Should cycle lanes be demolished?

GreatDefector

tomasrojo wrote: »

Having been very credibly threatened with extreme violence for tapping on the trunk of a car to let the driver know a light had changed, I don't recommend any of these strategies.

Yeah, I gave a driver the finger for ploughing through the roundabout without stopping or looking and being on his phone while I was well established on the roundabout making a turn

He stopped, chased me and swung kicks at me (completely missed me and I cycled on)..... Not worth it if serious

check_six

2RockMountain wrote: »

I was wondering yesterday, after a 99D Micra driver with N-plates gave a huge rev just behind me to try to scare me off the 2-lane road onto the cycle lane, about the legality of carrying a mace.



I caught up on him in traffic, and landed at his window with a few loud slaps on the roof, so hopefully, he won't be so keen to bully other cyclists in future. But a mace would be nice.

Do you do a version of that mace with a carbon fibre shaft? I might be interested in purchasing one. I'm not interested in a hi-vis variant though.

magicbastarder

carbon fibre would be too brittle. you want to go old school cro-moly.

Chuchote

Surely what we should get rid of is on-street parking? It's insane that most of the road should be taken up by lines of stationary cars. And the space could be used for proper protected cycle lanes with pavement outside them, which would encourage parents to get their kids cycling to school, etc, which would in turn take many cars off the road - look at the difference in traffic as soon as the school holidays happen.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely what we should get rid of is on-street parking? It's insane that most of the road should be taken up by lines of stationary cars.

That seems to be one of the things that blocks a lot of decent initiatives: people objecting (very, very strongly) to loss of parking spaces.

The correct use of public space is for the storage of private property. It's the natural order of things.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

That seems to be one of the things that blocks a lot of decent initiatives: people objecting (very, very strongly) to loss of parking spaces.

The correct use of public space is for the storage of private property. It's the natural order of things.

There was a suggested initiative in Phibsboro last year, as part of a push to try reclaim the village space from the N2/N3 junction*, to use parking spaces as picnic spots. Grab a table and a couple of chairs and set up camp for a few hours. I don't know if anyone actually did it though.




*not precise, but effectively the case

check_six

Can anyone tell me why the taxi rank across the road from the Shelbourne Hotel has been dressed up to look like a bicycle lane? Seems a bit pointless. Likewise, the parking bay opposite Andrews St post office has contraflow bike lane markings all over it. Why bother putting up the extra signs for a bike lane that does not exist?

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely what we should get rid of is on-street parking?

not going to benefit cyclists per se, but i was on to a councillor about the parking on south william street and he was able to confirm that some, maybe all on street parking will be removed. i'll have to dig out the mail to be sure, but it will make it a much more pleasant street, the footpaths are ludicrously narrow for a primarily retail street.

Oymyakon

I would love to see the parking spots removed from Swords main st.

galwaycyclist

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely what we should get rid of is on-street parking? It's insane that most of the road should be taken up by lines of stationary cars. And the space could be used for proper protected cycle lanes with pavement outside them, which would encourage parents to get their kids cycling to school, etc, which would in turn take many cars off the road - look at the difference in traffic as soon as the school holidays happen.

Budget 2016: Cycling Campaign calls for car-parking income to be taken from councils

http://www.galwaycycling.org/budget-2016-cycling-campaign-calls-for-car-parking-income-to-be-taken-from-councils/

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'll have to dig out the mail to be sure, but it will make it a much more pleasant street, the footpaths are ludicrously narrow for a primarily retail street.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPLY:
As part of the public realm improvements proposed under the Grafton Street Quarter Public Realm Plan, it is generally intended that on street parking for private vehicles be removed, including on South William Street.

Under the Plan, improvement works have already been completed at Grafton Street itself and at Johnson’s Court and part of Wicklow Street. Part 8 planning approval is in place and detailed design works are well advanced for public realm improvements in the Chatham Street, Harry Street area. Design proposals for improvements at Clarendon Street / Clarendon Row are due to be submitted for Part 8 planning approval shortly. While it is difficult to indicate a timeframe for the development of the detailed proposals for public realm improvements at South William Street, I can confirm that the designs will provide for removal of car parking with an improved pedestrian environment to include widened footpaths.

For further information, the Grafton Street Quarter Public Realm Plan is available on the website

Chuchote

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Budget 2016: Cycling Campaign calls for car-parking income to be taken from councils

I'm not suggesting at all that parking should be abolished - simply that it should be off-street: deep and high-rise car parks would actually give councils a far more reliable source of income, since it's harder to dodge paying if you have to drive through a timed pay gate on the way out.

If parking was all off-street, it would return more acreage of driving, cycling and walking space to us than any single action.

galwaycyclist

Chuchote wrote: »

I'm not suggesting at all that parking should be abolished - simply that it should be off-street: deep and high-rise car parks would actually give councils a far more reliable source of income, since it's harder to dodge paying if you have to drive through a timed pay gate on the way out.

If parking was all off-street, it would return more acreage of driving, cycling and walking space to us than any single action.

The Galway Cycling Campaign aren't either. But permitting councils to derive income from car parking creates an enormous and obvious conflict of interest regarding transport policy in general.

In the specific it is what leads to cycle lanes that disappear just where they are needed - because car parking is "more important". It also leads to other policies that impact and exclude cyclists - such as one way streets that are created as a way of dedicating traffic lanes to car parking.

If we don't analyse why we get unworkable infrastructure we cant expect to fix it.

Chuchote

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The Galway Cycling Campaign aren't either. But permitting councils to derive income from car parking creates an enormous and obvious conflict of interest regarding transport policy in general.

In the specific it is what leads to cycle lanes that disappear just where they are needed - because car parking is "more important". It also leads to other policies that impact and exclude cyclists - such as one way streets that are created as a way of dedicating traffic lanes to car parking.

If we don't analyse why we get unworkable infrastructure we cant expect to fix it.

GC, to reiterate, what I'm saying is that building off-road car parks will make that income *more reliable* and *larger*, because drivers won't be able to risk it for a biscuit - they'll have to pay.

I don't see much wrong with councils getting an income from parking, myself - after all, they have local things to do with the money. Though I'm a bit hazy about who runs what - the councils don't maintain roads any more, or do they? do they pay for the libraries or is that central? I know schools are central here, where in some other countries they're locally funded…

I was talking to a couple of bus drivers about the number of buses on routes, the number of stops and how close together or far apart they are, the road markings, etc - and they told me that CIE/Dublin Bus/etc have nothing to do with this, it's all decided by the National Roads Authority. I assume this is the same with cycle lanes, so if we're politicking, we should be sending out our seducteurs/seductresses to cosy up to those civil servants: "Oooh, your eyes are such a beautiful deep grey… aren't protected cycle lanes the most wonderful thing…?"

tomasrojo

AFAIK, the local authorities are the ones to blame for cycle lanes in general.

As for revenue from parking, think of Dublin City Centre. I know that the council acknowledges that the city centre, for various reasons, can't take many more cars. In fact, it would benefit from having very many fewer. But if a measure leads to a large drop in revenue (whether that's derived from on-street or off-street parking), the council can't realistically take that measure, as they'll have a budget crisis (as well as coming under enormous pressure from the Arnotts/Brown Thomas axis of evil).

The only thing I can think of is off-street parking and making through-traffic pretty much impossible. That way, Dublin City Council can get revenue from people who are genuinely coming to town by car, and get rid off all the people using the city centre as a shortcut.

Chuchote

What I would do, paaairsonally, is have genuine park-and-ride facilities outside the city at the main Luas stops. This was supposed to happen - a cheap or free place to leave your car so you could hop on to the Luas and use it to ride into town. But the greedaholics saw an opportunity of mulcting the motorists so it's unaffordable to use these parking lots, and what should have been a way of freeing the city centre became another moneyspinner. Crazy.

tomasrojo

Yes, and charging for the Park and Ride facilities, beyond a nominal fee, also results in disruptive levels of parking in the neighbourhoods near Luas stops. For example, Lakelands estate directly abuts the Stillorgan Luas stop, but there is no pedestrian access to the Luas stop from the estate, so you have to walk round in a big circle along the Upper Kilmacud Road and through the Sandyford Industrial Estate. The residents don't want one because they don't want the estate full of commuters' cars.

I'd prefer to have the access to the Luas if I lived there, but they're right about the commuters' cars, because that's what happens in Wedgewood at the Kilmacud stop, for example.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

But if a measure leads to a large drop in revenue (whether that's derived from on-street or off-street parking), the council can't realistically take that measure, as they'll have a budget crisis (as well as coming under enormous pressure from the Arnotts/Brown Thomas axis of evil).

i'm still amazed that brown thomas got planning permission for that car park. you've to navigate several narrow shopping streets to get to it, and several different narrow shopping streets to get away from it.

we recently saw a woman take a right out of the exit onto south william street. that was a bit of a cluster****.

magicbastarder

Executive punches cyclist for riding bike on Dublin footpath
Man pleads guilty to assault after shouldering victim to ground and staring to strangle him

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/executive-punches-cyclist-for-riding-bike-on-dublin-footpath-1.2715085

buffalo

Irish Times wrote:

staring to strangle him

That's some Darth Vader **** right there.

Chuchote

I've noticed a lot of clearly heavily pregnant men and women in cars rushing through the streets beeping and swerving — didn't get a glimpse of the actual drivers below the congested face, but obviously they're heading for a maternity hospital, given their speed and hysteria.

magicbastarder

motorists seem to be very friendly these days; i've had a few beeping at me, presumably in a 'tally ho! keep it up, old bean!' way, in the last few days.

ED E

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, and charging for the Park and Ride facilities, beyond a nominal fee, also results in disruptive levels of parking in the neighbourhoods near Luas stops. For example, Lakelands estate directly abuts the Stillorgan Luas stop, but there is no pedestrian access to the Luas stop from the estate, so you have to walk round in a big circle along the Upper Kilmacud Road and through the Sandyford Industrial Estate. The residents don't want one because they don't want the estate full of commuters' cars.

I'd prefer to have the access to the Luas if I lived there, but they're right about the commuters' cars, because that's what happens in Wedgewood at the Kilmacud stop, for example.

Live near a luas stop, f'ckin nightmare whenever anything brings crowds to the city.

2RockMountain

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/executive-punches-cyclist-for-riding-bike-on-dublin-footpath-1.2715085

I wouldn't mind the shouldering tbh, I've probably done that myself. But strangulation is a tad too far.

Macy0161

2RockMountain wrote: »

I wouldn't mind the shouldering tbh, I've probably done that myself.

I've seen this type of comment on a number of threads. We've seen already this year the potential consequences of (an apparently accidental) pedestrian/ cyclist collisions, so for people to defend that behaviour is quite shocking to be honest. "Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement" wouldn't clear my conscience anyway.

2RockMountain

Macy0161 wrote: »

I've seen this type of comment on a number of threads. We've seen already this year the potential consequences of (an apparently accidental) pedestrian/ cyclist collisions, so for people to defend that behaviour is quite shocking to be honest. "Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement" wouldn't clear my conscience anyway.

Fair point, there probably was a bit of bravado going on there. I have challenged cyclists on pavements, sometimes by blocking their route or refusing to move, with a variety responses from embarrassed apologies to effing and blinding and threats.

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

Is there any way to request the council remove parking spaces on certain stretches of the city?

best approach i've had (see above) is to find out your local friendly cyclist councillor and email them.

2RockMountain

Deedsie wrote: »

Is there any way to request the council remove parking spaces on certain stretches of the city?

It would be great if they would remove the parking spaces on Pembroke Street Upper from Fitzwilliam Square South to Leeson Street Lower. There are basically 4 lines of cars with the current layout.

It would be a lot safer if there was a cycle lane along the left handside. Way too congested at the moment

magicbastarder wrote: »

best approach i've had (see above) is to find out your local friendly cyclist councillor and email them.

Would be very, very difficult to make this happen.

2RockMountain

They won't enforce no-parking rules on existing cycle lanes, so it is very unlikely that they will remove car parking to provide more cycle lanes.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

We will await this report and I also point out that people live in
Fitzwilliam Sq and Pembroke St so they also have rights."

... to have their private property stored on public land at subsidised rates.