Gormley on his bike

buffalo

A nice letter in the Irish Times today...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/0729/1217013442222.html

Madam, - Wasn't it lucky for the nonchalant Green Party leader, John Gormley, that last week, rushing into his 20-minute time slot with President Sarkozy, he was able to leave his bicycle, unlocked, propped up against a tree, under the watchful eyes of one, two and possibly even a third policeman.

As the erstwhile owner of three stolen bicycles, I find it somewhat irritating to read that Mr Gormley's green, commuter lifestyle is so well facilitated by Government Buildings' round the clock bike security regime.

Not even David Cameron seems to have such effective bike surveillance in place.

If Mr Gormley is really serious about going Green, he must tackle bicycle theft in inner city Dublin, which is reaching epidemic levels.

Maybe he wouldn't mind opening up Government Buildings' car parks to all cyclists wishing to stow their bikes in town? - Yours, etc,

EIBHLÍN HEALY, Wellington Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.

Have to say, I've never had a bike stolen in the city centre, though I've had two taken from UCD campus. Reckon Gormley will do anything to improve our lot?

BeerNut

No, because it's not his job. This is a matter for the Gardaí and local authorities.

It's surprising just how much isn't the Minister for the Environment's job :rolleyes:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

BeerNut wrote: »

No, because it's not his job. This is a matter for the Gardaí and local authorities.

It's surprising just how much isn't the Minister for the Environment's job :rolleyes:

Surely you can see that doing something to prevent bike theft might encourage more people to cycle rather than drive, which is good for the environment.

While it may not be verbatim in the job-description, it seems to me an area that he is more than capable of getting involved in.

BeerNut

BeerNut wrote: »

No, because it's not his job. This is a matter for the Gardaí and local authorities.

It's surprising just how much isn't the Minister for the Environment's job :rolleyes:

Not even the 'Local Government' part of his job?

Harrybelafonte

How long are the greens in power for now? Can anyone attest to any good they've done for cycling commuters or other cyclists?

Gavin

Surely you can see that doing something to prevent bike theft might encourage more people to cycle rather than drive, which is good for the environment.

While it may not be verbatim in the job-description, it seems to me an area that he is more than capable of getting involved in.

With that logic, you could equally say it's the responsibility of the Minister for Health. Or the Minister for Transport.

I think Beernut makes a fair point. Bicycle theft is theft, it's the remit of the Dep. of Justice and of course the Gardai.

Complain to local TDs, get them to complain to Dermot Ahern and get him to provide funding for a Garda unit to tackle bike theft.

BeerNut

Myth wrote: »

Not even the 'Local Government' part of his job?

Not even that. Not even Ireland has its local government centralised in the capital

Central government doesn't even control traffic light sequencing or road layouts (annoyingly). Cycling is way down the list of national priorities, mainly because cycling is the recommended means of transport only for journeys up to 8km. Given our low population density, that makes cycling policy largely an urban matter and that in turn makes it an issue for local councils.

Your TDs, your councillors; your senators and Joint Policing Committees (if you have them): these are the people whose job this is.

Course, if you live in Dublin South East, one of your TDs is John Gormley. But he has different people to deal with your request then. And frankly you're more likely to get something done writing to him in that capacity than as Minister.

Ghost Rider

But local authorities are not fully autonomous agencies. Surely policy (which is a matter for central government i.e. the responsibility of ministers) has to inform the actions of local authorities, no?

If so, if Gormley really wanted to do something significant about improving the lot of cyclists, would it not be within his power to, say, authorise or even compel local authorities to spend money on cycle lock-ups?

BeerNut wrote: »

Not even that. Not even Ireland has its local government centralised in the capital

Central government doesn't even control traffic light sequencing or road layouts (annoyingly). Cycling is way down the list of national priorities, mainly because cycling is the recommended means of transport only for journeys up to 8km. Given our low population density, that makes cycling policy largely an urban matter and that in turn makes it an issue for local councils.

Your TDs, your councillors; your senators and Joint Policing Committees (if you have them): these are the people whose job this is.

Course, if you live in Dublin South East, one of your TDs is John Gormley. But he has different people to deal with your request then. And frankly you're more likely to get something done writing to him in that capacity than as Minister.

BeerNut

Ghost Rider wrote: »

But local authorities are not fully autonomous agencies. Surely policy (which is a matter for central government i.e. the responsibility of ministers) has to inform the actions of local authorities, no?

Yes, but not everything local government does can be directed from the Custom House -- there'd be no point if it was. Cycling is not one of these policy areas because of our low national population density: it's really only a concern of townies.

Ghost Rider wrote: »

If so, if Gormley really wanted to do something significant about improving the lot of cyclists, would it not be within his power to, say, authorise or even compel local authorities to spend money on cycle lock-ups?

He could. But in a rural area do you reckon that's as good a use of your taxes as parks or waste facilities or housing or clean drinking water? It's not the lack of council lock-ups that's keeping the good citizens of Borris-in-Ossory off their bikes.

Edit: Wheee! I got an extra star!

petethedrummer

http://greenparty.ie/government/achievements_in_government

'14 Apr: Dublin Transportation Authority Bill published. The greens inputted into the legislation that will lead to the of the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority. '

I presume there's something in there to do with cycle lanes.

BeerNut

Yep. Section 10:
"In exercising its functions the Authority shall seek to achieve the following objectives—
<snip>
(e) increased recourse to cycling and walking as means of transport"

So, if you're concerned about the local cycling facilities in Dublin this will be another organisation whose job it is to listen to your concerns and suggestions, not the Department of the Environment.

John_C

I don't really expect the government to keep an eye on my bike. I'm responsible for putting a good solid lock on it and if a thief ever does make off with it, that's not the government's fault.

dub_skav

John_C wrote: »

I don't really expect the government to keep an eye on my bike. I'm responsible for putting a good solid lock on it and if a thief ever does make off with it, that's not the government's fault.

But they could supply more safe areas to lock them, like mandatory cycle sections in all multi-storey car parks. They could also force the gardai to implement some form of database with tracking numbers to make it easier to recover stolen bicycles.

Obviously it would still be up to you to lock your bike securely in any location that was provided and of course you would need to sign up to any database, but at the moment you're very much on your own.

johnmacintyre

buffalo wrote: »

A nice letter in the Irish Times today...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/0729/1217013442222.html



Have to say, I've never had a bike stolen in the city centre, though I've had two taken from UCD campus. Reckon Gormley will do anything to improve our lot?

Have you thought about setting up a cycle theft reduction initiative with the local police. They have a good one in York where the police tag the cycles with a RFID tag and you then register the details on www.immobilise.com. I did mine and regiustered it in a couple of minutes. You can also put lots of other stuff on there as well. Its free and the police have access to the records should they check a bike etc.
Check it out.

Harrybelafonte

John_C wrote: »

I don't really expect the government to keep an eye on my bike. I'm responsible for putting a good solid lock on it and if a thief ever does make off with it, that's not the government's fault.

Yeah, I feel the same way with my house.If I lock it and alarm it and its broken into it's my fault, not the government's. Most forms of theft are the victim's fault.

John_C

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Yeah, I feel the same way with my house.If I lock it and alarm it and its broken into it's my fault, not the government's. Most forms of theft are the victim's fault.

It's the fault of the thief, not the fault of the government. At no point did I claim crime was the fault of the victim.

Harrybelafonte

Sarcasm man sarcasm.

Did I say you said anything about crime being the victim's fault.

Holding a thief wholly responsible for a crime is a bit lame tbh. You're basically saying you don't hold the government responsible for crime in general. If bike theft is not the responsibility of the government, are there certain crimes you feel are? Or is it only "serious" crime they're responsible for?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Sarcasm man sarcasm.

Did I say you said anything about crime being the victim's fault.

Holding a thief wholly responsible for a crime is a bit lame tbh. You're basically saying you don't hold the government responsible for crime in general. If bike theft is not the responsibility of the government, are there certain crimes you feel are? Or is it only "serious" crime they're responsible for?

It might be the governments responsibility to try and prevent crime but that does not make them responsible for crime.

Harrybelafonte

Sean_K wrote: »

It might be the governments responsibility to try and prevent crime but that does not make them responsible for crime.

I genuinely disagree. Though I realise there will always be crime on some level but the main reasons imho for criminality are a governments inability to sort out social problems, an unwillingness to tackle crime (especially those crimes they feel aren't showing them in a negative light, so gang war is obviously big on the agenda, but sometimes it seems noise pollution in middle class areas are a priority over bike/house/phone theft, call me paranoid) and when tackling crime, an inability to mete out consistent punishments or reformation.

Take London for example where bike theft is rampant, where the police don't bother investigating it and a visit to Brick Lane market on a Sunday morning, I think, gives you a multitude of oppurtunities to buy stolen bikes or trying to find your own stolen one. It doesn't compare to The Hill. Is that their government's responsibility? Are they allowing the criminal element of their society to freely commit crimes. Are they therefore not responsible for the crime?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

We're verging on semantics here but anyway:

If I write a letter, I am responsible for the writing of the letter.
If I cook dinner, I am responsible for the cooking of the dinner.
If I post on boards, I am responsible for that post on boards.
If I steal a bicycle then I am responsible to the stealing of the bicycle.

niceonetom

Sean_K wrote: »

We're verging on semantics here but anyway:

If I write a letter, I am responsible for the writing of the letter.
If I cook dinner, I am responsible for the cooking of the dinner.
If I post on boards, I am responsible for that post on boards.
If I steal a bicycle then I am responsible to the stealing of the bicycle.

i think you're deep in the semantic heartland by now lads. any minute now someone is going to raise the hoary ol' issue of direct and indirect causation, then we're on a slippery slope towards the validity of logical induction and eventually a long and tedious discussion of the theory of generative grammar. someone will misquote Karl Popper (probably me) and then there'll be a bikkerfest between the randians and pinkerists. basically, let it go.

personally, i blame society. the bastards.

egan007

This is a stupid letter for so many reasons.....there's no pleasing some people.
I'm sure there ar lots of cyclists who can leave their bike unlocked in their work compound, I used to be one....

TinyExplosions

I blame the Romans. What have they ever done for us?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

niceonetom wrote: »

i think you're deep in the semantic heartland by now lads. any minute now someone is going to raise the hoary ol' issue of direct and indirect causation, then we're on a slippery slope towards the validity of logical induction and eventually a long and tedious discussion of the theory of generative grammar. someone will misquote Karl Popper (probably me) and then there'll be a bikkerfest between the randians and pinkerists. basically, let it go.

personally, i blame society. the bastards.

lol Fair point, my post wasn't intended to deal with grammar, but I do acknowledge that it does appear to.

What I meant was that you can't go blaming the government if your bike is stolen, but you can ask for somehting to be done.

Harrybelafonte

Sean_K wrote: »

lol Fair point, my post wasn't intended to deal with grammar, but I do acknowledge that it does appear to.

What I meant was that you can't go blaming the government if your bike is stolen, but you can ask for somehting to be done.

Fair enough. I don't mean to come across as a "ah the poor soul, he's only a thief cos his life is hard" and that is definitely not my approach to it, but I got the impression that the argument being made was "if someone steals your bike that's just life". My point was if you have done all you humanly can to secure the bike and it's stolen then the responsibility for it moves from you to the being the responsibility of the state, i.e. cops take details, make an effort to find bike etc. etc. If Gromley cycles he must have some idea of the possibility of it being stolen and the Gardai have made efforts to tag bikes etc so they also know about it. There just isn't enough effort being put into solving the issue. I'd rather we didn't end up in a situation like London.

In saying all that I've been lucky and never had my bike stolen, but before we had a secure lock up at work one of our workmates had 3 bikes stolen in 3 months. Bike well secured each time

coldpaw

this guy is running for Labour party in the local elections 09 for crumlin Kimmage had this out on a central bike theft unit- didn't read anything about it in the papers though:

http://www.labour.ie/henryupton/news/121578599895957.html

monument

dub_skav wrote: »

...like mandatory cycle sections in all multi-storey car parks...

No thanks!

In underground office or apartment car parts, maybe. But otherwise bicycling parking should be provided on street.

My parking wish list, off the top of my head just now,...

• measures which amounts to the banning of "Butterfly" type stands
  
• more parking outside some smaller shops etc
  
• with centralised bike parking on streets (like say on O'Connell Street), it should not be the only parking available to take into account short term parking and making every thing as easy and quickly as possible (The trees and polls work a wonder on O'Connell street :pac: ).
  
• the monitoring of parking and installing of extra spaces where needed
  
• where there is large centralised parking high quality CCTV should be in place
  
• rules governing apartment blocks to stop management companies placing rules on (1) bringing bike in and out of apartments [I think my building mentions something about not wheeling it], and (2) storing bikes on balconies
  
• RANT: the removal bike parking which has been placed in more isolated area away from shops etc - I know, but could not name off hand, three or four places where inverted U or Sheffield stands have been placed as described, where they are placed somewhere just because they there's room and they go unused and in turn make it look bike parking isn't in demand at all while around the corner on the next street every lamppost and tree is used

On another note, is it just me or do the Sheffield/U stands easily hold three and sometimes four bikes and not the two mentioned in some UK government documents I've seen?