Dun Laoghaire Traffic & Commuting Chat

Cyrus

Mav11 wrote: »

Coincidentally 43 mins ago in the Journal. Seems all good to me. QED:)

https://www.thejournal.ie/cso-cyclists-less-likely-to-receive-illness-benefit-5200243-Sep2020/

and people who earn higher salaries are also less likely to receive illness benefit, the executive cyclists are literally supermen and women :cool:

Mav11

Cyrus wrote: »

and people who earn higher salaries are also less likely to receive illness benefit, the executive cyclists are literally supermen and women :cool:

Have to admire your persistence

Cyrus

Mav11 wrote: »

Have to admire your persistence

was that not also a finding from the same report?

Mav11

“Of workers who drove, some 91 in every 1,000 applied for illness benefit – the highest rate of illness benefit among commuter categories recorded in the data. Some 86 in every 1,000 workers who travelled to work as a passenger in a car applied for illness benefit.
When it came to those who walked or cycled to work that rate fell significantly. Some 44 in every 1,000 workers who cycled applied for illness benefit while 63 in every 1,000 workers who walked to work applied for illness benefit.”

Dunno, but didn’t realise that cycling was so much more beneficial than walking.

Cyrus

Mav11 wrote: »

“Of workers who drove, some 91 in every 1,000 applied for illness benefit – the highest rate of illness benefit among commuter categories recorded in the data. Some 86 in every 1,000 workers who travelled to work as a passenger in a car applied for illness benefit.
When it came to those who walked or cycled to work that rate fell significantly. Some 44 in every 1,000 workers who cycled applied for illness benefit while 63 in every 1,000 workers who walked to work applied for illness benefit.”

Dunno, but didn’t realise that cycling was so much more beneficial than walking.

i dont really understand the findings, are they saying the requirement for illness benefit is as a result of how they commute or just that they took everyone who was on an illness benefit and then looked at how they commuted?

are they suggesting a causal link is what im asking i suppose.

ted1

hayoc wrote: »

I dont think personal attacks are the best way to get your point across?

It wasn’t an personal attack , an attack would be to call you stupid. I asked are you ?
To think that a bike is not displacing a car when the cyclists chooses to leave the car at home and cycle is pretty stupid

strandroad

Someone counted children's bikes parked in Carysfort NS: 70 bikes and 60 scooters.
That's 260 car trips saved, for just one school.

Mav11

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont really understand the findings, are they saying the requirement for illness benefit is as a result of how they commute or just that they took everyone who was on an illness benefit and then looked at how they commuted?

are they suggesting a causal link is what im asking i suppose.

Yes on the causal link, the strength of which will be determined by the sample size.

To keep this relevant to the Dun Laoghaire thread and stop others giving out:D what this implies is:

If more cycle lanes are put in by DLRCC and more people are encouraged out of their cars and onto bikes, not only will the congestion, noise and pollution be reduced, with the obvious knock on benefits, but those who get out of the cars and onto bikes will be less than half as likely to claim illness benefit.

Win win, really!! Not only does DL win but the economy as a whole is better off.

Mav11

Cyrus wrote: »

are they saying the requirement for illness benefit is as a result of how they commute or just that they took everyone who was on an illness benefit and then looked at how they commuted?

Sorry, you asked a slightly different question. The methodology (correlation details) are laid out as:

"The CSO’s Illness Benefits: Employment and Commuting Analysis for 2016/2017 examined commuting and employment data for people who received illness or injury benefit in the year following the 2016 Census."

JayRoc

strandroad wrote: »

Someone counted children's bikes parked in Carysfort NS: 70 bikes and 60 scooters.
That's 260 car trips saved, for just one school.

Plus all those who walked (I would expect/ hope that a primary school would have a lot of pupils within a few minutes of it)

loyatemu

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm sick of this argument - have a look at Holland, have a look at Copenhagen, even have a look at London. The evidence is there - if you build decent cycling infrastructure, people will cycle and in large numbers. Ireland is not different. and if you don't see the obvious benefits in having lots of people cycling instead of driving then arguing with you is futile.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

What we have isn’t cycling infrastructure though, it is a temporary knee jerk reaction by the council because, despite having it in their 2004 to 2010 development plan, they have done **** all about completing the southern end of the S2S cycle way.

If they had got off their arses and done this properly in the first place, this mess would t have arisen.

Cyrus

Mav11 wrote: »

Yes on the causal link, the strength of which will be determined by the sample size.

To keep this relevant to the Dun Laoghaire thread and stop others giving out:D what this implies is:

If more cycle lanes are put in by DLRCC and more people are encouraged out of their cars and onto bikes, not only will the congestion, noise and pollution be reduced, with the obvious knock on benefits, but those who get out of the cars and onto bikes will be less than half as likely to claim illness benefit.

Win win, really!! Not only does DL win but the economy as a whole is better off.

I’d suggest the amount of people claiming illness benefits won’t change but how they get to work might

Did they break out the commute habits of the better paid cohort that don’t claim Illness benefit ?

AndrewJRenko

hayoc wrote: »

Im sure a lot of cyclists go on to become drivers and then give up the bike. Of the people who cycle to work in my building (very few), all but 2 are younger people who dont know how to drive yet.

That is not reflected in the age profile of cyclists from the Census.

Cyrus wrote: »

I did ask about the specific benefits of cycling actually because any of the benefits posted are benefits of exercise, not only cycling.

And im not sure what you think my prejudices are, so ill repeat it for you, i dont drive to work, i drive very little, as a family we do about 6,000 miles a year.

The NHS prescribing cycling is a govt initiative not a medical one. So its not being driven by the doctors. But of course any doctor would recommend physical exercise for their patients, thats just common sense.

One the CSO survey, its self evident if you put your outrage to one side, the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few, suggesting that drivers needs are more important than the 3% of people that commute by bike isnt self entitlement its common sense.

Finally re electric bikes i read a bit more of that article and lo and behold the main jist is if you get sedantry people to do a little exercise they will be healthier, you could have knocked me over with a feather. They just happened to give them e bikes, if they asked them to walk the pier in dun laoghaire every day out and bike the results would be the same.

Please stop trying to rewrite history. Your post is visible to all. You asked:

What are the benefits exactly?

No mention of specific, until you suddenly realised that there was a huge amount of evidence easily available about the considerable health benefits of cycling, so you decided that you needed to shift the goalposts.

The NHS prescribing scheme is an NHS measure. It is no more a 'government measure' than any other health activity. Doctors don't 'recommend' cycling, in the same way that they recommend other activities. They prescribe it. There's a bit of a difference there. They don't do this for any other activities to the best of my knowledge.

But again, you seem desperate to deny or downplay the obvious benefits, for some strange reason.

Presumably, given that we've more cyclists than Luas/DART/suburban rail users in Dublin, you'd agree that the needs of cyclists are more important than the needs of those public transport users, so all the capital and current expenditure on those public transport services should be redirected to cycling, following your logic?

You seem to have a remarkably simplistic view on how public policy is developed. Public policy doesn't work on a 'winner takes all' majority. Public policy works by doing the right thing for the future - the right thing for the environment on the planet that we're going to hand over to our children, the right thing for the public health service that we all pay for.

And btw, DLR are spending €30 million this year on road maintenance, in case you're feeling left out.

The health benefits of eBikes are very well established.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/23/riding-electric-bicycles-boon-to-health-and-not-cheating-confirms-literature-review/#547983de35cc

https://www.outsideonline.com/2393399/biking-cognitive-benefits-study

You can scoff as much as you like, but they work. They allow people to travel distances that would otherwise be not feasible. They all older people or people with disabilities who need a bit of extra help to cycle.

They work.

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That is not reflected in the age profile of cyclists from the Census.






Please stop trying to rewrite history. Your post is visible to all. You asked:

No mention of specific, until you suddenly realised that there was a huge amount of evidence easily available about the considerable health benefits of cycling, so you decided that you needed to shift the goalposts.

The NHS prescribing scheme is an NHS measure. It is no more a 'government measure' than any other health activity. Doctors don't 'recommend' cycling, in the same way that they recommend other activities. They prescribe it. There's a bit of a difference there. They don't do this for any other activities to the best of my knowledge.

But again, you seem desperate to deny or downplay the obvious benefits, for some strange reason.

Presumably, given that we've more cyclists than Luas/DART/suburban rail users in Dublin, you'd agree that the needs of cyclists are more important than the needs of those public transport users, so all the capital and current expenditure on those public transport services should be redirected to cycling, following your logic?

You seem to have a remarkably simplistic view on how public policy is developed. Public policy doesn't work on a 'winner takes all' majority. Public policy works by doing the right thing for the future - the right thing for the environment on the planet that we're going to hand over to our children, the right thing for the public health service that we all pay for.

And btw, DLR are spending €30 million this year on road maintenance, in case you're feeling left out.

The health benefits of eBikes are very well established.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/23/riding-electric-bicycles-boon-to-health-and-not-cheating-confirms-literature-review/#547983de35cc

https://www.outsideonline.com/2393399/biking-cognitive-benefits-study

You can scoff as much as you like, but they work. They allow people to travel distances that would otherwise be not feasible. They all older people or people with disabilities who need a bit of extra help to cycle.

They work.

Either you struggle with comprehension or you are just being difficult but I was specifically referring to cycling if you read the post I was replying to.

Again to labour the point it’s beneficial because it’s exercise anyone can see that , cycling isn’t some magic form of exercise.

and the prescription of cycling is a Boris Johnson headline grabber , so yes it is a govt initiative. If it was what they wanted to do why are they being encouraged to do it?

“ GPs will be encouraged to prescribe cycling as a way for patients to lose weight, as part of a new government strategy to tackle the nation’s obesity crisis to be announced on Monday.”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/26/doctors-to-prescribe-bike-rides-to-tackle-uk-obesity-crisis-amid-coronavirus-risk

As for public policy if you think my view is simplistic reread what you just typed That’s as naive a viewpoint as I’ve seen in sometime .

As for the e bikes stuff if you get any sedantry person to do some exercise they will get healthier, it could be bloody like dancing.

Anyway this whole militant cyclist vibe is starting to grate on me so I’ll leave you to it.

Larbre34

Aegir wrote: »

I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

What we have isn’t cycling infrastructure though, it is a temporary knee jerk reaction by the council because, despite having it in their 2004 to 2010 development plan, they have done **** all about completing the southern end of the S2S cycle way.

If they had got off their arses and done this properly in the first place, this mess would t have arisen.

Quite right. And the S2S never envisaged removing great chunks of regional and national roads to deliver it. Dublin City Council and DLRC would do well to remember that, railroading stuff by using an unconnected health crisis won't be tolerated.

Springy Turf

Larbre34 wrote: »

Quite right. And the S2S never envisaged removing great chunks of regional and national roads to deliver it. Dublin City Council and DLRC would do well to remember that, railroading stuff by using an unconnected health crisis won't be tolerated.

If everyone who usually gets the dart/bus jumps into their car for work now because of COVID you will soon know about it - they are not unrelated.

When you phrase it like that, it becomes clear that you are just upset that the status quo has shifted a little. It's clear that cities benefit by prioritising public and active transport. I would have no issue with the road lanes being reinstated if new, equally good off-road bike lanes are built instead.

Cyrus

Springy Turf wrote: »

I would have no issue with the road lanes being reinstated if new, equally good off-road bike lanes are build instead.

i dont think anybody would

Springy Turf

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont think anybody would

Excellent. Then lets all focus our energy on getting those bike lanes built!

Mav11

Away from the topic of cycle lanes and traffic, the new library must be up 5 years now, at a cost of €37m, was it worth it?

odyssey06

Mav11 wrote: »

Away from the topic of cycle lanes and traffic, the new library must be up 5 years now, at a cost of €37m, was it worth it?

Yes. Imagine what damage they could have done with the money elsewhere...
Call me a cynic.

Mav11

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes. Imagine what damage they could have done with the money elsewhere...
Call me a cynic.

Hated it at the beginning, but TBH its growing on me.

Haven't been into it yet but might go down next week to the Press Photographers exhibition, link posted by FixXxer.

Suppose they could have put in proper cycle lanes with the money:D:D:D

AndrewJRenko

Cyrus wrote: »

Either you struggle with comprehension or you are just being difficult but I was specifically referring to cycling if you read the post I was replying to.

Again to labour the point it’s beneficial because it’s exercise anyone can see that , cycling isn’t some magic form of exercise.

and the prescription of cycling is a Boris Johnson headline grabber , so yes it is a govt initiative. If it was what they wanted to do why are they being encouraged to do it?

“ GPs will be encouraged to prescribe cycling as a way for patients to lose weight, as part of a new government strategy to tackle the nation’s obesity crisis to be announced on Monday.”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/26/doctors-to-prescribe-bike-rides-to-tackle-uk-obesity-crisis-amid-coronavirus-risk

As for public policy if you think my view is simplistic reread what you just typed That’s as naive a viewpoint as I’ve seen in sometime .

As for the e bikes stuff if you get any sedantry person to do some exercise they will get healthier, it could be bloody like dancing.

Anyway this whole militant cyclist vibe is starting to grate on me so I’ll leave you to it.

I'm very clear on what you are referring to, because you were very clear yourself. You asked 'what are the benefits exactly' and then you immediately went on to acknowledge 'exercise' as the first benefit of cycling that sprang to your mind. And yet, when others point out the exercise related benefits of cycling, you pretend that they're not real benefits because it doesn't suit your argument.

We're in danger of getting into 'What did the Romans ever do for us' territory here. So apart from reducing risk of cancer, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, cycling doesn't have benefits I guess?

And yes, cycling is actually a 'magic' form of exercise - magic in the way that you can build exercise into your day, in your normal commute time. Some people might be able to run to/from work, but that's not too feasible for most people. So cycling really is a magic form of exercise - that's why UK NHS doctors (not politicians, doctors) are prescribing cycling to their patients.

Tell us, how do you think that UK health programmes like this ones are developed? Do you think that the Ministers sit round the table thinking things up and send a memo to the docs, or do you think that the public health experts (The doctors, in other words) are involved in every step of the way, in doing the research, in proposing the policies, in designing the programmes, in evaluating the programmes). This is no more a political programme than any health programme.

And yes, any exercise brings benefits, but you seem to be failing to understand the behavoural aspects of public health. This is an exercise programme that works, even if it doesn't suit your agenda.

JayRoc

Mav11 wrote: »

Away from the topic of cycle lanes and traffic, the new library must be up 5 years now, at a cost of €37m, was it worth it?

Short answer; **** no


In there every so often, was in there yesterday. Hate it. Personally I still say Deansgrange is the nicest library in DLRCC

ted1

JayRoc wrote: »

Short answer; **** no


In there every so often, was in there yesterday. Hate it. Personally I still say Deansgrange is the nicest library in DLRCC

I like it. But I would also have liked a cheaper one. I still don’t like how it divides Dun Laoighre. Kills the view from the Haddington

Homesick Alien

Aegir wrote: »

I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

What we have isn’t cycling infrastructure though, it is a temporary knee jerk reaction by the council because, despite having it in their 2004 to 2010 development plan, they have done **** all about completing the southern end of the S2S cycle way.

If they had got off their arses and done this properly in the first place, this mess would t have arisen.

It's still infrastructure whether they did it quickly or spent years in public consultation.

Homesick Alien

Mav11 wrote: »

Away from the topic of cycle lanes and traffic, the new library must be up 5 years now, at a cost of €37m, was it worth it?

100%. Its a fabulous facility. Really missed it during Covid, as did the kids. I love that you see the entire age spectrum in there.

Larbre34

Springy Turf wrote: »

If everyone who usually gets the dart/bus jumps into their car for work now because of COVID you will soon know about it - they are not unrelated.

When you phrase it like that, it becomes clear that you are just upset that the status quo has shifted a little. It's clear that cities benefit by prioritising public and active transport. I would have no issue with the road lanes being reinstated if new, equally good off-road bike lanes are built instead.

I wouldn't either of course, but thats obviously what I meant by describing the arrangement than pertains, as 'railroading' a cheap and clumsy alternative.

Tabnabs

Mav11 wrote: »

Away from the topic of cycle lanes and traffic, the new library must be up 5 years now, at a cost of €37m, was it worth it?

Yes, large scale public works like this that benefit so many in the community, at zero cost to the citizens, and is one of the very fundamental principles of government that we so very often forget about.

The money could have been frittered away on so many other projects than would bring far less benefit to the widest possible audience. It is a credit to a local authority that generally gets nothing but criticism, and the vocal minority who opposed it (imagine such a thing in Dun Laoghaire?!) were proved utterly wrong in their opposition.

JayRoc

Homesick Alien wrote: »

100%. Its a fabulous facility. Really missed it during Covid, as did the kids. I love that you see the entire age spectrum in there.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Yes, large scale public works like this that benefit so many in the community, at zero cost to the citizens, and is one of the very fundamental principles of government that we so very often forget about.

The money could have been frittered away on so many other projects than would bring far less benefit to the widest possible audience. It is a credit to a local authority that generally gets nothing but criticism, and the vocal minority who opposed it (imagine such a thing in Dun Laoghaire?!) were proved utterly wrong in their opposition.

What are the things that make it so good? I'm always happy to have my mind changed on something

fixXxer

JayRoc wrote: »

What are the things that make it so good? I'm always happy to have my mind changed on something

It does everything a library should do perfectly smoothly. On top of that there are always community events, exhibitions and the like on. The Photo exhibit I linked is just one of several similar hostings I've been to. The kids have been to many of the story telling/ceilí things they host.