Car free Dublin City Centre?

tomasrojo

“I want to see our villages, towns and communities prioritising people – putting them and businesses first. I want everybody to think “what’s the nicest place I have been to?” And I can guarantee it was not full of cars.

http://road.cc/content/news/160492-chris-boardman-films-cycle-safety-video-instructing-drivers-how-pass-safely

So sayeth Saint Chris Boardman.

(Also interesting that Bicycle Association and British cycling are funding public information films, because the government doesn't do them.)

glued

A car free Dublin city centre is a complete pipe dream. There are far too many hazardous cyclists on the road in the city centre to completely open up the whole city centre as some sort of a free-for-all. The benefits of a car free dublin city centre extend solely to cyclists alone.

More effort should be made to shift cars away from the city centre and to regulate and train cyclists in this country as opposed to a blanket ban on cars or bikes for that matter. These pro-cyclist groups will have to get far more realistic. They want all of the road and none of the regulation that comes with it.

Leroy42

glued wrote: »

A car free Dublin city centre is a complete pipe dream. There are far too many hazardous cyclists on the road in the city centre to completely open up the whole city centre as some sort of a free-for-all. The benefits of a car free dublin city centre extend solely to cyclists alone.

More effort should be made to shift cars away from the city centre and to regulate and train cyclists in this country as opposed to a blanket ban on cars or bikes for that matter. These pro-cyclist groups will have to get far more realistic. They want all of the road and none of the regulation that comes with it.

Can you provide evidence of this 'too many hazardous cyclists' that you talk about?

Nobody mentioned a free for all, simply removing the more dangerous and damage causing vehicles from the city centre to allow it to become and a better place for pedestrians to be.

The current road rules would continue to apply to all traffic that was allowed to use the city centre.

glued

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can you provide evidence of this 'too many hazardous cyclists' that you talk about?

Nobody mentioned a free for all, simply removing the more dangerous and damage causing vehicles from the city centre to allow it to become and a better place for pedestrians to be.

The current road rules would continue to apply to all traffic that was allowed to use the city centre.

If your end game is to create a better environment for pedestrians then surely removing bikes from the road would be an equally good place to start. The view from your bike may be slightly different but cyclists are as hazardous to pedestrians as cars. There is a large portion of cyclists in the city centre who don't give a damn about the rules of the road. I don't see how allowing these people, who are completely untrained, to have sole use of the roads is of any benefit to pedestrians.

It seems that a car ban in the city centre is a benefit unknown to most but essential for cyclist groups.

If you want to create an environment for pedestrians for safe passage through the city then removing the bikes is as essential as removing the car. Of course, nobody stops to think about the countless number of invalid persons who will be banished from the city under such a car ban.

I see very little benefit of a car ban in Dublin City centre and the only real benefit is to cyclists.

Why aren't more people calling for proper training for cyclists? Why can't we have realistic ideas that would actually be of more benefit to everybody such as more cycle lanes and better enforcement of the rules of the road?

There are as many idiots on two wheels as there are on four.

tomasrojo

glued wrote: »

The view from your bike may be slightly different but cyclists are as hazardous to pedestrians as cars.

Gold, Jerry, gold!

Weepsie

In my experience, pedestrians are the absolute worst road users out there and take careless risks on a near constant basis because they can't be bothered to simply look. Any time I've seen a pedestrian hit, or nearly hit by a cyclist it's been the pedestrians fault entirely.

Qualitymark

glued wrote: »

There is a large portion of cyclists in the city centre who don't give a damn about the rules of the road.

Statistical citation, please.

This Wiki has a list of car-free places. There are lots! And in places where people are very hard-headed about shops' profitability and citizens' and visitors' rights and needs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car-free_places

Here's a piece about cities trying out car-freedom http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040634/7-cities-that-are-starting-to-go-car-free

and another

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140204-can-a-city-really-go-car-free

My own experience: I cycle most places, at a rather sedate pace. I do virtually all household shopping on the bike. I take buses and trains too.

I do encounter stupid and dangerous cyclists, but in my experience - and this is only my own experience, of course - I meet more dangerous drivers, racing through lights that have turned red, cutting in front of me in their haste to get to a turn, simply not seeing me as they drive, parking their cars dangerously in cycle lanes or beside junctions, opening car doors without checking if I'm coming towards them.

And plenty of incautious pedestrians, who do silly things like stepping down from the pavement in front of me with their backs turned, or walking straight out, in a dream, or simply using the road as a pavement. On crowded streets I now ring my bell continuously, as well as cycling slowly enough to stop suddenly if necessary.

Edit: I wonder if this (quoted) post is an example of the thinking which sees a cyclist behaving dangerously and thinks "All cyclists are dangerous", but sees a motorist behaving dangerously and thinks "Occasionally a driver is dangerous".

An interesting Canadian forum post on segregated cycle lanes: http://www.kitchenerpost.ca/opinion/lack-of-cycling-infrastructure-causes-crashes/

Leroy42

glued wrote: »

If your end game is to create a better environment for pedestrians then surely removing bikes from the road would be an equally good place to start. The view from your bike may be slightly different but cyclists are as hazardous to pedestrians as cars. There is a large portion of cyclists in the city centre who don't give a damn about the rules of the road. I don't see how allowing these people, who are completely untrained, to have sole use of the roads is of any benefit to pedestrians.

It seems that a car ban in the city centre is a benefit unknown to most but essential for cyclist groups.

If you want to create an environment for pedestrians for safe passage through the city then removing the bikes is as essential as removing the car. Of course, nobody stops to think about the countless number of invalid persons who will be banished from the city under such a car ban.

I see very little benefit of a car ban in Dublin City centre and the only real benefit is to cyclists.

Why aren't more people calling for proper training for cyclists? Why can't we have realistic ideas that would actually be of more benefit to everybody such as more cycle lanes and better enforcement of the rules of the road?

There are as many idiots on two wheels as there are on four.

Wow, that is some data dump.

So, you have no evidence to back up your claim in a previous post about how hazardous cyclist are. So, I am thinking that it is anecdotally based.

"The view from your bike may be slightly different but cyclists are as hazardous to pedestrians as cars".
On what basis? Even a cyclist hellbent of taking out as many pedestrians as possible by racing headlong down Grafton Street, would injury a few, injury themselves, but in most cases injuries would be some broken bones, maybe a hip of an older person.

Lets put a car into the same scenario. I think we are looking at slightly more than a few broken bones!!!

"There is a large portion of cyclists in the city centre who don't give a damn about the rules of the road". Again, can you give some numbers on this large portion? And what is the definition of don't give a damn?

So all these cyclists are untrained? I assume you mean on the rules of the road as obviously they can cycle the bike. You are making the usual non sense assumption that somehow cyclist live outside the normal world and don't drive cars, don't know anybody who drives a car, never had any lessons on traffic laws etc.

The benefit to banning cars is not for the benefit of cyclists, although that may be a side effect. It is being discussed because the evidence some other cities like Copenhagen is that by making the environment safer for pedestrians and thus enhancing the experience of the city and make it a better environment for everyone. This creates a better place to spend time, and by extension spend money.

On your last two points, nobody is argueing against that. There has very recently been on change in the operation of the law to try to ensure that more cyclists obey the rules, and most people on here welcome it (in fact I don't recall anybody being against it)

rollingscone

Weepsie wrote: »

In my experience, pedestrians are the absolute worst road users out there and take careless risks on a near constant basis because they can't be bothered to simply look. Any time I've seen a pedestrian hit, or nearly hit by a cyclist it's been the pedestrians fault entirely.

I wish I could say the same.

Although I have noted a trend for crossing the road diagonally so that one's back is facing away from traffic the entire time.

Most ped near misses I've seen or had recounted involve bombing at lights or peds stepping out from cover.

As frustrating as I find being impeded this way I don't feel that the responsibility should be placed on the pedestrian.

Driving or cycling next to pedestrian traffic you have to be aware of the risk of someone thoughtlessly stepping out (we all do) and adjust your speed and road position accordingly.

The hierarchy of rights has been inverted, in towns and cities the default human is the pedestrian and they should be accommodated first.

Tenzor07

rollingscone wrote: »

The hierarchy of rights has been inverted, in towns and cities the default human is the pedestrian and they should be accommodated first.

Very true, in city centres it should be: Pedestrian >> Cyclist >> public transport

Not: Car >>

Qualitymark

Of course the hierarchy of rights should start from the most vulnerable, including pedestrians, especially children, the intellectually deprived and the feeble, and then follow on to the least; the hierarchy of responsibility should start with truckers and move on through van drivers, car drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists to pedestrians. That should be given and understood.

Incidentally, here's London's first segregated cycleway, or at least its plan:

http://thinkinghighways.com/plans-published-for-new-segregated-cycle-superhighway-in-london/

glued

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wow, that is some data dump.

So, you have no evidence to back up your claim in a previous post about how hazardous cyclist are. So, I am thinking that it is anecdotally based.

"The view from your bike may be slightly different but cyclists are as hazardous to pedestrians as cars".
On what basis? Even a cyclist hellbent of taking out as many pedestrians as possible by racing headlong down Grafton Street, would injury a few, injury themselves, but in most cases injuries would be some broken bones, maybe a hip of an older person.

Lets put a car into the same scenario. I think we are looking at slightly more than a few broken bones!!!

"There is a large portion of cyclists in the city centre who don't give a damn about the rules of the road". Again, can you give some numbers on this large portion? And what is the definition of don't give a damn?

So all these cyclists are untrained? I assume you mean on the rules of the road as obviously they can cycle the bike. You are making the usual non sense assumption that somehow cyclist live outside the normal world and don't drive cars, don't know anybody who drives a car, never had any lessons on traffic laws etc.

The benefit to banning cars is not for the benefit of cyclists, although that may be a side effect. It is being discussed because the evidence some other cities like Copenhagen is that by making the environment safer for pedestrians and thus enhancing the experience of the city and make it a better environment for everyone. This creates a better place to spend time, and by extension spend money.

On your last two points, nobody is argueing against that. There has very recently been on change in the operation of the law to try to ensure that more cyclists obey the rules, and most people on here welcome it (in fact I don't recall anybody being against it)

Do you have any evidence to back any of that up whatsoever? The idea that people will spend more money in a pedestrianised or car free city is nonsense and completely unfounded. If you've ever been off the bike and walked through Dublin you are probably aware of the problems of cycling in Dublin, particularly the issue of breaking red lights in areas with heavy footfall.

It seems as if some people have their heads embedded deeply in the sand over this whole issue. The current solution isn't working but banning cars from the city isn't a solution. It creates far more problems than it solves. It will never happen in Dublin anyway.

Leroy42

Woah there so you come on here spouting such items as the large majority of cyclists are untrained, cycles are as much thread to peds etc and provide no evidence to back up any claim and you want me to prove my counter argument?

Your talking complete nonsense. you have no facts to back up your point and anytime you've been asked have spouted some other rubbish.

I get it, you think that cycles are such a massive source of carnage to pedestrians that the only way to curb their ways is to keep them honest by putting cars on the road.

glued

So you have no evidence whatsoever? Just as I suspected.

manafana

THe main reason to reduce cars in urban areas is the space they take up and the emissions of there engines, a bike takes little to no room in comparison while being a good healthy means of getting about. Less cars in built up areas will not suit all of course but it would benefit most.

Weepsie

glued wrote: »

So you have no evidence whatsoever? Just as I suspected.

And you do?

HivemindXX

Weepsie wrote: »

And you do?

After this guy claimed that cyclists are just as hazardous to pedestrians as motorists I drew certain conclusions about him. One of those was it would be a waste of time trying to engage him in discussion.

Korat

Leroy42 wrote: »

So all these cyclists are untrained? I assume you mean on the rules of the road as obviously they can cycle the bike. You are making the usual non sense assumption that somehow cyclist live outside the normal world and don't drive cars, don't know anybody who drives a car, never had any lessons on traffic laws etc.

I hadn't thought much about it til I read this comment but actually yes all cyclists are untrained on the road.

Driving a car doesn't qualify you to drive a motorbike or a HGV on the road. They're very different vehicles which pose different hazzards to themselves and others.

Bicycles are different again, so really there should be some training before you can use a bicycle on public roads, regardless of your previous driving experience.

The current situation is irresponsible and putting lives at risk, it's surprising that cycling groups haven't demanded compulsory training for all cyclists on the road.

cython

Korat wrote: »

I hadn't thought much about it til I read this comment but actually yes all cyclists are untrained on the road.

Driving a car doesn't qualify you to drive a motorbike or a HGV on the road. They're very different vehicles which pose different hazzards to themselves and others.

Bicycles are different again, so really there should be some training before you can use a bicycle on public roads, regardless of your previous driving experience.

The current situation is irresponsible and putting lives at risk, it's surprising that cycling groups haven't demanded compulsory training for all cyclists on the road.

If we're going to be completely precise here, less than 10 years ago a B license test automatically granted you categories M (moped < 50cc) and W (work vehicle, e.g. tractor), so while this may not be the case any more, there is precedent for one category at least informing the use of another.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of making training available to cyclists, but making it compulsory is not the correct way to go about it. Dublin Bikes (to name but one) would be all but a goner, and it has been incredibly successful. Similarly, other cities can accommodate similar schemes with neither carnage nor mandatory cycle training, so I would question the need for it for all on-road cyclists. The darwin award level stuff exhibited by both pedestrians and drivers on a daily basis also suggest that training has a minimal influence on behaviour, tbh - i.e. there are similar proportions of idiots across all modes of transport!

If you want to improve it in the future, I would simply suggest that general road education be integrated into school curriculums, as this would target all demographics equally, and it would be of a hell of a lot more value than, for example, some of the religious education in a lot of them!

Undercover Elephant

Should we also have mandatory training for pedestrians before they're allowed to cross the road?

tigerboon

Korat wrote: »

The current situation is irresponsible and putting lives at risk, it's surprising that cycling groups haven't demanded compulsory training for all cyclists on the road.

How many people have been killed by bikes in the recent past?

Qualitymark

Korat wrote: »

Bicycles are different again, so really there should be some training before you can use a bicycle on public roads, regardless of your previous driving experience.

What training would you suggest, Korat? Would it be different from the training that I'm told many (most?) schools offer - http://www.letsgethealthy.ie/images/safecyclinginformation.pdf

CramCycle

glued wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back any of that up whatsoever? The idea that people will spend more money in a pedestrianised or car free city is nonsense and completely unfounded. If you've ever been off the bike and walked through Dublin you are probably aware of the problems of cycling in Dublin, particularly the issue of breaking red lights in areas with heavy footfall.

It seems as if some people have their heads embedded deeply in the sand over this whole issue. The current solution isn't working but banning cars from the city isn't a solution. It creates far more problems than it solves. It will never happen in Dublin anyway.

glued wrote: »

So you have no evidence whatsoever? Just as I suspected.

There are several studies showing the benefits to an economy from money spent on pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Try Google, should be top of the list with basic search parameters.

Studies in the UK have shown cycling infrastructure pays for itself if only one rider more takes up cycling regularly on it over its lifetime (3 times a week actually so not even that regularly).

In Iowa, cyclists are predicted by their mode of transport to have reduced the cost of health care by 87million dollars.

In Australia they predict a 5 fold return economically on all money spent by the government on cycling infrastructure.

In the US that jumps up to between 6 and 24 fold.

The London school of economics predicts an average return on investment of 13 fold but so far the return is actually 19 fold in the UK.

Will get links later in the week.

Qualitymark

Why Dutch women cycle more than American women: the Americans (like the Irish) spend most of their time chauffeuring children around and doing the messages: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/oct/03/the-reason-fewer-us-women-cycle-than-the-dutch-is-not-what-you-think-it-is

A comment at the foot of the piece:

I can assure you that many Dutch motorists are pretty bad as well. But the point is that no matter how homicidally incompetent they might be:

- Having segregated cycle tracks everywhere that it matters means that not even the worst of them can actually get at you to do you any damage, and

- The Netherlands (like most of continental Europe) having a law of strict liability means that they'd be for the high jump if they did: "momentary lapse of attention" or "the sun was in my eyes" most emphatically not acceptable as excuses in court.

Leroy42

Strict liability, what does it actually mean? Is it that in every instance the vehicle is at fault or just that the burden of proof is onthe vehicle to prove the cyclist at fault?

Don't we currently operate strict liability here already? Or least that is my understanding that in a accident between car/truck etc and bicycle the bigger is deemed responsible.

Does this hold true for pedestrians and cyclists?

manafana

Leroy42 wrote: »

Strict liability, what does it actually mean? Is it that in every instance the vehicle is at fault or just that the burden of proof is onthe vehicle to prove the cyclist at fault?

Don't we currently operate strict liability here already? Or least that is my understanding that in a accident between car/truck etc and bicycle the bigger is deemed responsible.

Does this hold true for pedestrians and cyclists?

not sure how we operate here, but think in holland the car is to blame over a cyclist unless the cyclist broke the law in causing the accident.

Walking this morning on canal a car plowed through with the pedistrian light green, id prefer a bicycle do that myself.

Qualitymark

A nice piece on myths about cycle infrastructure - "We can't do it… our roads are too narrow… too hilly… costs too much… distances too great…" http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

In answer to Leroy's question, in the Netherlands it is assumed that a driver, who's driving three tons or so of metal, is under a greater requirement to be cautious than a pedestrian or cyclist. So cars give way to pedestrians and cyclists automatically.

However, the Dutch have built and are building their infrastructure to remove contact between vehicles and other road users. Older cycle lanes were on streets, the next generation were separated by kerbs, and the newest ones are separate paths beside roads with a pavement, parked cars or a grass kerb between the cyclists and the cars. Junctions are carefully designed for cyclist safety - the place where a cyclist meets a turning vehicle is the most dangerous, everywhere.

It's not only bicycles that use the cycle lanes; they are also used by mopeds (cyclists don't like this much, the mopeds' speed making them dangerous and unsocial), and by one-person micro-cars used by the disabled, including the very old.

From the same blog http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html:

Cyclists should never mix with high speed or high volume motor traffic. A third of all roads in the Netherlands have a speed limit of 30 km/h or lower, most 50 km/h (30 mph) roads provide cyclists with a segregated path, as do many 30 km/h roads with higher volumes of traffic.

From the same site: designing roads to eliminate 'dooring' of cyclists http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2015/03/eliminating-risk-of-dooring-good-cycle.html

ezra_pound

In litigation, strict liability means that it is not necessary to prove recklessness or negligence. In a criminal matter, it means that it is not necessary to prove intent, or mens rea.

rp

ezra_pound wrote: »

In litigation, strict liability means that it is not necessary to prove recklessness or negligence. In a criminal matter, it means that it is not necessary to prove intent, or mens rea.

Strict liability is usually applied to dangerous activities. With the recent statement by the RSA that cars are 'potential murder vehicles', we should align with most other European countries in this.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/02/strict-liability.html

tomasrojo

Most detailed commentary I've read says the Dutch don't have strict liability, as such.

Nevertheless, the Dutch law on who’s liable for the cost of damages and injuries in collisions between motorists and cyclists takes a sympathetic view of the cyclist, especially if he’s a child under 14 years of age.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/06/13/are-dutch-motorists-strictly-liable-if-they-collide-with-a-cyclist/

Undercover Elephant

Just to add - the point of strict liability in this context is not to make some sort of moral judgment about fault. It's to ensure that any injuries are covered by insurance. The Dutch system gets to more or less the same place by a slightly different route, as described in the article linked by tomasrojo.

RainyDay

glued wrote: »

There are as many idiots on two wheels as there are on four.

Probably true on a percentage basis anyway. The main difference is that the idiots on four wheels kill about 200 people each year and maim thousands of others. The idiots on two wheels don't.

buffalo

A good critical analysis of the recent IPA survey of 'shoppers' that claimed a potential 24% drop in spend in the city centre given the council's possible plans:

http://dublininquirer.com/2015/08/12/is-the-irish-parking-associations-survey-skewed/

traprunner

buffalo wrote: »

A good critical analysis of the recent IPA survey of 'shoppers' that claimed a potential 24% drop in spend in the city centre given the council's possible plans:

http://dublininquirer.com/2015/08/12/is-the-irish-parking-associations-survey-skewed/

The survey results sound like Red C stood at the entrance to a car park to do a survey.

Good critical thinking by the Dublin Inquirer.

Leroy42

I remember hearing about this survey on NT. I remember thinking that here is the ICP running a survey telling everyone that without cars (and therefore carparking) everyone will suffer!

And not one question for the host regarding bias. Why only ask car driver what they think? Why not ask everyone?

tomasrojo

I think it must go like this:
Here's a report from the RSA. Hmm. Yes, the introduction conforms with what I already thought to be true. <copy-paste press release>
Here's a survey from the ICP. Hmm. Yes, the introduction conforms with what I already thought to be true. <copy-paste press release>

Thinkingaboutit

Dublin has better public transport than much of the country, but doesn't come close in terms of price or service quality to meeting the needs of a car restricted city centre. There are also disabled and older people with limited mobility who find an adapted car far better than a bus. Also, why can't buses run on something cleaner? I hate being on a bike behind a giant contraption belching out black smoke. I think this is a pipe dream like that 30 km limit and other efforts.

manafana

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Dublin has better public transport than much of the country, but doesn't come close in terms of price or service quality to meeting the needs of a car restricted city centre. There are also disabled and older people with limited mobility who find an adapted car far better than a bus. Also, why can't buses run on something cleaner? I hate being on a bike behind a giant contraption belching out black smoke. I think this is a pipe dream like that 30 km limit and other efforts.

its not stopping people driving into the city is it though its just limiting how much of the road they can take up, and public transport especially the luas is prefect for limited mobility users anyway.

some buses are dirty so are cars mind you too.

The survey figures are quiet positive for the change considering how bias it is it still comes out that not being able park right next to the shops won't affect them

Qualitymark

But we really need to get more housetrained about how we treat our public space. Dublin's got indescribably better in terms of litter (well, most of Dublin) in the last few years, but it's sickening to see people leaving half-eaten food and drinks and cans and packets strewn on buses. Ick

P_Cash

I have to jump in here.

Banning cars from the city will never work with the way the city operates today.

How many of those cars are tourists, day trippers, business people etc. . All of those cars parked in all the multistorys etc across the city, where are you putting them all? If people are too only walk in the city, wheres the car? Wheres the train to get them in to the city?

We are a long way off banning cars

buffalo

P_Cash wrote: »

I have to jump in here.

Banning cars from the city will never work with the way the city operates today.

How many of those cars are tourists, day trippers, business people etc. . All of those cars parked in all the multistorys etc across the city, where are you putting them all? If people are too only walk in the city, wheres the car? Wheres the train to get them in to the city?

We are a long way off banning cars

Have you read the report? There's no banning of cars from the city centre, nor closing of multi-storey car parks.

manafana

buffalo wrote: »

Have you read the report? There's no banning of cars from the city centre, nor closing of multi-storey car parks.

correct, however in long term wouldn't it is a long term plan to park outside the city and move in.

But for now its too free up the middle of the city from cars, the speeding in the city centre is still insane and a far bigger problem than bikes jumping lights.

Leroy42

P_Cash wrote: »

I have to jump in here.

Banning cars from the city will never work with the way the city operates today.

How many of those cars are tourists, day trippers, business people etc. . All of those cars parked in all the multistorys etc across the city, where are you putting them all? If people are too only walk in the city, wheres the car? Wheres the train to get them in to the city?

We are a long way off banning cars

Yes we are and all those things you mention need to be provided.

I agree that simply banning cars will not work, or will have a detremental effect on city centre business.

However, we need to start the conversation somewhere as even car users will admit that the current system is not working and with population due to increase in cities in the future we need to plan for it.

Cities really should be car free zones for those the live within them (as in the car should only be required for occasional use) and facilities need to be provided to ensure that people outside the zone have the place to park their vehicles before getting on public transport (be it rail, bus, bike etc).

Of course, what will actually happen, as it did for the bus lanes and Luas, is we will simply ban the cars and that in itself will prove how successful banning the cars is. With the bus lanes, we simply removed a load of lanes from car use and then said we will get around to getting additional bus services when people start using them!

tomasrojo

From an economic point of view, retail and entertainment can't get many more people in by car. The canal bridges are a very big limiting factor.

There is no proposal from ICP/Brown Thomas/Arnotts, apart from business as usual, which is a maxed-out scenario.

The poor air quality, which is almost entirely due to private motor transport, is another huge negative. It may account for more premature deaths than collisions. (Anyone know whether any decent research has been done on this for Dublin, as it has been for London?)

Qualitymark

Dublin City Council also needs to do something serious about bike parking. I walked three streets before finding even a road sign - much less a dedicated bike rack - near Exchequer Street the other day. Rainy day, too, so fewer bikes than usual in town.

There are far too few bicycle parking places, and they often seem to be randomly placed.

Poor air quality - I read recently that respiratory illnesses are one of the leading causes of death in Ireland… not sure where the link was. But there's no question but getting more people cycling would improve all kinds of health, and a car-free city centre would be much nicer to live in.

Maybe the government could offer a waiver on property tax and water rates plus free bus fares to certain suburbs if they were car-free

tomasrojo

I think that is a point that gets lost in general economic arguments: poor respiratory health and consequent premature death is a very large economic cost. There's a tendency to neglect most of the "negative externalities" around private motor transport. Which is sort of understandable, as they are so numerous. But, hey, red-light jumping!

Undercover Elephant

Dublin is actually one of the better capital cities for air quality, just behind Tallinn. This was on the BBC's website a couple of weeks ago - phone not helping me find it now.

Of course, that's not comparing like with like. Dublin is quite small and has one side comprised of water.

magicbastarder

one of the issues with air quality would be how many diesel cars have been sold in ireland over the last ten years. the irish fell in love with diesel, even when a diesel car was a lesser choice for many.

tomasrojo

Diesel cars were promoted in part on environmental grounds, because of their greater fuel efficiency, weren't they? One of those unintended consequences.

magicbastarder

yep, but people generally bought them because they were cheaper to run.