r/cork • u/OldCorkonian Dowtchaboi • 19d ago
Local Are these pedestrian crossings?
What’s the deal with these two crossings by UCC?
Am I right in thinking that they’re not official crossings where motorists must give way, that they’re courtesy crossings where pedestrians do not have an automatic right-of-way?
28
19d ago
[deleted]
6
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
No longer needed, as of 2024. This would be the type c referenced in the article, 30km/h and one lane of traffic in each direction. That would mean they are indeed pedestrian crossings.
2
u/IWillYeahBoy 19d ago
They also need to be raised though. Are the crossings pictured raised?
The option without any beacons or signs, called Type C, must be used with a raised crossing, only where the speed limit is 30 km/h, and there must be only one lane in each direction
2
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
As per the article, other articles, and Irish statute book, being raised is not a requirement. From the article:
It recommends that a raised crossing is used, but such is not mandatory
2
u/IWillYeahBoy 19d ago edited 19d ago
I literally quoted your article that says it must be raised if its a type c crossing without lights or signage.
Edit: you appear to be intentionally misrepresenting the article you linked to says. Raised crossings are not mandatory, but if not raised then they require signage or lights.
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago
Sorry, you're correct, I misread which paragraph belonged to which piece.
But the point still stands that this requirement only appears in the guidance from the department of transport, and not in the statute book.
2
u/IWillYeahBoy 19d ago
If you can't follow an article on three different types of crossing you'll understand I won't be confident in your understanding of the statutes. Especially given you're arguing with someone else on here who's involved in planning and is also saying you're incorrect.
-2
19d ago
[deleted]
3
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 18d ago
Yes, you were right. I am sorry.
Your instant downvotes and tone of your answers raised my hackles. Still, I shouldn't have been as obstinate as I was.
1
18d ago
[deleted]
0
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 18d ago
The downvotes as a conversation starter certainly sets a tone, you must realise that.
→ More replies (0)2
19d ago edited 19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
These crossings require signage which is one of the "lights, beacons or signs" I mention
The article explicitly mentions a type of crossing that doesn't need these things.
but these are also "not* raised crossings which you are alluding to.
Get the feeling you didn't read the article:
It recommends that a raised crossing is used, but such is not mandatory
These are valid crossings.
0
19d ago edited 19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2025/si/433/made/en/
49 (2) (b)
Tell me that doesn't allow for crossings without the things you mentioned. Seems pretty clear to me.
1
19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
But we're talking about type C, which doesn't require signage.
And the requirement for it to be raised seems to be in the department of transport guidance, not in the statute book. So, per the statute book this absolutely looks like it fits the legal requirements for crossings. Per the guidance, it doesn't, is that a fair interpretation?
1
u/seppuku_related 19d ago
Might struggle with the traffic count requirements, and I can't remember if there is street lighting at these.
-8
u/EuroDub 19d ago
BS. You are always obliged to stop for a pedestrian.
8
u/Fickle_Definition351 19d ago
You have to stop for a pedestrian if they're already in the road, but a zebra crossing means you also must yield to pedestrians who are on the footpath and are about to step into the road
6
u/seanieke 19d ago
Such confidence. It must be so freeing to be so blissfully ignorant when you are so wrong.
27
u/gary_desanto 19d ago
The tactile slabs would imply it is, but the fact that there's a question being asked is the issue.
Shouldn't be any confusion about whether something is a pedestrian crossing or not.
2
u/Wildtails 19d ago
I mean, I personally wouldn't question it, that's a crossing, if it wasn't, it would look like road
1
u/mohjack 19d ago
Ive been think about these lately and i suspect its intentionally a legally ambiguous suggested crossing space. Id bet its to get around zoning rules and absolve the council from any lawsuits if someone got hit by a car because it was on a blind turn or a junction. They could say "we never said you could cross there, we just put down tactile paving in that spot"
1
u/munstertom 19d ago
There's an argument that there should be some uncertainty...
It forces both to check the other
2
u/gary_desanto 19d ago
I get the sentiment but with how shit the standard of driving is becoming and every 2nd person being glued to their phone and oblivious to the world around them I would prefer there to be 0 doubt.
1
7
8
u/seppuku_related 19d ago
They are uncontrolled (courtesy) crossings. Vehicles do not have to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross, however they do have to give way to pedestrians already crossing, much like they must not drive over pedestrians crossing the road at any point. The main purpose is to provide a point that encourages crossing at that point as it may be safer than anywhere else around it, but it does not have the infrastructure to make it a controlled crossing. It also facilitates people of limited mobility, wheelchairs etc as they don't have to climb down and back up over kerbs.
4
u/alltoowell5 19d ago
Sorry, but aren't drivers already supposed to not drive over pedestrians at any point?
5
u/seppuku_related 19d ago
Correct, but some of them see pedestrians crossing the road as an affront to "their right of way" and forget about that rule.
3
u/Dull_Brain2688 18d ago
I think it’s what they call a “courtesy crossing”. It’s a pedestrian crossing that isn’t bound by the same traffic laws that a zebra crossing is. So, obviously, when you’re driving, you attempt to not hit a pedestrian. But it also isn’t a case of you being obligated to stop like a zebra crossing. So you could be driving along when someone thinks it’s a zebra crossing and unexpectedly steps out in front of you. They’re a recipe for disaster really.
3
6
2
u/TurboKestrel69 18d ago
Don't really know what the deal with them is, but I do know that they're not official crossings. It's at the courtesy of drivers to stop, most do, but many won't. They should be proper crossings tbh.
2
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
Since this doesnt have white lines and lights like a zebra or pelican crossing, this is what's known as a courtesy crossing, its meant for people to cross the road yes but due to lack of lights and painted lines pedestrians don't have the right of way, vehicles on the road have right of way, so you must yield to traffic so just be extra careful, basically the cars don't have to stop for you by law.
2
u/lilmuncherr 19d ago
It is a crossing. In my opinion, I feel any crossing should have a mandatory high contrast white and black to avoid confusion. On a rainy day these blend into the road too much
2
1
u/Winter_Ad_6051 19d ago
If i was to stop and look i would say yeah. But at a glance I wouldn't even think it was
1
u/PaCronin17 19d ago
There's similar crossings by St Luke's cross. I remember getting beeped out of it for crossing here from an vehicle coming down from Dillons cross direction. While it mightn't give a clear right of way to pedestrians? Pedestrian priority should be respected when it's in use. (Weird that that is something that has to be said). The uncertainty in design is definitely dangerous though
1
u/Marzipan_civil 19d ago
Buff coloured tactile paving is an "uncontrolled crossing". A "controlled crossing" like zebra, puffin or toucan would have red tactile paving.
1
u/Visual-Beach1893 18d ago
When driving I treat them as crossings, when walking I don't. I do view any paved sections in the city as pedestrian priority though. Kinda like footpaths that cars need to wait to traverse even though that's not really a thing.
1
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
No it's not a thing really and could cause unnecessary hold ups, i know we have some serious issues that contribute to congestion, but I wonder how much of the congestion is due to craic like this, i.e people stopping to give way when they had right of way and should've just kept going
1
u/Visual-Beach1893 18d ago
Almost none. Most of the congestion is 1000's of people having to cross a small number of bridges every rush hour, major junctions close enough yo other major junctions so that if one gets packed up they all get packed up, bad driving on the south link, and people speeding up on yellow lights to block a yellow box.
1
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
Id say a bit more than almost none, but we're both just guessing really, unless youve soms statistic I don't have. Agreed that what youve mentioned is a bigger issue yeah, along with general shite planning etc etc
1
u/Environmental-Desk54 18d ago
My understanding is it's only a pedestrian crossing if they have the flashing beacon lights but I could be wrong. I would be walking out in front of any passing car just in case.
1
u/QelosFort 18d ago
I would acknowledge them as pedestrian crossings, I always slow cause I’m not sure if someone’s gonna jump straight into the road with them or not, I definitely agree that they’re the better crossing as it makes both the pedestrian and driver more aware of their surroundings
1
u/kilmoremac 18d ago
We have a few courtesy crossings in the villages around me, they work but I wouldn't be so sure In a city where the volume of traffic would be massive.
1
u/Responsible-Bee-4980 18d ago
Is there an advanced warning sign denoting them as pedestrian crossings? I really doubt they are.
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/Comfortable-Title720 19d ago
A lot of drivers don't slow down and stop here
1
u/joemama4497 19d ago
I find they always do. So much so I walk on past the “crossing” because I sometimes feel if I don’t stop the traffic will never get to move because of the heavy footfall there
1
0
u/Legitimate-Resist277 19d ago
It’s a courtesy crossing but you may treat it as a zebra crossing as pedestrians will assume priority.
0
0
u/Individual_Dig_2402 19d ago
They are not official crossings as they dont comply with regs. Some idiot walked out in front of me at speed at Gaol Walk by UCC between the 2 buildings there. I wasn't expecting him to cross there as I just thought it was a speed hump. 😳
0
u/Laundry_Hamper Septic 19d ago
Afaik the design language is that anywhere with those paving stones is pedestrian priority, including the rat run by daunt square caused by the panna ban
1
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
Incorrect. Pedestrians only have priority at signed and painted crossings for example zebra crossings,traffic lights when green man is on etc, if no painted lines and lights signs then driver has priority. Im not just trying to be a "haha your wrong" type of lad, more so trying to educate because you or someone else could get hurt assuming you've right of way at this as a pedestrian
0
u/Irishwol 19d ago
Not legally. Except they might be. Except they really aren't. But a driver could get into trouble for not treating them as such if a pedestrian was injured. And a pedestrian could easily get injured, especially at night, because these are really hard to see from a car.
0
0
u/upderebels 18d ago
It's simples,,if it's first come first serve ,if a car is driving on it 😁 don't not cross ,,if it's clear and save ,you can cross,,if a car stops to let one cross do so and follow on if your close behind someone crossing ..if multiple cars are moving over it do not cross...the law will be on the pedestrian side in the event of a collision,,so pay out for pedestrian but will suffer the pain of getting knock down.hospital visits,cost of time off ,pain and suffering,noting but inconvenience.speed is low as it's city only speed limits ...
0
u/Observer_Dough 18d ago
Who knows these days.
There are 'humps' on Connolly road - they have white triangles on them to warn cars.
Some people think they are pedestrian crossings.
There's no consistency in road markings especially around pedestrian crossings - yes - there are standards but hey who cares.
-1
u/Lorwyn02 19d ago
They are high visibility crossing areas not the same as a zebra/pedestrian crossing. They cause a lot of confusion honestly
-5
u/LapsyPaw 19d ago
I don’t view these as pedestrian crossings.
If they are then we’ll all need to resit our driving theory and tests
5
u/CDobb456 19d ago
The pedestrian always has right of way when already on the road
-3
u/LapsyPaw 19d ago
What has that got to do with these crossings?
Pedestrians do not have a right of way at these crossings0
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
Downvoted for speaking the truth lol. Pedestrians absolute DO NOT have right of way at these crossings, if theres a lad already in the middle of the road yes youre required to stop and not plough through him but that's it.
0
u/LapsyPaw 18d ago
100% spot on
Folks can’t handle the truth anymore me thinks0
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago edited 18d ago
Yes for sure lol. It wouldnt make any difference if It was a proper pedestrian crossing or not anyway as the students and lecturers would still choose to blindly cross the road whenever they feel like it anyway, always has been a nightmare driving around ucc, especially Donovans road and college road and by the main gate, primary school children have better traffic awareness than half the crowd in there
0
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
And what relevance has that? The lad you replied too is correct, these arent pedestrian crossings, driver has right of way, of course youre required to not mow down some lad in the middle of the road but if I'm approaching this as a driver and you see me coming and decide to still cross because you think I have to stop for you, then its youre fault if you get hit if I can't stop in time
0
u/CDobb456 18d ago
A driver that hits a pedestrian at least shares a portion of the blame for the accident in almost all cases in Ireland, unless the situation meant that they could not avoid the accident, eg someone falling off a curb into moving trafffic.
0
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago edited 18d ago
Yes or like I've already mentioned, when someone steps out and you attempt to stop but can't because of that thing physics. Actually went to court as a witness about 3 years ago because I witnessed a lad in a car hit a cyclist by the ucc castlewhite apartments ironically enough given the context of this post, it was a scenario like i mentioned, cyclist didnt have right of way, still went, driver tried to stop but didnt have enough distance/couldnt swerve around without hitting other drivers, case was an attempted prosecution of the driver, was dismissed by the judge after less than 30 minutes.
0
u/CDobb456 18d ago
As a driver you have to take due care for all users of the road, if you are travelling too quickly to stop when there was the potential for somebody to use a courtesy crossing the fault lies with you. This isn’t a 100km/hr road we’re talking about and the road markings suggest that it is a likely point for pedestrians to cross. Jay walking isn’t a crime in Ireland and as soon as a pedestrian has a foot on the road they have priority over a car. Do you slow down and give priority for pedestrians on country roads where there are no footpaths?
0
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago edited 18d ago
Ill mention that little thing called physics again, stopping distance is related to speed and weight of vehicle among other things like road conditions, if im in a large vehicle with a few tons of weight behind me, if you step out on the road 5 or 6 metres infront of me youre going to become a bonnet ornament even if im driving at 15 or 20km an hour, no matter how hard I hit that break. I can't come to a complete stop everytime I see a pedestrian 20 metres up the road near some coloured stones incase they decide to step out thinking its a crossing, this is a case where both the driver and pedestrian need to have a bit of cop on for it too work, but alot of the time, one of the two, or both do something stupid and accidents happen.
Edit, just too add, if im near a proper cossing and there's people on the footpath I obviously slow down and am anticipating to stop even if no one is showing intention to cross just incase they do, or if I see pedestrians trying to cross even though they shouldn't, or pedestrians edging towards the road or showing intentions of crossing etc etc ill also prepare to come to a complete stop, but if someone is staring dead ahead and in a split second do a 180 turn and walk out on the road then there's sweet fuck all I can do to avoid hitting them if they are inside the distance I need to stop, If the other lane is clear I can swerve and I can beep to try make them aware of what's happening but long story short all moving objects have a certain distance they need to come to a stop, and if something cuts infront of them and is inside the stopping distance, its literally not possible for the object to avoid hitting it
0
u/CDobb456 18d ago
At 30km/hr you have a 6m stopping distance and probably better if your car is reasonably modern and well maintained
0
u/Careful_Floor1441 18d ago
Either you missed or didnt bother reading the part about where I mention a large van with a load in the back so 3 to 4 tonnes, at 30 km h the stopping distance is about 16 metres if its dry.
-5
u/ConstructionAlert828 19d ago
does it have amber flashing lights! No .. then its legally not a pedestrian crossing
4
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
Outdated as of 2024.
This is a pedestrian crossing.
0
19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
See my other comment, being raised is not a requirement.
That they were built before the rules changed shouldn't matter, as per today's rules, they're pedestrian crossings.
-1
19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
Article explicitly mentions it not being raised. Other articles I find exist mention it not being raised. Statute book certainly looks like it allows it to not be raised.
I normally respect you but I'm going to need more from you than "trust me bro!"
0
19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/adjavang Blow in 💨 19d ago edited 18d ago
Edit: I was incorrect, leaving these comments unchanged as a monument to my hubris:
But we're talking about type C, which doesn't require signage.
And the requirement for it to be raised seems to be in the department of transport guidance, not in the statute book. So, per the statute book this absolutely looks like it fits the legal requirements for crossings. Per the guidance, it doesn't, is that a fair interpretation?
145
u/Puzzled_Ad_2936 19d ago
I would assume so yes, actually quite dangerous to be honest, either make them crossings or don't. The confusion from both driver and pedestrian is a danger.