Dun Laoghaire Traffic & Commuting Chat

AndrewJRenko

Cyrus wrote: »

Not really if it’s to be the dominant mode of transport in the city replacing cars as some posters advocate then why wouldn’t the same rules and structures apply ?

Well, probably the same rules and structures wouldn't apply because the risks and dangers associated with 1-3 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph are in a different league to the risks and dangers associated with a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph.

If you need any more help to understand the respective risks, check out the death and serious injury stats at RSA.ie

Cyrus wrote: »

If a cyclist coming down Killiney hill at 40kmph wipes me out and severely injures me, who pays ? They should have insurance silly to suggest not.

If a pedestrian steps out without looking while wearing earphones that prevent them from hearing the screaming cyclist and wipes out the cyclist, who pays? Are you advocating for all pedestrians to have insurance, because by your evidence-free logic it would silly to suggest not?

Cyrus wrote: »

And re tax call it road tax if you prefer , feel better ?

Would you be agreeable for a tax proportional to the wear and tear caused on the road?

Cyrus wrote: »

I’ve even gone eco and got a leccy car to keep everyone’s lungs safe, so yeay for me.

Thanks for keeping the lungs safe. It's unfortunate that the particles coming off your tyres and brake pads continue to pollute the environment, and the environment cost of manufacturing and disposing of your vehicle are very substantial, so no, you haven't 'gone eco'.

Cyrus wrote: »

I’ve justified my logic , it’s a vehicle using the road, it should be subject to at least some of the same restrictions with a theory test up there near the top and registration so cyclists can be identified if they break the law .

Presumably pedestrians also need registration so they can be identified if they cause collisions or break the law? Would you go for barcodes on the forehead or mandatory clothing with numbers on the back?

Cyrus wrote: »

I could only wish for some of Bojos genes and that fantastic head of hair he has

You'll be pleased to hear that the genes are being spread widely around London on a regular basis.

dubrov

Cyrus wrote:

Depends on how liability is determined if a civil case is taken.

Understood. So are you proposing pedestrians should all have insurance now?

Cyrus

dubrov wrote: »

Understood. So are you proposing pedestrians should all have insurance now?

Pedestrians aren’t road users .

If they were they would be the most vulnerable road users not cyclists .

Can’t have it every way .

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Well, probably the same rules and structures wouldn't apply because the risks and dangers associated with 1-3 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph are in a different league to the risks and dangers associated with a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph.

If you need any more help to understand the respective risks, check out the death and serious injury stats at RSA.ie

If a pedestrian steps out without looking while wearing earphones that prevent them from hearing the screaming cyclist and wipes out the cyclist, who pays? Are you advocating for all pedestrians to have insurance, because by your evidence-free logic it would silly to suggest not?

Would you be agreeable for a tax proportional to the wear and tear caused on the road?


Thanks for keeping the lungs safe. It's unfortunate that the particles coming off your tyres and brake pads continue to pollute the environment, and the environment cost of manufacturing and disposing of your vehicle are very substantial, so no, you haven't 'gone eco'.

Presumably pedestrians also need registration so they can be identified if they cause collisions or break the law? Would you go for barcodes on the forehead or mandatory clothing with numbers on the back?


You'll be pleased to hear that the genes are being spread widely around London on a regular basis.

Of course I haven’t gone eco I just liked the car but it’s funny you took the time to ‘correct ‘ me

Lighten up

AndrewJRenko

Cyrus wrote: »

Pedestrians aren’t road users .

If they were they would be the most vulnerable road users not cyclists .

Can’t have it every way .

You have seen pedestrians crossing the road, right?

Cyrus wrote: »

Of course I haven’t gone eco I just liked the car but it’s funny you took the time to ‘correct ‘ me

Lighten up

How about the other five points in my response that you seem to have ignored? Any thoughts on those?

.anon.

Cyrus wrote: »

You have referred to private property a few different times , it’s not like someone is leaving a yacht on the side of the road , the vast vast majority of households have at least one car so if they use them they will have to park it somewhere at their destination. It’s not the selfish act of a few.

I own a car. What is it, if not my private property? If I'm travelling somewhere that I know doesn't have secure off-street parking, I use an alternative means of transport. Or I go somewhere else - somewhere that does have parking facilities. The entitled attitude of a lot of motorists is sickening. Especially people who live in areas well-served by public transport.

josip

It's been 26 posts since anything that was even vaguely specific to Dun Laoghaire.

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You have seen pedestrians crossing the road, right?



How about the other five points in my response that you seem to have ignored? Any thoughts on those?

So do you class pedestrians as road users ? If so you disagree with the other poster that says cyclists are the most vulnerable road users correct ?

Cyrus

.anon. wrote: »

I own a car. What is it, if not my private property? If I'm travelling somewhere that I know doesn't have secure off-street parking, I use an alternative means of transport. Or I go somewhere else - somewhere that does have parking facilities. The entitled attitude of a lot of motorists is sickening. Especially people who live in areas well-served by public transport.

A road without yellow lines is a legal place to park, I’m not sure what point you are making , you don’t park in street ever ?

Sickening entitlement for legally parking ?!?

DangerScouse

I love my car. Vrooom Vrooom

ted1

Cyrus wrote: »

A road without yellow lines is a legal place to park, I’m not sure what point you are making , you don’t park in street ever ?

Sickening entitlement for legally parking ?!?

Not necessarily, you can’t park opposite a continuous white line, near a corner, blocking an a drive way and several other places

Seaswimmer

josip wrote: »

It's been 26 posts since anything that was even vaguely specific to Dun Laoghaire.

If you think that is bad you should try the "So you know your from Dun Laoghaire " Facebook page.

Post 1 Didn't they do a lovely job on painting the railings along the seafront

Post 5. The cyclists will have them wrecked

Post 136. Road tax, red lights ect

Anyway for those who haven't seen it you can do online 3D tours of the venues normally open for Heritage week/DLR Summer of Heritage


https://events.dlrcoco.ie/event/3d-tour-maritime-museum

fixXxer

That's very clever. I wonder if there'll be more buildings added to it? Just add some links to what even the bigger displays are and its a complete experience.

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Well, probably the same rules and structures wouldn't apply because the risks and dangers associated with 1-3 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph are in a different league to the risks and dangers associated with a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph.

Same rules are fine, given bikes are so safe insurance costs will be less, the rest is important, we shouldnt have people on the road who havent demonstrated that they understand the rules of the road.

If you need any more help to understand the respective risks, check out the death and serious injury stats at RSA.ie

If a pedestrian steps out without looking while wearing earphones that prevent them from hearing the screaming cyclist and wipes out the cyclist, who pays? Are you advocating for all pedestrians to have insurance, because by your evidence-free logic it would silly to suggest not?

Pedestrian arent road users, so its a moot point, if they walk out onto a road and cause an accident its a legal matter.

Would you be agreeable for a tax proportional to the wear and tear caused on the road?

Yes


Thanks for keeping the lungs safe. It's unfortunate that the particles coming off your tyres and brake pads continue to pollute the environment, and the environment cost of manufacturing and disposing of your vehicle are very substantial, so no, you haven't 'gone eco'.

Answered

Presumably pedestrians also need registration so they can be identified if they cause collisions or break the law? Would you go for barcodes on the forehead or mandatory clothing with numbers on the back?

No, they arent road users.


You'll be pleased to hear that the genes are being spread widely around London on a regular basis.

thanks for the context

see in bold.

Cyrus

ted1 wrote: »

Not necessarily, you can’t park opposite a continuous white line, near a corner, blocking an a drive way and several other places

sure, but the point remains, within the correct parameters you can park on the side of a road with no yellow lines.

rubadub

Cyrus wrote: »

I’m all for everyone cycling

As soon we get everyone wearing helmets and enforcement if not, everyone insured , everyone with a registration plate , everyone passing a test to use public roads and everyone paying road tax then let’s go for it.

Cyrus wrote: »

Not really if it’s to be the dominant mode of transport in the city replacing cars as some posters advocate then why wouldn’t the same rules and structures apply ?

Sweet jesus, I thought the first one was being sarcastic, trotting out the same tired old crap you always hear. Have you ever asked yourself why no other countries do this reg plate and licence stuff? does it really need explaining, AGAIN?! Ask yourself why its not done for pedestrians and you have your answer.

Cyrus wrote: »

Pedestrians aren’t road users .

If they were they would be the most vulnerable road users not cyclists .

Of course they are road users! what an utterly pathetic way to try and weasel out of it. FFS its like discussions on legalizing drugs and people putting their fingers in their ears "la la la, alcohol is not a drug, you can't bring it up".

They are frequently recognised and referred to as vulnerable road users.

https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Vulnerable-Road-Users/

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) launched its new Vulnerable Road Users campaign, Monday 9th April 2012. This new campaign is aimed at raising awareness of the vulnerability of road users such as pedestrian and cyclists and calling for all road users especially drivers to share the road safely.

Mav11

Long post I know but:

So, our duly elected councillors vote to increase LPT paid by households by 17.5% in 2021 “after the authority warned of a “catastrophic” impact on front line services next year”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-rathdown-homeowners-face-15-hike-in-property-tax-due-to-covid-crisis-1.4354899

At the same time Paschal O’Donoghue undertakes not to increase LPT to households in budget 21.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40050212.html

Looking at the (unaudited) Annual Report for 2019, the council’s finances were in rude health at the end of that year, despite flaithulach spending on, among other things €36m on a library.

Additionally, they decide that it is a good deal to lease properties in Dundrum for social housing for €52.5m at the end of 2019, maintain them for 25years and then hand them back to the developer at the end of the period, presumably, in pristine condition.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/property/dundrum-housing-lease-deal-cost-17369248

I can't find any details of the dire financial position that the council claims to be in, such documents appear to be restricted and not available to the public. Neither can I find minutes of the meeting.

So my question(s) is, Are they taking the Mick? Are they completely incompetent? Is there a deficit of democracy and an overwhelming sense of arrogance by the council and the executive? Are our elected councillors capable of holding the executive to account?

Perhaps there are issues going on that we should be far more concerned about, other than the increase in cycle lanes????? What do boardsies think?

fixXxer

Body discovered in Blackrock Park this morning.

No other details, I don't think there was any missing persons bulletins out recently?

Seaswimmer

Mav11 wrote: »

Long post I know but:

So, our duly elected councillors vote to increase LPT paid by households by 17.5% in 2021 “after the authority warned of a “catastrophic” impact on front line services next year”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-rathdown-homeowners-face-15-hike-in-property-tax-due-to-covid-crisis-1.4354899

At the same time Paschal O’Donoghue undertakes not to increase LPT to households in budget 21.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40050212.html

Looking at the (unaudited) Annual Report for 2019, the council’s finances were in rude health at the end of that year, despite flaithulach spending on, among other things €36m on a library.

Additionally, they decide that it is a good deal to lease properties in Dundrum for social housing for €52.5m at the end of 2019, maintain them for 25years and then hand them back to the developer at the end of the period, presumably, in pristine condition.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/property/dundrum-housing-lease-deal-cost-17369248

I can't find any details of the dire financial position that the council claims to be in, such documents appear to be restricted and not available to the public. Neither can I find minutes of the meeting.

So my question(s) is, Are they taking the Mick? Are they completely incompetent? Is there a deficit of democracy and an overwhelming sense of arrogance by the council and the executive? Are our elected councillors capable of holding the executive to account?

Perhaps there are issues going on that we should be far more concerned about, other than the increase in cycle lanes????? What do boardsies think?

I suppose playing Devils Advocate I could say that DLR have given us a 15% reduction for the last number of years when other councils didnt. They would say they are simply restoring parity. That and the fact that we are still paying on 2013 valuations. The whole LPT obviously needs to revisited but i think it was flawed in the first place as valuations are subjective.. Maybe a site tax/sq metre tax/rates or some combination.
DLR is probably the hardest hit in the country on the valuation metric so no doubt there will be more complaints.

Dont forget they were somehow voted council of the year a few short years ago!!

Cyrus

rubadub wrote: »

Sweet jesus, I thought the first one was being sarcastic, trotting out the same tired old crap you always hear. Have you ever asked yourself why no other countries do this reg plate and licence stuff? does it really need explaining, AGAIN?! Ask yourself why its not done for pedestrians and you have your answer.


Of course they are road users! what an utterly pathetic way to try and weasel out of it. FFS its like discussions on legalizing drugs and people putting their fingers in their ears "la la la, alcohol is not a drug, you can't bring it up".

They are frequently recognised and referred to as vulnerable road users.

https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Vulnerable-Road-Users/

I thought cyclists were the most vulnerable road users? which is it?

anyway pedestrians arent road users the same was as motorists and cyclist are, they interact with the road at points but they dont use it, i dont see people walking down the middle of the N11.

So i find your post utterly pathethic and weasely,

And as for comparing us to other countries are you incapable of any sort of independent thinking?

If as some of your pals on two wheels are suggesting bikes are to be the future of urban transport we need a lot more than cycle lanes and away ye go lads, the amount of stupidly dangerous cycling i have seen over the lockdown has reaffirmed my thinking on this.

Mav11

Seaswimmer wrote: »

I suppose playing Devils Advocate I could say that DLR have given us a 15% reduction for the last number of years when other councils didnt. They would say they are simply restoring parity. That and the fact that we are still paying on 2013 valuations. The whole LPT obviously needs to revisited but i think it was flawed in the first place as valuations are subjective.. Maybe a site tax/sq metre tax/rates or some combination.
DLR is probably the hardest hit in the country on the valuation metric so no doubt there will be more complaints.

Wouldn't agree with you on the 15% reduction, it's an actual 17.5% increase in amounts people have to pay. Would agree on the unfairness of the system, but that was imposed from central govt. despite there being better models out there.

But as my main point is on the competence, democracy or arrogance of DLRCC here's a further thought:

Census 2016 states that there are 78,601 private homes (houses, apts etc.) in DLR. Note 15, P20 of the unaudited 2019 financial statements, reveals a yield of €10.7m from LPT. Assuming this represents 80% of tax collected, the total LPT for DLRCC would be approx €12.8m.

Unless my maths are wrong this represents an average yield of €162 per house. What's going on here? I'm in an ordinary 3 bed semi and paying 5 times that:eek:

.anon.

Cyrus wrote: »

A road without yellow lines is a legal place to park, I’m not sure what point you are making , you don’t park in street ever ?

Sickening entitlement for legally parking ?!?

There are plenty of places where you can legally park, whilst still causing an obstruction to public transport and potentially emergency vehicles. Both sides of Sandycove Rd, Mounttown Rd, York Rd, for example. There should be no legal parking provided on roads where it's not possible to park without obstructing public transport, cyclists, ambulances and fire engines. Which is most roads in Dún Laoghaire.

ted1

The council inherited a debt of 30 million from the harbour company.
They are not collecting rates from businesses.

The library was more than 36 million.

Yes there finances are not great.

Yes increasing cycle lanes will reduce wear and tear on roads thus saving money.

Cyrus

.anon. wrote: »

There are plenty of places where you can legally park, whilst still causing an obstruction to public transport and potentially emergency vehicles. Both sides of Sandycove Rd, Mounttown Rd, York Rd, for example. There should be no legal parking provided on roads where it's not possible to park without obstructing public transport, cyclists, ambulances and fire engines. Which is most roads in Dún Laoghaire.

Thats an issue for the council to resolve then. Maybe if they werent so busy with their new pet project they could solve that issue.

Tabnabs

ted1 wrote: »

The council inherited a debt of 30 million from the harbour company.
They are not collecting rates from businesses.

The library was more than 36 million.

Yes there finances are not great.

Yes increasing cycle lanes will reduce wear and tear on roads thus saving money.

Have you a source for that, other than a political hack?

Mav11

ted1 wrote: »

The council inherited a debt of 30 million from the harbour company.
They are not collecting rates from businesses.

The library was more than 36 million.

Yes there finances are not great.

Yes increasing cycle lanes will reduce wear and tear on roads thus saving money.

So is it that the finances are not great because of a lack of competence in managing them, or a surplus of arrogance in assuming that the mugs who own houses will pay for such incompetence ?

.anon.

Cyrus wrote: »

Thats an issue for the council to resolve then. Maybe if they werent so busy with their new pet project they could solve that issue.

Motorists also have a responsibility to weigh up the effect their parking has on other road users.

markpb

Mav11 wrote: »

So is it that the finances are not great because of a lack of competence in managing them, or a surplus of arrogance in assuming that the mugs who own houses will pay for such incompetence ?

DLR were told by DoEHLG to take over the old DL Harbour authority. The harbour company had significant debts arising from storm damage to the harbour walls in 2018/2019 (can't remember which). DLR spent several months trying to negotiate for the government to pay off those debts before transferring the company to DLR but in the end the government told them to suck it.

Then covid came along and collecting rates from local businesses was almost impossible.

The contribution from LPT to DLRs budget is tiny compared to commercial rates and government contributions, especially after the 15% reduction is taken off and then another 20% is disbursed to other councils. Mugs owning houses pay for very little of the annual costs. From a quick look at the 2019 budget, it looks like it contributes 17m out of 183m.

Cyrus

.anon. wrote: »

Motorists also have a responsibility to weigh up the effect their parking has on other road users.

makes more sense to make people do the right thing, you will always have selfish people who will do things that suit them but put others out.

AndrewJRenko

Cyrus wrote: »

So do you class pedestrians as road users ? If so you disagree with the other poster that says cyclists are the most vulnerable road users correct ?

Of course pedestrians are road users. The RSA include pedestrians in their definition of Vulnerable Road Users.
https://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Vulnerable-Road-Users/
The European Commission include pedestrians as Vulnerable Road Users
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/its_and_vulnerable_road_users_en
Just open your eyes and see how often you see pedestrians literally using the road, walking across it, usually at junctions but not always. Pedestrians use the road, it’s fairly obvious.
So, what kind of training, insurance and identification requirements would be appropriate for pedestrians, given your requirement for all these for all road users?

Cyrus wrote: »

Same rules are fine, given bikes are so safe insurance costs will be less, the rest is important, we shouldnt have people on the road who havent demonstrated that they understand the rules of the road.

What does ‘fine’ mean here? You need a good reason to change traffic laws and create barriers to a safe and environmentally friendly method of transport. You may have noticed how other countries are actually incentivising cycling, literally paying cyclists to cycle in some cases, subsidising bike repairs in the UK. They’ve noticed how improving cycling brings public health benefits, reduced traffic chaos, and dramatically reduced environmental pollution (remember those lungs you were worried about?).
So what is your justification for changing regulations and traffic laws here? What problem are you trying to solve?
Can I take it that you have a tachometer on your car and you’ve done your mandatory one day driver training this year? Because if you want same rules for all road users, the HGV requirements will apply to your eCar. Unless of course, you can see that there is some logic and sense in having different rules and different requirements for different classes of road users?

Cyrus wrote: »

Pedestrian arent road users, so its a moot point, if they walk out onto a road and cause an accident its a legal matter.

So if a cyclist causes an accident a collision, why can’t we just say ‘it’s a legal matter’ and leave everyone to sort it out? Why do you propose different rules for pedestrians and cyclists? Is it possible that you can see that there is some logic and sense in having different rules and different requirements for different classes of road users?

Cyrus wrote: »

Yes

Great, bring it on. The wear and tear caused by a vehicle is proportional to the fourth power of the rear axle weight (search for ‘Fourth Power Rule’ for more details). When the difference in weight between the two vehicles is brought up to the Fourth Power, a €10 annual charge for cyclists (which wouldn’t actually cover the admin costs of processing the payment) would be proportional to an annual €140,000 charge for basic family car. SUVs and jeeps would be substantially higher again.
So do you have your €140k handy for this year?

Cyrus wrote: »

No, they arent road users.

Yes, they are – see industry definitions above.

Cyrus wrote: »

And as for comparing us to other countries are you incapable of any sort of independent thinking?

Just to be clear, it’s not about comparing us to ‘some other countries’. It is ‘ALL countries’. No country in the world has done this, mainly because ‘independent thinkers’ are capable of actually thinking a policy through to understand the potential benefits and the unintended consequences. Have you really thought this through? I know it might have sounded catchy when Pat Kenny red out the text, but again, what problem are you trying to solve here?

Cyrus wrote: »

the amount of stupidly dangerous cycling i have seen over the lockdown has reaffirmed my thinking on this.

Sure yeah, let’s watch out for the cyclists;
https://twitter.com/hevehan/status/1306162418800889856

Mav11 wrote: »

I can't find any details of the dire financial position that the council claims to be in, such documents appear to be restricted and not available to the public. Neither can I find minutes of the meeting.

Who did you ask? Did you contact the Council or any Councillors for details? Did you watch the live broadcast of the meeting? It’s a bit much to expect Minutes of a 3-4 meeting of 40-ish Councillors and more officials to be available in 48 hours.