Dun Laoghaire Traffic & Commuting Chat

JayRoc

Mav11 wrote: »

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:

I'm not a homeowner so forgive my ignorance; LPT is set at a given percentage of the estimated value of the property in 2013, correct?

And to date DLRCC has charged its constituents 85% of this standard rate?

jams100

Was thinking of heading to the 40 foot this evening but by the sounds of it, it seems like a bad idea, any other spots people recommend? Also what do people do with cars keys/towel when going to the 40 foot/beach in general?

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

if you cant see the difference between how pedestrians interact with the road and how cyclists use it then little point in us continuing this.

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?

So you are happy for a massive increase in a new class of road users and advocate that they dont need any formal education on the rules of the road?

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?

Cyclists are using the road, pedestrians arent in the same way, already covered.

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?

Proportional to existing tax rates obviously, as to whether i have 140k handy i might do, but not for that.

Yes, they are – see industry definitions above.

No they arent

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?

Live a little, allow your mind to expand beyond yearning for amsterdam in dublin, we dont have to copy the dutch, we dont copy everything else they do

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

a video of bad driving means that there arent bad cyclists? im sure if pedestrian wandered around with go pros we could upload plenty of videos of idiots on bikes.

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.

.

Cyrus

jams100 wrote: »

Was thinking of heading to the 40 foot this evening but by the sounds of it, it seems like a bad idea, any other spots people recommend? Also what do people do with cars keys/towel when going to the 40 foot/beach in general?

whiterock, killiney beach?

i wouldnt drive to any of them though.

Mav11

JayRoc wrote: »

I'm not a homeowner so forgive my ignorance; LPT is set at a given percentage of the estimated value of the property in 2013, correct?

And to date DLRCC has charged its constituents 85% of this standard rate?

No, that is not correct. The estimated value only applies to properties which have not changed hands through sale or other means in the interim period.

markpb

Mav11 wrote: »

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:

There are a bunch of things that reduce the LPT yield for the council. 20% is kept by Revenue and put into the equalisation fund for other councils. 15% was not charged by DLR in the past. Initial property values are calculated at 2013 valuations (which was pretty close to the bottom). Anyone who bought in 2013 is exempt. Anyone buying a new build is still exempt as far as I know. Self builds are also bizarrely exempt. Then there are people who don't have to pay, can't pay or have opted to defer payment. And lastly there are properties which are uninhabitable or have pyrite so LPT doesn't apply.

Mav11

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I think that it clear that my expectations in relation to openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how my money is spent are higher than yours.

Nobody and I mean nobody, in this day and age should have to depend on the benevolence of a local councillor to get the information to which they are entitled. That’s real third world, Stazi stuff.

Mav11

markpb wrote: »

There are a bunch of things that reduce the LPT yield for the council. 20% is kept by Revenue and put into the equalisation fund for other councils. 15% was not charged by DLR in the past. Initial property values are calculated at 2013 valuations (which was pretty close to the bottom). Anyone who bought in 2013 is exempt. Anyone buying a new build is still exempt as far as I know. Self builds are also bizarrely exempt. Then there are people who don't have to pay, can't pay or have opted to defer payment. And lastly there are properties which are uninhabitable or have pyrite so LPT doesn't apply.

The 20% reduction is taken into account in that calculation. Would agree with you though that there are some bizarre exemptions still in play.

LPT is not going to sort DLRCC’s financial difficulties, merely put an additional burden on some who can ill afford it.

The biggest cause of the financial problems facing DLRCC, IMO, stems from some of the bizarre spending decisions over the past few years where value for money didn’t seem to merit any consideration.

Seaswimmer

Mav11 wrote: »

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:

don't forget that any property purchased in 2013 is exempt also any NEW properties since 2013 are exempt. There was/is a lot of new building up in the Sandyford/Stepaisde areas since 2013, most of it exempt..

Seaswimmer

Mav11 wrote: »

No, that is not correct. The estimated value only applies to properties which have not changed hands through sale or other means in the interim period.

Correct but given the low turnover of houses in DLR area and the low sales in general it is probably safe to assume that the majority of homes are still on 2013 valuations..They were due to be revalued in November 2019 but that was kicked down the road to Nov 2020.. I wonder what will happen??

Mav11

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Correct but given the low turnover of houses in DLR area and the low sales in general it is probably safe to assume that the majority of homes are still on 2013 valuations..They were due to be revalued in November 2019 but that was kicked down the road to Nov 2020.. I wonder what will happen??

God only knows:)

frash

jams100 wrote: »

Was thinking of heading to the 40 foot this evening but by the sounds of it, it seems like a bad idea, any other spots people recommend? Also what do people do with cars keys/towel when going to the 40 foot/beach in general?

Seapoint
Was just there at lunch time
Packed with cyclists - great to see!

ted1

Tabnabs wrote: »

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

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/no-government-funding-for-38-million-dun-laoghaire-harbour-debts-1.4035445%3fmode=amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thesun.ie/news/4753290/dun-laoghaire-chief-redundancy-package-company-debt/amp/


https://dublingazette.com/news/south-dublin-news/fury-as-council-takes-on-dun-laoghaire-harbour-debts/

AndrewJRenko

Mav11 wrote: »

I think that it clear that my expectations in relation to openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how my money is spent are higher than yours.

Nobody and I mean nobody, in this day and age should have to depend on the benevolence of a local councillor to get the information to which they are entitled. That’s real third world, Stazi stuff.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but is it possible that the stuff is up there somewhere and you just haven't found it? Seriously, if you're concerned about this issue, start talking to your local Councillor(s). It's not about benevolence. It's about a two-way feedback conversation.

Cyrus wrote: »

see in bold.

Could you please stop answering inside quotes with your bolding? It makes a conversation very hard to follow and progress. It also has your words in my quotes, which creates a false impression for others.

Cyrus wrote: »

if you cant see the difference between how pedestrians interact with the road and how cyclists use it then little point in us continuing this.

In fairness, it's not me having difficulties seeing the difference. When faced with the difference between a 1-3 tonne metal cage doing 20-150 kmph and a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph, you responded 'Seems fine'.

So why are applying the same rules to two very different modes of travel but also calling on people to 'see the difference' between cyclists and pedestrians?

Cyrus wrote: »

So you are happy for a massive increase in a new class of road users and advocate that they dont need any formal education on the rules of the road?

You seem to have ignored a whole load of points there, including the ones about your tacho and your one-day training. If you're applying the same rules to all road users, then why wouldn't these rules for HGVs also apply to your car?

And to answer your question, yes, I'm absolutely happy with a massive increase in new cyclists, given that they're not the ones who kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road. If you're actually interested in road safety, you seem to be looking in the wrong place, based on all available evidence.

Cyrus wrote: »

Cyclists are using the road, pedestrians arent in the same way, already covered.

You're actually right here, cyclists and pedestrians aren't using the road in the same way. Just as motorists and cyclists aren't using the road in the same way - dramatically different size, weight, speed, momentum, track record for killing and maiming - and yet your response to those differences was 'seems fine'.

So why are you calling on people to recognise the difference between cyclists and pedestrians while you ignore the difference between cyclists and motorists? A little bit hypocritical, no?

Cyrus wrote: »

Proportional to existing tax rates obviously, as to whether i have 140k handy i might do, but not for that.

That's not the question you were asked. You were asked if you were happy with a new tax proportional to the wear and tear and you said 'yes', because you were so delighted at the idea of punishing cyclists or creating barriers for cyclists that you didn't actually think it through. Now that you understand the engineering, are you still happy that a tax proportional to the wear and tear arising is a good idea, or would you like to change your position?

Here's a tip for the future - if someone asks you a very specific, leading question like that, they know something you don't and they're probably leading you into a trap.

Cyrus wrote: »

No they arent

So me, the RSA, the EU, the UK government and the entire transport sector are wrong on the definition of VRUs, but you're right?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225

Are you trying to stop the tide coming in as well?

Cyrus wrote: »

Live a little, allow your mind to expand beyond yearning for amsterdam in dublin, we dont have to copy the dutch, we dont copy everything else they do

You're right, we should think beyond Amsterdam.

How about Paris?
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/95335/mayor-announces-plans-to-make-paris-100-per-cent-cycle-friendly-by-2024/

And Barcelona;

https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2017/10/23/barcelona-turning-cycling-city/

And Seville

https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/12/seville-how-a-small-spanish-city-became-a-cycling-hub-for-all-view

And across the UK;
https://citiesofthefuture.eu/the-uk-moves-to-cycling-as-people-ditch-transit/


Would you like me to keep going?

Cyrus wrote: »

a video of bad driving means that there arent bad cyclists? im sure if pedestrian wandered around with go pros we could upload plenty of videos of idiots on bikes.

Who said that there aren't any bad cyclists? Certainly not me.

The difference is that bad cyclists don't kill 2 or 3 people each week. If you're actually interested in road safety, that's the issue you should be solving, instead of obsessing about theoretical risks of more cyclists.

Seaswimmer

frash wrote: »

Seapoint
Was just there at lunch time
Packed with cyclists - great to see!

Bear in mind if you go to Seapoint this evening that the tide is flat out around 18:00.. Spring tides as well so you will have a long walk for a swim!!

ted1

jams100 wrote: »

Was thinking of heading to the 40 foot this evening but by the sounds of it, it seems like a bad idea, any other spots people recommend? Also what do people do with cars keys/towel when going to the 40 foot/beach in general?

Lots of bike racks at the 40ft. Or there’s plenty of parking spaces , be sure to park legally.
Failing that killiney was lovely this morning. Park in the beach car park as opposed to the Dart car park. The beach is free, it’s Pay and Display in the other

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in principle, but is it possible that the stuff is up there somewhere and you just haven't found it? Seriously, if you're concerned about this issue, start talking to your local Councillor(s). It's not about benevolence. It's about a two-way feedback conversation.

Could you please stop answering inside quotes with your bolding? It makes a conversation very hard to follow and progress. It also has your words in my quotes, which creates a false impression for others.


In fairness, it's not me having difficulties seeing the difference. When faced with the difference between a 1-3 tonne metal cage doing 20-150 kmph and a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph, you responded 'Seems fine'.

So why are applying the same rules to two very different modes of travel but also calling on people to 'see the difference' between cyclists and pedestrians?


You seem to have ignored a whole load of points there, including the ones about your tacho and your one-day training. If you're applying the same rules to all road users, then why wouldn't these rules for HGVs also apply to your car?

And to answer your question, yes, I'm absolutely happy with a massive increase in new cyclists, given that they're not the ones who kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road. If you're actually interested in road safety, you seem to be looking in the wrong place, based on all available evidence.


You're actually right here, cyclists and pedestrians aren't using the road in the same way. Just as motorists and cyclists aren't using the road in the same way - dramatically different size, weight, speed, momentum, track record for killing and maiming - and yet your response to those differences was 'seems fine'.

So why are you calling on people to recognise the difference between cyclists and pedestrians while you ignore the difference between cyclists and motorists? A little bit hypocritical, no?


That's not the question you were asked. You were asked if you were happy with a new tax proportional to the wear and tear and you said 'yes', because you were so delighted at the idea of punishing cyclists or creating barriers for cyclists that you didn't actually think it through. Now that you understand the engineering, are you still happy that a tax proportional to the wear and tear arising is a good idea, or would you like to change your position?

Here's a tip for the future - if someone asks you a very specific, leading question like that, they know something you don't and they're probably leading you into a trap.


So me, the RSA, the EU, the UK government and the entire transport sector are wrong on the definition of VRUs, but you're right?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225

Are you trying to stop the tide coming in as well?



You're right, we should think beyond Amsterdam.

How about Paris?
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/95335/mayor-announces-plans-to-make-paris-100-per-cent-cycle-friendly-by-2024/

And Barcelona;

https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2017/10/23/barcelona-turning-cycling-city/

And Seville

https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/12/seville-how-a-small-spanish-city-became-a-cycling-hub-for-all-view

And across the UK;
https://citiesofthefuture.eu/the-uk-moves-to-cycling-as-people-ditch-transit/


Would you like me to keep going?


Who said that there aren't any bad cyclists? Certainly not me.

The difference is that bad cyclists don't kill 2 or 3 people each week. If you're actually interested in road safety, that's the issue you should be solving, instead of obsessing about theoretical risks of more cyclists.

you know what im going to bow out of this, arguing with a zealot is a waste of everyones time and i couldn't be bothered. You accuse me ignoring points you made while continuing to do the same yourself. You appear to not see the difference between a pedestrian who doesnt travel on the road and a bike that does, faced with that i think we are at an impasse.

Mav11

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in principle, but is it possible that the stuff is up there somewhere and you just haven't found it? Seriously, if you're concerned about this issue, start talking to your local Councillor(s). It's not about benevolence. It's about a two-way feedback conversation.

.

It is not up there or, if it is, it is witheld from the public.

I guarantee if you were to request these management statements, which are witheld, on which such funding decisions are made they wouldn't be released. You would be spun along the following lines "that the are sensitive for commercial reasons" and therefore cannot be released. FFS even companies like Ryanair have to give full forward disclosure to the markets.

Its true that local authority's can treat their "customers" like mushrooms. Keeping them in the dark and feeding them ****e.

Seaswimmer

jams100 wrote: »

Was thinking of heading to the 40 foot this evening but by the sounds of it, it seems like a bad idea, any other spots people recommend? Also what do people do with cars keys/towel when going to the 40 foot/beach in general?

If you are going to swim regularly in the sea then I would suggest buying a tow float to put your small valuables in. You should really only be bringing your car keys if driving or keys of your bike lock if cycling. A tow float like the ones below will easily take keys/phone/wallet. Clothes and towels should be fine unless you are wearing very expensive items!!

https://www.saferswimmer.eu/screen/product/safer-swimmer-heavy-duty

AndrewJRenko

Cyrus wrote: »

you know what im going to bow out of this, arguing with a zealot is a waste of everyones time and i couldn't be bothered. You accuse me ignoring points you made while continuing to do the same yourself.

Funny how people decide it's a waste of time when faced with overwhelming facts and evidence that prove them wrong.

Cyrus wrote: »

You appear to not see the difference between a pedestrian who doesnt travel on the road and a bike that does, faced with that i think we are at an impasse.

This isn't a joke, but 'how did the pedestrian cross the road'?

Just in case you forgot, this started out when you appeared not to see the difference between a 1-3 tonne metal cage doing 20-150 kmph and a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph. 'Seems fine' you said when asked about your proposal for the same rules for such different classes of road users.

It looks like you've moved on a bit to accept the rationale for different rules for different classes of road users, so that's nice.

Cyrus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funny how people decide it's a waste of time when faced with overwhelming facts and evidence that prove them wrong.



This isn't a joke, but 'how did the pedestrian cross the road'?

Just in case you forgot, this started out when you appeared not to see the difference between a 1-3 tonne metal cage doing 20-150 kmph and a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph. 'Seems fine' you said when asked about your proposal for the same rules for such different classes of road users.

It looks like you've moved on a bit to accept the rationale for different rules for different classes of road users, so that's nice.

overwhelming facts,

zealots gonna zealot :pac:

i don't agree with 95% of what you posted but i dont have the time or inclination to debate it with you, its a waste of time. And id drop the attempts at condescension aswell. Doesn't suit you.

Tabnabs

ted1 wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/no-government-funding-for-38-million-dun-laoghaire-harbour-debts-1.4035445%3fmode=amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thesun.ie/news/4753290/dun-laoghaire-chief-redundancy-package-company-debt/amp/


https://dublingazette.com/news/south-dublin-news/fury-as-council-takes-on-dun-laoghaire-harbour-debts/

That €30m figure seems very elastic, with every person you speak to it grows or shrinks. Almost like it was plucked out of thin air and had very little basis in reality.

Mav11

Tabnabs wrote: »

That €30m figure seems very elastic, with every person you speak to it grows or shrinks. Almost like it was plucked out of thin air and had very little basis in reality.

I don't think that the €30m or whatever it is, is relevant to DLRCC's current financial disasters. If anything, it would only be the cost of servicing the debt which should be quiet small, unless they made a complete bags of that as well, has a bearing on the current mess.

Tabnabs

Mav11 wrote: »

I don't think that the €30m or whatever it is, is relevant to DLRCC's current financial disasters. If anything, it would only be the cost of servicing the debt which should be quiet small, unless they made a complete bags of that as well, has a bearing on the current mess.

So you're saying the "€30milion or whatever" is now debt that requires DLRCC to finance it, correct?

Mav11

Tabnabs wrote: »

So you're saying the "€30milion or whatever" is now debt that requires DLRCC to finance it, correct?

Well the "whatever" come from nobody seems certain what the figure is. I certainly didn't quote it. But if the Govt can borrow at 0%, which they are currently doing, then I would expect this debt to have a similarly low rate.

So if for arguments sake, it is at 0.005%, then annual interest payments would be in the region of €150k. Which I would argue is not material to their current woes, unless as I said, they made a complete horlicks of it.

ted1

Seaswimmer wrote: »

If you are going to swim regularly in the sea then I would suggest buying a tow float to put your small valuables in. You should really only be bringing your car keys if driving or keys of your bike lock if cycling. A tow float like the ones below will easily take keys/phone/wallet. Clothes and towels should be fine unless you are wearing very expensive items!!

https://www.saferswimmer.eu/screen/product/safer-swimmer-heavy-duty

Or this https://www.decathlon.ie/ie_en/ows-100-swimming-buoy-for-use-in-open-water-en-s300994.html

AndrewJRenko

Cyrus wrote: »

overwhelming facts,

zealots gonna zealot :pac:

i don't agree with 95% of what you posted but i dont have the time or inclination to debate it with you, its a waste of time. And id drop the attempts at condescension aswell. Doesn't suit you.

You don't get to disagree with facts. This started out with you not seeing any difference between cyclists and motorists, remember? Motorists have killed about 4,000 people here since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed two people.

There the facts, whether you 'agree' or not.

Seaswimmer

ted1 wrote: »

Or this https://www.decathlon.ie/ie_en/ows-100-swimming-buoy-for-use-in-open-water-en-s300994.html

Dosent look like that one has a dry compartment for storage of items though..



For the OP... DLR swimming areas where tide dosent matter.


40ft, Kililney Beach, WhiteRock, Vico/Hawks Cliff.


Tidal.. Booterstown/Williamstown, Blackrock, Seapoint, Sandycove Harbour.


I suppose when the new baths development is finished in DL we can add that to the list!

Tabnabs

Mav11 wrote: »

Well the "whatever" come from nobody seems certain what the figure is. I certainly didn't quote it. But if the Govt can borrow at 0%, which they are currently doing, then I would expect this debt to have a similarly low rate.

So if for arguments sake, it is at 0.005%, then annual interest payments would be in the region of €150k. Which I would argue is not material to their current woes, unless as I said, they made a complete horlicks of it.

Again, you are stating that the figure is actual debt which the council must finance, is that correct?

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.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Again, you are stating that the figure is actual debt which the council must finance, is that correct?

No I am not. Ted1 is!!

What's your point?