JC Decaux signs start appearing - Shocking.

Stark

I still think his argument is invalid. "Ah sure, there are obstructions already" isn't vaild justification for creating new obstructions.

And I have seen trees being cut down when they've become too much of a hazard. Some of them approx 200 years old...

tibor

John_C wrote: »

There is a very obvious comparison to be made. Something which blocks the view of a driver, blocks the view of a driver. This is true, irrespective of what is doing the blocking. You(plural)'re free to argue that the danger posed by trees is worth it because they serve another purpose but I think you're all being unfair on the other side of the argument, dismissing the person making it as some kind of crank.

On the North Circular Road there is a row of designated car parking beside the trees i.e. they are not directly adjacent to moving traffic. In fact they are about 6-8ft back from traffic, unlike the advertising hoardings in question.

John_C

Stark wrote: »

I still think his argument is invalid. "Ah sure, there are obstructions already" isn't vaild justification for creating new obstructions

As it happens, I disagree with him as well but I think that a lot of what was said about him on the previous page or two was ridiculously over the top.

There's an element of truth to both sides of the discussion. I could probably give a hundred examples of sight lines being blocked in important places on the roads I travel but these are all ignored until a piece of advertising blocked a line of sight. That doesn't excuse the placing of the advertising signs but I think that there's a huge amount of jumping on a health and safety bandwagon going on.

John_C

tibor wrote: »

On the North Circular Road there is a row of designated car parking beside the trees i.e. they are not directly adjacent to moving traffic. In fact they are about 6-8ft back from traffic, unlike the advertising hoardings in question.

That may well be true, I don't know the road but, if you like, I can start giving examples from the roads I travel. I don't think there's any major need though because I'm sure we can all think of our own.

iwudluvit

John_C wrote: »

As it happens, I disagree with him as well but I think that a lot of what was said about him on the previous page or two was ridiculously over the top.

There's an element of truth to both sides of the discussion. I could probably give a hundred examples of sight lines being blocked in important places on the roads I travel but these are all ignored until a piece of advertising blocked a line of sight. That doesn't excuse the placing of the advertising signs but I think that there's a huge amount of jumping on a health and safety bandwagon going on.

there's a strong whiff of of 'ooh look at those evil corporationary corporations'. it's a bit of a shame to pander to such leftie ****e but if it cleans up the roads and makes them safer - so be it. they might be the straw to break the camels back. there's a huge amount of errant sight lines - even old bloody mother nature is growing branches and shoots all over safety traffic signs all around the country.

I've always believed that there should be a (with power) independent road audit team that goes around the country fining local councils for shoddy work; hit them where it counts and put the profit to charitable use.

Alun

iwudluvit wrote: »

I've always believed that there should be a (with power) independent road audit team that goes around the country fining local councils for shoddy work; hit them where it counts and put the profit to charitable use.

Now there's a job I'd like (along with a few others on this forum, I'd wager )

RedorDead

2 new ones erected on the long mile road at the end of last week. Must get pics and post. They dont seem as bad as some previous ones.

lostexpectation

Stekelly wrote: »

I dont have to I drive the roads most days and have had no issue with the signs.

As I said in that thread. As long as no one rushes out onto the road when the traffic is on green (same as any road without the signs) and check before

There are trees all down the centre of parnell street that I dotn see campaigns to have taken down. What about the big trees lining sections of the north circular? No campaigns to have these dangerous view blocking monsters removed? no? What about the ones on the median on Dorset st that are in view in your above pic?

shows us a photo of tree blocking a traffic light from close range and we might agree with ya. otherwise...

did somebody mentioned a dcc reply or was that just to the original appeals?

John_C

lostexpectation wrote: »

shows us a photo of tree blocking a traffic light from close range and we might agree with ya. otherwise...

I don't have a photo but the branches of a tree overhang one of the the traffic lights on the Montrose Hotel side of the Belfield flyover on the N11 in Dublin.

L1011

And have you contacted DCC (or is it DLRCC out there?) about it?

John_C

MYOB wrote: »

And have you contacted DCC (or is it DLRCC out there?) about it?

No but feel free, I think it's Dunlaoghaire.

L1011

I've never seen them so I can't go contacting them now can I?

You on the other hand have, and are saying they're an obstruction and that the council are ignoring them while not ignoring the problems with the signs. The issue is that the problems with the signs were brought to the councils attention, yet you've not brought that tree (in a different council area!) to the relevant councils attention...

Ste.phen

John_C wrote: »

No but feel free, I think it's Dunlaoghaire.

Surely it's DCC? I didn't think DLRCC were in on this crap?

John_C

MYOB wrote: »

I've never seen them so I can't go contacting them now can I?

You on the other hand have, and are saying they're an obstruction and that the council are ignoring them while not ignoring the problems with the signs. The issue is that the problems with the signs were brought to the councils attention, yet you've not brought that tree (in a different council area!) to the relevant councils attention...

I think I'll just concede that you're superior moral being to me. I genuinely don't go about contacting the council each time I see something wrong on the roads.

I don't think that this invalidates the original argument.

eringobragh

Heres 2 vids of the JCDecaux banners taken from my Cruisecam

First one is Drumcondra

Outside Tolka Park wouldn't be too happy looking out my bedroom window at that POS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uS2-OiUiTc

Second is on the opposite side of the road not as good a vid but ill post it anywho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4X8GfK5fg

Edit: embedded youtube doesn't work!!!!!!!!!!!

MadsL

As far as I know that one at Tolka Park was refused permission...

When was the vid taken?

MadsL

Noncompliance of tolka park sign

eringobragh

MadsL wrote: »

As far as I know that one at Tolka Park was refused permission...

When was the vid taken?

About 3 days ago. (Ignore the time/date stamp on the vids as the DVR hasn't constant power)

They seemed to be finishing it off

Seth Brundle

could ABP have given it the nod?

MadsL

could ABP have given it the nod?

This one wasn't appealed. The non-compliance was from DCC (orginally there was meant to be a pavement extension) Decaux argued for a bit of moving things around and DCC said no.

So, DCC said no, and they put it up anyway.:eek:

I'm trying to get confirmation from the planning officer.....

LostinBlanch

A pavement extension is the last thing that Richmond Road needs. It's hard enough to get through as it is. But that sign is still there.

eringobragh

LostinBlanch wrote: »

A pavement extension is the last thing that Richmond Road needs. It's hard enough to get through as it is. But that sign is still there.

x2 i've nearly been minus my wingmirror there a couple of times and Yes it's still up MadsL

MadsL

Shockingly DCC could be left with taxpayers responsible for any liability issues...:eek:

From The Sunday Times
August 10, 2008

Dublin bike scheme wobbles over liability
Billboards are deemed unsafe, write Colin Coyle and Ruadhan MacEoin



DUBLIN'S "free bike scheme" for its citizens has encountered an
unexpected obstacle.

It has emerged that the city council will be liable for accidents
caused by the billboards that have been erected on the capital's
streets as part of the scheme, even though the boards are privately
owned.

The council has allowed JC Decaux, a French company, to erect 72
advertising panels in exchange for 450 bicycles in a
"bikes-for-billboards" scheme. But the panels have been criticised as
unsafe by drivers, pedestrians and the National Council for the Blind
of Ireland (NCBI).

Unlike usual billboards, the advertising panels are attached to the
footpath, with edges finished in steel. Drivers claim they block
sightlines and could cause accidents.

Legal advice given last year to Jim Keogan, the city planner, from
Terence O'Keeffe, a law agent, states that as the council is
responsible for all "repairs and maintenance", it also becomes
"responsible for any public liability issues that arise in those areas
in the event of accidents etc, occurring".

The council asked O'Keeffe for legal advice before a hearing into the
bikes-for-billboards scheme last October. In Chicago, a similar scheme
is on hold because of questions over public liability.

"It's all about lawyers. That's the only hang-up," Chicago's mayor,
Richard M Daley, said earlier this month.

Ian Lumley of An Taisce, said: "It is bizarre that the local authority
may be carrying the can of legal responsibility for units belonging to
a private developer."

Lumley's criticism is echoed by former Lord Mayor and Labour
councillor Dermot Lacey, who is calling for the scheme to be
"immediately suspended". Lacey said that it would be "completely,
totally, and utterly unacceptable" for the council to be responsible
for private commercial hoardings that are "potentially dangerous" and
"visually obtrusive".

In some instances, such as at Synnott Place on Dorset Street, and at
Rathmines, billboards were quickly removed after motorists complained
they obscured sightlines.

Des Kenny of the NCBI said: "JC- Decaux was offered assistance \ 18
months ago. We were surprised when the offer was not taken up, as it
was made free-of-charge."

He added: "If the company was already aware that it was not legally
responsible for the billboards, did it take as much care in its
attention to design and location as it would have otherwise?"

The council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of
the advertising spaces, but 32 panels will carry civic information on
one side. However, there is still no sign of the promised bikes. The
council said this weekend that they are due to arrive next spring. It
has yet to disclose how much it will cost Dubliners to use them.

In other cities where JCDecaux has set up schemes, users pre-register
with a credit card, paying about €30 a year on top of the charge for
using a bicycle. If someone loses a bicycle or fails to return it to a
docking station within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a
bicycle, about €150, is deducted from their credit card.

The company has established schemes in 21 cities, including Paris,
Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna and Lyon.

In Paris, 100,000 people use the 20,000 Velib bikes every day, but
vandalism and the cost of spare parts for the bikes cost JCDecaux
€20.6m in the first half of the year. In the first year, a third of
the bikes were damaged or stolen.

Two Velib riders have been killed and the French Cycle Touring
Federation said there have been problems with "letting loose hundreds
of people who haven't been on a bike in years".

Dublin city council said this weekend that its legal department was
still examining the issue of public liability over the billboards.

JCDecaux declined to comment.

gibo_ie

The board at the west end of Parnell Street (Outside cineworld) was gone this morning!!
Cobblelock is back in place, this only happened since friday as i walked down here then...
Hopefully this is one of many which will disappear!!

BrianD

Got a letter from DCC saying that there was no planning issues with the Charlotte Way/Camden St. signs and that my query was being passed to health and safety for review.

spurious

I see they have started putting scrolling ads in them now - for that little bit more distraction for drivers.

BrianD

Yeah, I think DCC have got their month of free adverts. They're running some generic advert that I am sure will be researched to demonstrate how effective they are. Rate card has now been published for both of these new formats.

I wonder who will be first to advertise?

donvito99

there ws one in rathmines blocking the whole footpath , and blocking most of the sunlight from a takeaway

Seth Brundle

BrianD wrote: »

I wonder who will be first to advertise?

Planning consultants and Personal Injury Solicitors

lostexpectation

council-objects-to-stencilled-ad-on-wall
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/council-objects-to-stencilled-ad-on-wall-1544661.html

DECEMBER ISSUE - PLAN MAGAZINE, Ireland's leading architectural publication, has conducted a major investigation the results of which are published in our current issue. In conducting our research, we uncovered key findings including:

Dublin City Council's own internal report finds majority of units inspected to be deficient regarding road safety yet units nonetheless deemed as compliant

No schedule yet for the independent safety audit, although vast majority of units are in place.

JC Decaux's list of 50 predominantly already obsolete billboards accepted as complying with the condition that sought to reduce 100 billboards around the city

Billboards erected on roads known to have a bad safety record

Alcohol adverts now flashing outside schools

"Having published the previously secret rezoning map in April used to deliver the Decaux scheme, Plan Magazine lifts the lid and again further exposes significant new shortcomings some of which are potential public safety hazards."
Synopsis of our findings:

1. On request by councillors, city officials conducted an internal audit whereby 32 site inspections were carried out in city-centre areas, primarily on the smaller "metropanel" units, now freestanding on footpaths. Twenty-seven had been erected at time of inspection, yet of the units only eight appear to be completely free from "road user infringements". Although the majority appear to have deficiencies in terms of road safety and could be potentially dangerous, such as "blind spots" (council's own description) and sightlines blocked, all bar one have been deemed to be compliant.

2. Forty-six other units, primarily the larger "metropole" type, do not appear to have been inspected; however Plan Magazine has correlated data provided by the Gardai with locations of development, and it appears that approximately 25 have been built on roads known to have bad history of accidents. (Any of the larger "metropole" units that were appealed to An Bord Pleanála were shot down, primarily because of road safety concerns; in contrast Dublin City Council approved 100% all such applications in the first instance. No Environmental Impact Assessment was ever carried out.)

3. In total, of the 78 "metropole" and "metropanel" units, approximately 50 raise problems in terms of road safety, or are located on dangerous roads. Despite this the independent safety audit required has not even been advertised for contract with no timetable apparent as to when it is likely to be carried out.

4. The condition stipulating a cleanup of the city by the removal of 100 billboards has seemingly been retrospectively changed to 50, yet the evidence of decommissioned hoardings by JC Decaux appears to have significant peculiarities. Of the 50 units, 30 roads and streets are listed – yet only 20 of these are identifiable with specific numbers provided. Having conducted site examinations of the locations, Plan Magazine has discovered that many of the sites were already under or effected by redevelopment, including in one case state land where a garda station is being built, while in other instances it appears that some addresses provided do not exist.

5. Other matters including alcohol adverts outside schools such as on Dorset Street, land ownership issues, estimates of the scheme being worth €150 million, liability questions and more!


h/t cactus flower at machinenation