Cycling/Walking around the city

Iwannahurl

MarysCurtins wrote: »

It's not down to meanness or stubbornness, their mantra is "cars are bad", "I hate cars" and nothing will change that. Some people post incessantly in these threads trying to pass themselves off as some sort of experts on the subject,yet when it comes to devising a 'solution' it's nothing more than "cars are bad", nothing that would improve the situation for all commuters is ever offered. It's quite obvious they don't really have an interest in offering solutions when they suggest a bypass should not be built because people in cars will use it for commuting across town as well as going around the city. I mean the thought of people using a bypass and thus not going through the city centre is ridiculous, imagine less motorised traffic in the city! buses might not be held up as much and be on time more! pedestrians would find it easier to get across roads! we can't be having that.

Advocates of public transport, walking and cycling have been advocating solutions for many years, and have been ignored. The solutions, which would benefit all commuters, are: public transport, walking and cycling.

The "I hate cars" accusation is pure nonsense. It's also a facile argument, because it makes no attempt to engage with the actual issues in a rational and evidence-based manner. I am a motorist, and my car is fully taxed, insured, NCTd and everything else. I also happen to be a cyclist, pedestrian and occasional bus user.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Anti-car" is the standard jibe from people with a certain mindset who are unable or unwilling to back up their opinions with reference to evidence, policy or other authoritative source. I'm a car owner and I drive on roads -- make of that what you will. Car ownership has some rights, but it also has responsibilities. Cars have benefits, but also disadvantages. "The car is an individualising technology, which encourages us to make self-interested choices and adopt self-centred values" (Lynn Sloman).

What is the evidence that a "bypass" will improve conditions for public transport, walking and cycling in Galway City? Come to think of it, what is the evidence that there are current plans for an actual "bypass" of the city, to cater for the reported 5% of traffic requiring such a road?

MarysCurtins wrote: »

Which routes have been closed to cyclists and pedestrians but are still open to cars? sorry for asking but I cant think of which ones you are talking about.

There are many examples around the city of where pedestrian shortcuts have been blocked off. There are even several locations where gates are used to impede cycle access to cycle paths. Other cycle/pedestrian-hostile features include large cul-de-sac estates and extensive one-way systems. Despite local and national policy, and international best practice, not a single one-way street in the city is two-way for cyclists.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I spotted the father and son pair below just after they had hauled their bikes across the wall barring the most direct route from their estate to the nearest supermarket. They kindly agreed to let me take a photo of them with their shopping bag.

They are saving themselves a 4 km round trip. Some locals regard this as anti-social behaviour in itself, and have suggested that a railing be fitted along the top of the wall to prevent it. Several years ago the 'problem' was mentioned to the local community Garda, and he remarked that it might be useful to take photos in order to identify the 'offenders' to the authorities.

Micilin Muc

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

There are a few delusional hard core cyclists out there that will try to convince you cycling these distances regularly is practical its best not to even try to make sense of it.

Make sense of this:

• Journey times from Spiddal to Ballybrit
  • Bike: 42 minutes to 60 minutes
  • Car: 35 minutes to 60 minutes+
• Fuel costs
  • Bike: free
  • Car: €6 per day
• Insurance costs:
  • Bike: free
  • Car: €600 a year
• Maintenance costs:
  • Bike: I spent €400 that year
  • Car: ?
• Gym fees
  • Bike: no need for gym
  • Car: €600 a year

Is it really that hard to make sense of it?

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

Expecting a primary school aged child to cycle 3 km to school in all weather with a perfectly good car outside the door is another example of pure stubbornness and meanness which you will hear in these parts.

It's hardly a majority of cyclists though. Most cycle commuters I know of drive their kids to school and then cycle from home or wherever.

MarysCurtins

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What is the evidence that a "bypass" will improve conditions for public transport, walking and cycling in Galway City? Come to think of it, what is the evidence that there are current plans for an actual "bypass" of the city, to cater for the reported 5% of traffic requiring such a road?

Apologies i should have said the N6 Galway City Transport Project. if only 5% of the current traffic would use it to go around the city that's fair enough, but what about the other 95% on the road? what percentage of these would use it to commute? how many less cars would that mean in the city? Do you not think that less cars on a road that is currently extremely busy would make any difference to any other mode of transportation that has to use the road? simple logic dictates it would.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are many examples around the city of where pedestrian shortcuts have been blocked off. There are even several locations where gates are used to impede cycle access to cycle paths. Other cycle/pedestrian-hostile features include large cul-de-sac estates and extensive one-way systems. Despite local and national policy, and international best practice, not a single one-way street in the city is two-way for cyclists.

So rat runs for cyclists then? that's an actual policy?

edit: i see you've edited your post a few times, i recall you seem to have a dislike of cars doing this? so basically shortcuts for anyone except cars is ok? if people have to walk an extra 4km that is their own doing, they chose to walk. You've said people in cars shouldn't complain about being in traffic as they have chose to drive, it's the same thing really.

pmasterson95

I'm just gunna back away from this thread. Theres too many superiority complexes for sane debate. There stats prove they are the minority yet they wish to force the majority. Theres so much wrongs. Thats not how democracy works. Punish people who choose the comfort of driving yep ok ban luxury. Add more taxes/tolls yep people can defo afford that. Oh it just boils down to Brendan Grace from Father Ted "I HAVE MY ROAD AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERS" they complain about not being treated equal and second to cars yet believe they are superior to cars...thats not how equality works either.


So many wrongs. I'm too sober for this.

pmasterson95

MarysCurtins wrote: »

edit: i see you've edited your post a few times, i recall you seem to have a dislike of cars doing this? so basically shortcuts for anyone except cars is ok? if people have to walk an extra 4km that is their own doing, they chose to walk. You've said people in cars shouldn't complain about being in traffic as they have chose to drive, it's the same thing really.

Yep Cars are the ones that should be disincentivised and tolled so keeping them in traffic is great for him.

Iwannahurl

Micilin Muc wrote: »

It's hardly a majority of cyclists though. Most cycle commuters I know of drive their kids to school and then cycle from home or wherever.

It ought to be a majority, on school runs over manageable distances.

I know of one commuter who matches your description. The family moved house less than 1 km, and the teenage kids suddenly decided it was "too far" to cycle. So now dad drives them a couple of km to school, then goes home and gets his bike for the cycle to work. Sheer madness. Mind you, some of his neighbours are driving their kids 600-800 metres to nearby schools. There are teachers doing the same.

We are raising generation after generation of "backseat children" too lazy, soft and/or disempowered to walk or cycle even a couple of kilometres. It's utterly crazy, and very short-sighted.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What is the evidence that a "bypass" will improve conditions for public transport, walking and cycling in Galway City? Come to think of it, what is the evidence that there are current plans for an actual "bypass" of the city, to cater for the reported 5% of traffic requiring such a road?


.

What about all the traffic that can stay of certain parts of the city by using exits along the route but no you will go an about how a "bypass" shouldn't have exits off it into various parts of the city and other such rubbish.

Micilin Muc wrote: »

Make sense of this:

• Journey times from Spiddal to Ballybrit
  • Bike: 42 minutes to 60 minutes
  • Car: 35 minutes to 60 minutes+
• Fuel costs
  • Bike: free
  • Car: €6 per day
• Insurance costs:
  • Bike: free
  • Car: €600 a year
• Maintenance costs:
  • Bike: I spent €400 that year
  • Car: ?
• Gym fees
  • Bike: no need for gym
  • Car: €600 a year

I would gladly pay the 6 euro a day in fuel to avoid the hardship of the cycle all the other costs are still there if the car is sitting there or being driven. Also gym membership is not compulsory btw, I've never paid for a gym in my life to date.

I have never even cycled that far in one go in my life never mind do it everyday so no it makes no sense to me. It would be absolute torture, I wouldn't do it even if I had no other way I just wouldn't enter the situation where I would have to.

Redhairedguy

What always strikes me that is never taken into account, is transportation of goods for work. Most days, I have two bags, a laptop case, and whatever computer component I'm tinkering with that week. Not to mention a change of clothes needed if I was going to be cycling. I'd be fookin' kilt trying to carry all that on a bike for 20 odd kilometres.

I would also add and I've said it before, but currently I walk to work and I have a bike ordered on the cycle to work scheme (and have had a bike before which was stolen). But its a short walk and a less than 5 minute cycle (free wheel more than cycle) so its very convenient to me to use these methods in my current situation.

Using them when its inconvenient to me is a totally different ball game though which is what some here want to see forced on people.

Iwannahurl

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I'm just gunna back away from this thread.

I'm too sober for this.

Your sober contributions are gunna be missed, I'm sure.

Iwannahurl

MarysCurtins wrote: »

Apologies i should have said the N6 Galway City Transport Project. if only 5% of the current traffic would use it to go around the city that's fair enough, but what about the other 95% on the road? what percentage of these would use it to commute? how many less cars would that mean in the city? Do you not think that less cars on a road that is currently extremely busy would make any difference to any other mode of transportation that has to use the road? simple logic dictates it would.

So rat runs for cyclists then? that's an actual policy?

edit: i see you've edited your post a few times, i recall you seem to have a dislike of cars doing this? so basically shortcuts for anyone except cars is ok?

if people have to walk an extra 4km that is their own doing, they chose to walk. You've said people in cars shouldn't complain about being in traffic as they have chose to drive, it's the same thing really.

"Simple logic", or at least your version of it, does not apply to road capacity and cars. Even if the various vested interests really wanted a "bypass" there is no guarantee that it would lead to less traffic or better conditions for public transport, cycling and walking. Not in Galway, Ireland, anyway. In fact, the opposite could occur, contrary to "simple logic".

You're entirely missing the point about the 5%. Anyway, it's a topic for another thread, or threads. There are at least two on the go, in the Galway City forum and Roads.

I have no idea what you are trying to say wrt editing of posts and "dislike of cars doing this".

Your remarks about pedestrians and cyclists living in cul-de-sac estates "choosing" to walk an extra 4 km, and that being "the same thing" as choosing to drive and being (stuck?) in traffic, are also missing the point entirely.

It is undoubtedly the case that pedestrian/cycle-hostile land use "planning" creates car dependence, but the lack of choice hits pedestrians, cyclists and bus users hardest, for obvious reasons.

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your sober contributions are gunna be missed, I'm sure.

I still read your posts for a good auld laugh though dont worry! The selective quoting you use in your arguments makes for great comedy.

Iwannahurl

Redhairedguy wrote: »

What always strikes me that is never taken into account, is transportation of goods for work. Most days, I have two bags, a laptop case, and whatever computer component I'm tinkering with that week. Not to mention a change of clothes needed if I was going to be cycling. I'd be fookin' kilt trying to carry all that on a bike for 20 odd kilometres.

What matters most in this context is not individual experience but collective possibilities.

Individuals will have numerous reasons (or excuses) for travelling distances less than, say, 8-10 km by car instead of walking, cycling or using public transport.

By reorienting public policy towards sustainable transport and active travel, and by creating a conducive environment, it is possible to facilitate social and cultural change, so that many more people elect not to use their car. Once these modes of travel become more normalised, which they are elsewhere in the EU (except the UK perhaps) then people will adapt accordingly. For example, parents complain about their children having to carry heavy schoolbags, but that's a cinch on a bike with the proper gear.

There is a lot of latent demand for public transport, cycling and walking, which must be accommodated. There is also plenty of scope for modal switch beyond that initial 'quick win' stage. Unfortunately there is so much inertia in the system that it's hard to get progress even on the basics. Just try crossing the road in many parts of the city, or watch how children are exposed to intimidating traffic while walking or cycling in their neighbourhood or on their way to school. It doesn't have to be like that, but the authorities have been content to let things develop that way for decades.

Iwannahurl

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I still makes for great comedy.

Quite.

zarquon

Micilin Muc wrote: »

Make sense of this:

• Journey times from Spiddal to Ballybrit
  • Bike: 42 minutes to 60 minutes
  • Car: 35 minutes to 60 minutes+
• Fuel costs
  • Bike: free
  • Car: €6 per day
• Insurance costs:
  • Bike: free
  • Car: €600 a year
• Maintenance costs:
  • Bike: I spent €400 that year
  • Car: ?
• Gym fees
  • Bike: no need for gym
  • Car: €600 a year

Is it really that hard to make sense of it?




It's hardly a majority of cyclists though. Most cycle commuters I know of drive their kids to school and then cycle from home or wherever.

Was your long cycling commute was borne out of financial necessity or some other necessity. You seem to place a heavy focus on the financial benefit of cycling. Those that can well afford to drive and have the ability would generally do so for such a long trip.

I know some who commute long distances by bike but the 2 primary reasons are

1) They can't afford to run a car
2) They don't know how to drive or they don't have a full license.

In one particular case, i knew of someone who had a driving ban so used a bike while he was banned.

The argument is that it is manageable and no one would argue that for most it is inconvenient and not optimal in any way.

Some cyclists are disingenuous with their cult like approval of cycling over driving however given the ability to drive or indeed the necessary financial means they would jump ship immediately to behind the wheel of a car.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Individuals will have numerous reasons (or excuses) for travelling distances less than, say, 8-10 km by car instead of walking, cycling or using public transport.

This is a major issue with your opinions on the matter you dismiss peoples very valid reasons for bringing their car as "excuses" when in fact they are more often than not very valid reasons and reasons they should not have to do without or give up because you think they should cycle instead thus multiple extra steps and inconveniences to even simple tasks.

Work or the pub are pretty much the only trips I undertake on foot, by bike or taxi etc regardless of distance. The supermarket is about 2km from where I currently live, I wouldn't even dream of going there any way other than by car. Similarly almost all my other journeys would be rendered far outside what I would consider reasonable without the car and to be honest I will never understand why you would want to bring that large inconvenience on yourself.

Also most people would consider 8 to 10km as a sizeable trip on a bike, just because you and a few others claim otherwise does not change the fact.

Iwannahurl

zarquon wrote: »

Some cyclists are disengenous with their cult like approval of cycling over driving however given the ability to drive or indeed the necessary financial means they would jump ship immediately to behind the wheel of a car.

In my experience the adoration of cars is the most cult-like, which is worse because it is so widespread.

Ask someone to move their car off a footpath, or dare to touch their motor, and just watch their reaction to the sacrilege.

Then there's the Car Cathedrals:



Speaking of which, didn't a Redemptorist apologise from the altar a couple of years ago to motoring mass-goers who had been ticketed for illegal parking during the Novena?

But you're right. Nothing like a spell behind the wheel of a car to reorient the mindset towards higher things. Get out of my way, unbelievers...

Iwannahurl

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

This is a major issue with your opinions on the matter you dismiss peoples very valid reasons for bringing their car as "excuses" when in fact they are more often than not very valid reasons and reasons they should not have to do without or give up because you think they should cycle instead thus multiple extra steps and inconveniences to even simple tasks.

Also most people would consider 8 to 10km as a sizeable trip on a bike, just because you and a few others claim otherwise does not change the fact.

What I actually wrote was:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Individuals will have numerous reasons (or excuses) for travelling distances less than, say, 8-10 km by car instead of walking, cycling or using public transport.

The point is that, from a policy perspective, it makes little sense to focus on individual circumstances. Any effective and workable transport solutions must be aimed at the collective level: regions, neighbourhoods, populations, communities.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What I actually wrote was:

The point is that, from a policy perspective, it makes little sense to focus on individual circumstances. Any effective and workable transport solutions must be aimed at the collective level: regions, neighbourhoods, populations, communities.

But on these issues the collective requirements of the majority will be similar. i.e. most people need their car for a large number of their journeys regardless of distance.

For me personally the car will always be my primary mode of transport, at the moment I'm able to walk to work as I mentioned but sooner or later I will be returning to living in the county and will be there to stay when I do so every single tip I make will be driving or as a passenger in a car (or possibly tractor).

Micilin Muc

zarquon wrote: »

Was your long cycling commute was borne out of financial necessity or some other necessity. You seem to place a heavy focus on financial benefit of cycling. Those that can well afford to drive and have the ability would generally do so for such a long trip.

I know some who commute long distances by bike but the 2 primary reasons are

1) They can't afford to run a car
2) They don't know how to drive or they don't have a full license.

In one particular case, i knew of someone who had a driving ban so used a bike while he was banned.

The argument is that it is manageable and no one would argue that for most it is inconvenient and not optimal in any way.

Some cyclists are disengenous with their cult like approval of cycling over driving however given the ability to drive or indeed the necessary financial means they would jump ship immediately to behind the wheel of a car.

Yep, I don't have a full licence yet. I won't jump ship immediately. If I had a few kids who need to be collected from school and brought elsewhere under pressure, or if I need to travel to another office for an external meeting, I'll certainly drive those days. It would make perfect sense. Any other day, I would definitely cycle.

The reason I put a heavy focus on the financial benefit is just to put the benefits into terms easily understood by all. I would claim the benefits to my health are far more important, but everybody's circumstances are different to a certain degree.

Basically, I'm not saying cars are evil and nobody should drive them. Just that there is far too much reliance on the car in Galway which is engrained in the culture "Oh you have to have a car around here. How else will you survive."

Compare public transport use in Galway City and Dublin City. 2011 Census says that 8% of commuting in Galway City is by public transport compared to 20% in Dublin City. I've seen statistics in the Tribune or the Advertiser saying that it's as low as 3% in Galway.

Iwannahurl

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

But on these issues the collective requirements of the majority will be similar. i.e. most people need their car for a large number of their journeys regardless of distance.

Then the necessary collective change will have to be based on addressing the alleged "need".

In any case, the "majority" came about because of decades of failure in transportation and land use planning. It was created, or passively allowed to develop, and that can and must be reversed.

Iwannahurl

Micilin Muc wrote: »

The reason I put a heavy focus on the financial benefit is just to put the benefits into terms easily understood by all. I would claim the benefits to my health are far more important, but everybody's circumstances are different to a certain degree.

Compare public transport use in Galway City and Dublin City. 2011 Census says that 8% of commuting in Galway City is by public transport compared to 20% in Dublin City. I've seen statistics in the Tribune or the Advertiser saying that it's as low as 3% in Galway.

Apart from the numerous health and environmental co-benefits, there is also a strong business case for sustainable transport and active travel in urban centres.

In Dublin City, people who walk, cycle or take the bus spend far more than motorists do in the retail sector. There is no reason why this cannot be replicated in Galway.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Then the necessary collective change will have to be based on addressing the alleged "need".

Or don't change things as people are getting on fairly ok as they are.

The necessity of "collective change" is your opinion not an actually necessity.

Particularly when the type of changes you would propose would have close to no support as it would a major inconvenience at best ranging up to a total hardship and having large negative effects on peoples day to day lives.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In any case, the "majority" came about because of decades of failure in transportation and land use planning. It was created, or passively allowed to develop, and that can and must be reversed.

By failure you mean not doing things the way you want, i.e. packing people into estates etc rather than letting them live in the countryside or by providing facilitates for cars as cars are by far the most flexible mode of transport so naturally people want to use them and should have every right to.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In Dublin City, people who walk, cycle or take the bus spend far more than motorists do in the retail sector. There is no reason why this cannot be replicated in Galway.

Strange then how business owners are constantly calling for more parking and cheaper parking as lack of it is effecting their business. You will hear it regularly discussed on the radio particularly on the business show on newstalk on saturday mornings. City centre business suffer badly when car use in the city is curtailed, they basically lose the thousands of customers who would travel in from outside the city by car. Look at the boost business get when their is just a few hours free parking in the run up to christmas or how people chose sunday to go into town as its free to park.

Delicia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In Dublin City, people who walk, cycle or take the bus spend far more than motorists do in the retail sector. There is no reason why this cannot be replicated in Galway.

Where is the evidence for this? I'm not sure that I can believe that a pedestrian or cyclist can carry as much as the boot of a car?

Having worked in Dublin I know most workers in the city centre travel by bus due to the prohibitive cost of parking

zarquon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Ask someone to move their car off a footpath, or dare to touch their motor, and just watch their reaction to the sacrilege.

Agreed, there are many idiots behind the wheel of a car. Likewise there are plenty of obnoxious cyclists too. Ask them to obey a red light, not cycle on a footpath or not salmon cycle when prohibited and watch their reaction to the sacrilege too.

Neither group is faultless in this dear city of ours. I do however observe a much higher percentage of cyclists breaking the laws of the roads than motorists. I wonder why that is? Imo, it is due to a lack of enforcement of the rules against cyclists. Simply put, people will break the law when they know they will get away with it and that's what cyclists do. If motorists knew they would also get away with breaking the laws there would be a lot more flouting of the rules too.

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your sober contributions are gunna be missed, I'm sure.

Yet more posters driven away from contributing due to your posting style.

May as well rename the Galway City sub forum "IWH and What-traffics anti car platform"

MarysCurtins

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have no idea what you are trying to say wrt editing of posts and "dislike of cars doing this".

Your remarks about pedestrians and cyclists living in cul-de-sac estates "choosing" to walk an extra 4 km, and that being "the same thing" as choosing to drive and being (stuck?) in traffic, are also missing the point entirely.

You edited your post twice while i was replying, 1st it was one line then a paragraph then you added the pic. Anyway i'm sure you get my point.

One thing that's always funny about these threads is people making disparaging remarks about the city council and their favouring of one form of transport over the other and not being able to sort out the transport / commuting issues in the city but they themselves do the same thing. They are the same as the council, no proper solutions that would benefit everybody, no matter what their preferred mode of transport is, are offered up. Just the notion that one is better / worse than the other. Deciding that one is more important / better than the other is silly and will just result in the same old situation. Everyone needs to be catered for in any transport plan and one mode should never have priority all of the time.

Delicia

MarysCurtins wrote: »

Deciding that one is more important / better than the other is silly and will just result in the same old situation. Everyone needs to be catered for in any transport plan and one mode should never have priority all of the time.

Agreed. I have two feet, a bike & a car & don't feel I need to be judged or given priority whichever option I choose on a given day. That is my choice & I have no problem with others choosing likewise - I do have a problem with anybody saying they need special treatment because of their choice. Roads are for bikes/cars, footpaths are for pedestrians.

Iwannahurl

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Yet more posters driven away from contributing due to your posting style.

May as well rename the Galway City sub forum "IWH and What-traffics anti car platform"

I can see at least a dozen threads on the current first page of the Galway City forum that I have not posted in. Maybe you have posted in them -- and why wouldn't you?

Is there any reason why either of us should, or should not, read and contribute to any particular thread?

The "anti-car" accusation is a red herring that keeps coming up, over and over again. I've answered it over and over again.

Iwannahurl

MarysCurtins wrote: »

One thing that's always funny about these threads is people making disparaging remarks about the city council and their favouring of one form of transport over the other and not being able to sort out the transport / commuting issues in the city but they themselves do the same thing.

They are the same as the council, no proper solutions that would benefit everybody, no matter what their preferred mode of transport is, are offered up. Just the notion that one is better / worse than the other. Deciding that one is more important / better than the other is silly and will just result in the same old situation. Everyone needs to be catered for in any transport plan and one mode should never have priority all of the time.

One travel mode has had priority for decades. It's long past time to redress the balance.

The Council's failure to sort out transport and commuting issues over decades is a major part of the problem.

People who regularly walk, cycle or take the bus are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

There is nothing silly at all about demanding that sustainable transport and active travel are prioritised. In fact it is national and international policy, and is fully coherent with other policy objectives, such as those relating to health and environment.

The Department of the Environment's Planning Policy Statement 2015 says that "planning must ensure that development facilitates and encourages greater use of public transport as well as making walking and cycling more attractive".

The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets says that "to encourage more sustainable travel patterns and safer streets, designers must place pedestrians at the top of the user hierarchy" and that "cyclists must also be given a high priority".

As for "the same old situation", the European Commission's 2011 White Paper on Transport says that "the [current] transport system is not sustainable", that "it is clear that transport cannot develop along the same path", and that there will be dire consequences if we "stick to the ‘business as usual’ approach".