated cycleways.

Fully agree - I meant to say 'what % of journey time is spent stuck behind cyclists compared to stuck behind cars'?

xckjoo

pure.conya wrote: »

i know all the rules of the road and the signs thanks, I'm currently studying CPC for bus/truck, still doesnt take from the fact that there's limited bus lanes in the city and in that particular stretch from Roscam to GleannNa Ri the bus could be travelling at 80kmph and from there to town 50kmph, instead of crawling behind cyclists doing roughly 20kmph when they could be on the path and allowing the buses to fly passed

So what? As others have said, the percentage of time behind a cyclist is insignificant compared to all the other delays and a constant 20kmph is still faster than sitting in stationary traffic. If there is no car traffic, they can instantly overtake. They aren't stuck in the lanes. It would be lovely to have segregated cycle lanes but that's not what we have. Footpaths are for people walking and children cycling. Ideally nobody would be cycling on them, but for now lets cut the kids some slack so they don't get killed. If you're a grown up, cycle on the road or the designated cycling space.
Anyway, this is pointless so I'll leave you to argue with other people with more time to waste.

Don Juan II

pure.conya wrote: »

Google maps because they're tracking every android phones location and giving accurate arrival times due to them knowing how so much of the traffic is moving, its a learning system so they're clocking everybody's regular commutes, random traffic in and out of the city etc. and will direct you to your destination the absolute quickest way possible

I don't want to drag this thread even more off-topic but I came across this ... I absolutely love it!
http://www.simonweckert.com/googlemapshacks.html

pure.conya

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What percentage of their journeys are the 409 and 412 stuck behind cyclists compared to the amount of time they are stuck behind cars?

when the buses arent stuck behind cars they're on bus lanes stuck behind cyclists going 20kmph when they could be doing 80 and then 50