Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclist assaulted

123457

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    my point being is why would a retailer operate both a depot and a shop, and not just combine the two into one unit on the outskirts of the town?
    because that seems to be the model anyway.

    to be fair, i'm really just giving out about planning law practice here.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    The depots are a good idea on one hand, on the other hand getting the land got these depots and the cost of it may be prohibitive.

    You're also putting maybe 4 vehicles at least on the road where one was before, with its associated harm to the environment. You're also paying extra tax, insurance and fuel for many vehicles where one did before, and multiplying wages by 4 too (the last part is no bad thing!).

    Or instead you could watch out for the blind spots in HGV's....

    There are also currently restrictions on the time certain types of HGV can be in the city, and there's a site where you can check if they have a permit to be there or not beyond that I think, or maybe that was London.

    Anecdotally, as a member of the statistically most affected group by HGV's, I don't have issues with then at all. I'm aware of the blins spots, they're the biggest, slowest and often the loudest vehicles on the road so I never fail to see/hear them coming/up ahead of me and cycle accordingly. There are bad eggs in every mode of transport. I've had innumerable issues with coaches, taxis, buses, private cars etc but none with HGV's in the city centre. Reducing the total traffic would appear a better aim for cyclist safety in the city centre imo.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Yeah, I'd be interested if anyone with knowledge of how these redistribution depots function chipped in.

    I don't see people driving to the outskirts of town to buy everything. The current model of doing big shops in parks on the outskirts of town might ultimately be threatened by ending the mispricing of car journeys anyway. Not that that's imminent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    nee wrote: »
    Anecdotally, as a member of the statistically most affected group by HGV's, I don't have issues with then at all. I'm aware of the blins spots, they're the biggest, slowest and often the loudest vehicles on the road so I never fail to see/hear them coming/up ahead of me and cycle accordingly. There are bad eggs in every mode of transport. I've had innumerable issues with coaches, taxis, buses, private cars etc but none with HGV's in the city centre.

    I was once on the NCR in the right-hand lane waiting to go into the Phoenix Park, when a huge HGV, Argos, I think it was, came hurtling down the road (and I mean really hurtling), heading to turn down Infirmary Road, swinging wide right. I was right in his trajectory. I had to wave frantically (wrist lights) and he braked hard and managed to avoid me.

    I'm amazed he could even do that turn at speed, but he was certainly going to give it a shot.

    I don't know. I'm not sure that the 70% of cyclist road deaths in urban areas are all because of cyclists making mistakes around HGVs. There fundamentally is a mismatch between city streets and HGVs.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I don't see people driving to the outskirts of town to buy everything. The current model of doing big shops in parks on the outskirts of town might ultimately be threatened by ending the mispricing of car journeys anyway. Not that that's imminent.
    i think the most extreme example i saw was in the UK - we were staying in shepton mallet last year. the town centre was gutted - probably only a couple of cafes and a couple of charity shops on main street, most properties closed up.
    the shopping centre about half a mile was doing fine - tesco/aldi/jd sports etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    my point being is why would a retailer operate both a depot and a shop, and not just combine the two into one unit on the outskirts of the town?
    because that seems to be the model anyway.

    to be fair, i'm really just giving out about planning law practice here.

    There are a range a possible solutions here, Gotenburg have done some good work in this area;

    http://www.civitas.eu/node/39952

    http://www.civitas.eu/sites/default/files/c-2-c-goods_april_2010_0.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    England has an awful lot of post-industrial towns where not even a Poundland will survive in the high street. It's more of a function of complete economic collapse locally. If there were people residing near the high street who had decent amounts of money, shops would do ok there.

    I mean, Dublin is ringed by inexpensive large retail outlets, but the city centre hasn't been boarded up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    There are a range a possible solutions here, Gotenburg have done some good work in this area;

    http://www.civitas.eu/node/39952

    http://www.civitas.eu/sites/default/files/c-2-c-goods_april_2010_0.pdf

    Thanks! Must read around this a bit more. I'm interested in this, but I'm not all that well informed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I think more directly relevant is that insurers are allowed to impose higher premiums on younger drivers, which is similar to discrimination on gender.

    My objection is to the idea that charging men more than women should be illegal because 'unequal', but charging the old more than the young isn't seen as similarly 'unequal'.
    nee wrote: »
    There are also currently restrictions on the time certain types of HGV can be in the city, and there's a site where you can check if they have a permit to be there or not beyond that I think, or maybe that was London.

    There's supposed to be an app coming:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dubliners-may-get-phone-app-to-check-truck-legitimacy-1.2710115
    Dubliners may get phone app to check truck legitimacy
    App would enable monitoring of whether vehicles have permits to be in a city area

    Personally, I'm so terrified of HGVs that if a truck comes up behind me I get to the pavement and dismount till it's gone well ahead. They shouldn't be in cities.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Chuchote wrote: »
    My objection is to the idea that charging men more than women should be illegal because 'unequal', but charging the old more than the young isn't seen as similarly 'unequal'.

    Yes, but in the other context (motor insurance) the young automatically get charged more than the old. Not all young drivers are risky drivers, in the same way that not all male drivers are risky drivers.

    (I don't pay motor insurance, so it's only an academic argument to me.)

    I'm not sure if there is a philosophical framework to judge when simple risk factoring turns into unacceptable discrimination.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    England has an awful lot of post-industrial towns where not even a Poundland will survive in the high street. It's more of a function of complete economic collapse locally. If there were people residing near the high street who had decent amounts of money, shops would do ok there.
    the shopping complex outside the town was doing just fine. i suspect it was acting as a magnet for people for miles around doing their shopping, so the surrounding towns were probably completely turned into ghost towns.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Yes, but (hypotheticals ahoy) the shopping complex, as you say, was probably getting shoppers from several towns, some of which were perhaps not derelict. If you stayed in one of those towns, you would conclude that the out-of-town retail had not mortally damaged the town.

    I don't doubt that out-of-town retail takes business from city-centre retail. But in and of itself to make the town a ghost town is unlikely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    By the way (question to the floor), are the redistribution depots owned by the retailers in Germany, Sweden, etc? Or are they owned by the municipality, or some other body?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    England has an awful lot of post-industrial towns where not even a Poundland will survive in the high street. It's more of a function of complete economic collapse locally. If there were people residing near the high street who had decent amounts of money, shops would do ok there.

    I mean, Dublin is ringed by inexpensive large retail outlets, but the city centre hasn't been boarded up.

    Its nothing to do with economic collapse but more to do with how people live/shop. The high street in the UK started to die when they lifted planning restrictions on the size of supermarkets. Even smaller supermarkets in towns could not compete with the "superstore" outside town.

    Also with more woman working, the traditional, stay at home wife that could visit the Butchers, bakers etc disappeared and it was quicker to get everything under one roof.
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Yeah, I'd be interested if anyone with knowledge of how these redistribution depots function chipped in.

    Basically all the producers send products to a Central depot and its is then sent out to stores as each store needs the stuff.

    Other products locally produced are usually sent direct to the store/shop.

    Where I worked we had around 6 deliveries a week from the distribution depot in the UK per week and 20+ from smaller suppliers in Ireland.

    The 40ft trucks that came from the UK contained all the pallets for the Irish stores the company had at the time. Each one was packed with exactly the stock that the store was running short on. One pallet could contain 40-50 different products for many departments. A shop would not be send a pallet of baked beans or a pallet of tomato sauce. there would be a few trays of each mixed in with the other stuff.

    If distribution depots were to open to the public not all stock would be available and it would be like a super Argos..

    Most peoples idea of hell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭endagibson


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Its nothing to do with economic collapse but more to do with how people live/shop. The high street in the UK started to die when they lifted planning restrictions on the size of supermarkets. Even smaller supermarkets in towns could not compete with the "superstore" outside town.
    I think there's more to it than that. Most regular shops now cannot afford high street rents and rates. Therefore the high street ends up filled with banks, building societies and bookies.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I was once on the NCR in the right-hand lane waiting to go into the Phoenix Park, when a huge HGV, Argos, I think it was, came hurtling down the road (and I mean really hurtling), heading to turn down Infirmary Road, swinging wide right. I was right in his trajectory. I had to wave frantically (wrist lights) and he braked hard and managed to avoid me.

    I'm amazed he could even do that turn at speed, but he was certainly going to give it a shot.

    I don't know. I'm not sure that the 70% of cyclist road deaths in urban areas are all because of cyclists making mistakes around HGVs. There fundamentally is a mismatch between city streets and HGVs.

    There are dickhead HGV drovers, motorists, cyclists...I have plenty of stories about each and every type of road user I could whip out!

    In the same way most people have fixed and negative views on cyclists because a lot of them don't cycle through the city on a regular basis, and, due to a subsequent lack of understanding of the risks we take, and as a consequence the way we ride (not using unsuitable cycle lanes etc.) are extremely frustrated at cyclists, we get annoyed by this (so popular is this that cyclist bashing/negativity is in the charter of this website, and 100% of my non cycling friends and family don't understand things like not cycling in the cycle lanes, taking your space in the road etc. and are annoyed).
    The same thing rings through for HGV drivers. I can almost guarantee that every cyclist with a big problem with HGV's has never driven one, or spent time in and around them. They don't understand them

    I think a bot of compassion and mutual understanding seems largely absent in how cyclists approach and deal with HGV's.

    Ideally they wouldn't be in the city, but until there is a workable alternative but they are, and it's really, really not that hard to deal with them. They're the biggest, loudest, slowest moving vehicles on the road. You can't miss them one way or another!

    Also a point to make is that HGV drivers have to do regular CPD's to retain their licensees. They're tested on a regular and ongoing basis, unlike almost every other road user.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Its nothing to do with economic collapse but more to do with how people live/shop. The high street in the UK started to die when they lifted planning restrictions on the size of supermarkets. Even smaller supermarkets in towns could not compete with the "superstore" outside town.

    Good point, but I'm not really talking about the death of the traditional high street. I'm talking about towns in England where there are close to no shops or businesses in the high street, not just an absence of traditional traders.

    I went to Hull once on sort of a Philip Larkin pilgrimage, and, while it's not the most economically depressed town in England, it really has so many streets with nothing much on them. Leeds, in contrast, is nothing like that; pretty active town. And Manchester is stuffed full of active shops and restaurants. York even more so, given that it's smaller.

    Hull was pretty bad, but there are post-industrial towns that are much worse. So it's much more than lifestyle change. It's an almost complete lack of any economic activity.
    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Basically all the producers send products to a Central depot and its is then sent out to stores as each store needs the stuff.

    Other products locally produced are usually sent direct to the store/shop.

    Where I worked we had around 6 deliveries a week from the distribution depot in the UK per week and 20+ from smaller suppliers in Ireland.

    The 40ft trucks that came from the UK contained all the pallets for the Irish stores the company had at the time. Each one was packed with exactly the stock that the store was running short on. One pallet could contain 40-50 different products for many departments. A shop would not be send a pallet of baked beans or a pallet of tomato sauce. there would be a few trays of each mixed in with the other stuff.

    If distribution depots were to open to the public not all stock would be available and it would be like a super Argos..

    Most peoples idea of hell.

    That's very interesting. Is that a redistribution point for one company? How does that compare to the redistribution model discussed earlier for Sweden and Germany (no HGVs allowed in city centres, and all HGVs drop off their loads to be decanted into small vehicles for that last few kilometers). I imagine there's quite a bit of overlap.

    (I'm not being lazy! I just have no idea where to read up about these things, and I'm actually pretty interested. And first-hand accounts are always valuable.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,947 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    nee wrote: »
    There are dickhead HGV drovers, motorists, cyclists...I have plenty of stories about each and every type of road user I could whip out!


    Certainly, in the story I told, the driver's behaviour was extraordinary. It was very dark and late, so I can only assume he was in a hurry and was taking a chance that no-one was around.

    But (and I know I won't convince you on this!) for the life of me, I can't see any sanity in having vehicles like HGVs in towns. Despite drivers' professionalism and rigorous testing and so on, they disproportionately kill cyclists and pedestrians (as I said, 70% of urban cyclist deaths are down to HGVs). They're huge, ungainly, have poor sight lines and have unsurvivable momentum at even low speeds.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    endagibson wrote: »
    I think there's more to it than that. Most regular shops now cannot afford high street rents and rates. Therefore the high street ends up filled with banks, building societies and bookies.

    Banks?? really! You must have not been it the UK recently!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    That's very interesting. Is that a redistribution point for one company? How does that compare to the redistribution model discussed earlier for Sweden and Germany (no HGVs allowed in city centres, and all HGVs drop off their loads to be decanted into small vehicles for that last few kilometers). I imagine there's quite a bit of overlap.

    (I'm not being lazy! I just have no idea where to read up about these things, and I'm actually pretty interested. And first-hand accounts are always valuable.)

    Yes one company. But all use the same "modes" if you could call it that.. Cant compare it though.. Irish road traffic law restricts the weight for light vehicles.

    One pallet could put a LGV over its limit and driver loose license etc..

    British Railways started it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Universal_Trolley_Equipment

    What shops now use to transport perishable goods.

    40ft Freightliner containers.. Or shipping ones as we call them now, were developed by British Rail.

    Plants came on Dutch trolleys.. Again custom to the customer.

    Each trolley or pallet is destined for one shop. One truck..

    50+ smaller trucks is not good. M&S did it.. But went back to the 40fter. With 4 axles which is not banned in DCC!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Good point, but I'm not really talking about the death of the traditional high street. I'm talking about towns in England where there are close to no shops or businesses in the high street, not just an absence of traditional traders.

    I went to Hull once on sort of a Philip Larkin pilgrimage, and, while it's not the most economically depressed town in England, it really has so many streets with nothing much on them.

    Both once great fishing towns.. I hope they come back now the UK is out Europe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duoq7esgf5s


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,413 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    endagibson wrote: »
    I think there's more to it than that. Most regular shops now cannot afford high street rents and rates. Therefore the high street ends up filled with banks, building societies and bookies.

    Banks and bookies , both are very successful in transitioning to online and closing physical stores


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Its nothing to do with economic collapse but more to do with how people live/shop. The high street in the UK started to die when they lifted planning restrictions on the size of supermarkets. Even smaller supermarkets in towns could not compete with the "superstore" outside town.

    I don't know about that. In my locality, since the death of the Celtic Tiger a street of about 20 shops has had 14 shuttered for most of the time since; occasionally a shop opens, but shuts again in a few months. Even the 'We Buy Your Clothes' shop shut! And I've seen the same in small towns that I've visited in the last year.
    Also with more woman working, the traditional, stay at home wife that could visit the Butchers, bakers etc disappeared and it was quicker to get everything under one roof.

    In the 1950s, butchers, bakers, greengrocers and newsagents all delivered. You could order over the phone, or you could wander down the street and choose your goods and have the van bring them to the house.

    A more civilised time, mind; it was the norm then for everyone in the family to come home for lunch, aka 'dinner', and then go back to school or work. And there was little of the insanity of working long hours of overtime, unless you were in a factory that had a big order on, and then the work was paid at a higher rate.
    Where I worked we had around 6 deliveries a week from the distribution depot in the UK per week and 20+ from smaller suppliers in Ireland.

    The 40ft trucks that came from the UK contained all the pallets for the Irish stores the company had at the time. Each one was packed with exactly the stock that the store was running short on. One pallet could contain 40-50 different products for many departments. A shop would not be send a pallet of baked beans or a pallet of tomato sauce. there would be a few trays of each mixed in with the other stuff.

    Brexit is really going to screw this up. Either the goods will be delivered directly to Ireland from Europe, or we'll be hit with double tariffs as it comes through a non-EU country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Chuchote wrote: »
    .......



    In the 1950s, butchers, bakers, greengrocers and newsagents all delivered. You could order over the phone, or you could wander down the street and choose your goods and have the van bring them to the house.

    A more civilised time, mind; it was the norm then for everyone in the family to come home for lunch, aka 'dinner', and then go back to school or work. And there was little of the insanity of working long hours of overtime, unless you were in a factory that had a big order on, and then the work was paid at a higher rate.

    .......

    As long as you discount the industrial schools, TB, emigration, record low population levels, grinding poverty, church dominated healthcare and education systems, the lack of infrastructure (such as electricity beyond the cities and towns) and the lack of free schooling......it was a grand time.

    And work wasn't paid at a higher rate. The reason cycling rates were so high in the 1950s was because people couldn't afford cars - they weren't cycling because it was a lifestyle choice, they were cycling because most could only afford bikes for day-to-day transport.

    From what I know of the period, I'd prefer now - we've never been healthier, wealthier or safer - whether on or off the bike ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    All very true. Though not about the bicycles; cars were simply not generally seen as a way to go to work. Living in Dalkey, virtually all the local civil servants, etc, took the Number 8 into town to work. Businesspeople were more likely to drive, but they were the exception. The GPO had a gigantic cycle park in the centre of the building and most people who worked there — the civil servants running the postal service — cycled in, including a succession of Secretaries of the Department, until the 1990s at least.

    But the good parts of that lifestyle are still in operation in many countries: if you move to France or Spain you're still likely to find people living that way.

    The industrial schools, the TB, the emigration: these came from an arch-Catholic rule that we still haven't shaken off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Chuchote wrote: »
    All very true. Though not about the bicycles; cars were simply not generally seen as a way to go to work. Living in Dalkey, virtually all the local civil servants, etc, took the Number 8 into town to work. Businesspeople were more likely to drive, but they were the exception. The GPO had a gigantic cycle park in the centre of the building and most people who worked there — the civil servants running the postal service — cycled in, including a succession of Secretaries of the Department, until the 1990s at least.

    But the good parts of that lifestyle are still in operation in many countries: if you move to France or Spain you're still likely to find people living that way.

    The industrial schools, the TB, the emigration: these came from an arch-Catholic rule that we still haven't shaken off.

    Really, that's your metric - Dalkey? How much the population of the country live there - 1%?

    I think you'll find TB was down to the cramped and over-crowded living conditions, poor standard of housing and lack of sanitation capacity. And whether they came about by the hand of the state, the church or a combination of both is immaterial - the fact is in 1950s TB was a problem, it isn't now, thankfully (or at least not nearly on the same scale)

    And yes, I don't doubt that a middle-class lifestyle centred on Dalkey and taking the tram to work was a fine existence at the time (Hugh Leonard's writings tell us as much, but even he needed a scholarship to go to Pres) but I'd rather fancy that the experience of a tenement dweller in Sean McDermott Street or Henrietta Street wasn't as nice. Or a farm labourer.

    And as for France and Spain - that lifestyle is made possible by generous welfare entitlements from the state - it wasn't always thus. I'd imagine if you were a nationalist family in Franco's Spain in the 1950s your prospects and lifestyle were somewhat better that if you were associated with the republicans ;) Likewise if you were in rural France 10 years after the war and were not a Gaullist, I doubt you had much fun.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Jawgap, Dalkey isn't my metric, it's my childhood experience. But the same was true in most places (by "the same" I'm talking about people using buses and bikes to get to work).

    The Church and the State were then hand-in-hand. TB was certainly caused by the State, which — fomented by the Catholic Church — fought tooth-and-nail against vaccination for TB for many years. The Church and the State were hand-in-hand in running the industrial schools and laundries, and in sending poor children 'found begging' to be incarcerated there through the courts.

    We are so used to Ireland that we forget that what would in other countries be seen as a centre-right party is here perceived as centrist; what would in other countries be seen as a centre-left party is seen here as far left. Apart from the righist ex-communist countries that Britain ladled into the European Union, swinging the EU to the right, our country is now probably one of the furthest to the right in the EU.

    You mistake me, my dear. I'm not saying the 1950s were a delightful time. I'm saying that by correctly throwing the filthy cruel practices of those times out, we have also thrown out some good things — being able to shop locally, a cycling and public transport centred society, more sensible work hours.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Jawgap, Dalkey isn't my metric, it's my childhood experience. But the same was true in most places (by "the same" I'm talking about people using buses and bikes to get to work).

    No, actually it isn't. Most the country doesn't/didn't live in Dalkey and I can pretty much guarantee you that the experience of farm labourer, a shop worker, a docker, a bank clerk and an unemployed person in 1950s Ireland was not just a world apart from the experience of living in Dalkey but a whole galaxy apart. Even the legendary philanthropy bestowed on Guinness workers pales in comparison to what the modern welfare state (such as it is even in Ireland) bestows on it's citizens.
    Chuchote wrote: »
    The Church and the State were then hand-in-hand. TB was certainly caused by the State, which — fomented by the Catholic Church — fought tooth-and-nail against vaccination for TB for many years. The Church and the State were hand-in-hand in running the industrial schools and laundries, and in sending poor children 'found begging' to be incarcerated there through the courts.

    Again, regardless of who 'caused' it, exacerbated it, or failed to implement an effective immunisation programme, the fact remains TB was rampant in 1950s Ireland (Dalkey excluded) thus undermining the idea that it was a 'more civilised time' - as you stated earlier.

    And while we're wandering off the the cycling topic - this 'civilised time' also pretty much excluded married women from the workforce. I'm sure women would just love to go back to a 'civilised time' when marriage meant the end of a career, but they could pledge their husband's credit ;)
    Chuchote wrote: »
    We are so used to Ireland that we forget that what would in other countries be seen as a centre-right party is here perceived as centrist; what would in other countries be seen as a centre-left party is seen here as far left. Apart from the righist ex-communist countries that Britain ladled into the European Union, swinging the EU to the right, our country is now probably one of the furthest to the right in the EU.

    You mistake me, my dear. I'm not saying the 1950s were a delightful time. I'm saying that by correctly throwing the filthy cruel practices of those times out, we have also thrown out some good things — being able to shop locally, a cycling and public transport centred society, more sensible work hours.

    No, you are not saying they were 'delightful' you are saying they were 'more civilised' - I live in a semi-rural location, I can still shop locally (and do, especially in my LBS) - public transport is a joke (not everyone can live on the DART or old Harcourt Street Line) as it always has been outside the cities, even in the more civilised times.

    And we haven't thrown anything out - if a business fails to adapt, then thanks to our financial liberation the market punishes it. People now have choices they didn't in the more civilised 1950s - we're not shackled to the local economy bound to take only what we can reach on a bike or by bus.

    The shops in the village near where I live have adapted - we've even seen a few added over the years (including a Tesco, which actually didn't put the local butchers out of business it allowed him to expand, and a dressmakers, a pharmacy, a dentists surgery and an art/crafts shop).

    As I said, we've never been healthier, wealthier or safer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Very true — though we could be better.

    Sorry for the lazy phrasing; the 'more civilised' I was talking about was purely the factors I was talking about, and not the whole society, d'oh!

    Just to put my cards on the table, I'd like Ireland to follow and adapt the model of France: lay schools, a decent diet, proper planning, civilised HLMs, co-support, etc. And no, I don't think France is a paradise either — plenty of inequality and misery there too.

    But back to cycling. I've booked a bike fit. Will be interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Very true — though we could be better.

    Sorry for the lazy phrasing; the 'more civilised' I was talking about was purely the factors I was talking about, and not the whole society, d'oh!

    Just to put my cards on the table, I'd like Ireland to follow and adapt the model of France: lay schools, a decent diet, proper planning, civilised HLMs, co-support, etc. And no, I don't think France is a paradise either — plenty of inequality and misery there too.

    But back to cycling. I've booked a bike fit. Will be interesting.

    Well I'd like to follow France and have a decent enforcement of the minimum passing distance laws.

    I wouldn't mind the other stuff, but frankly I'm not willing to pay the taxes for it because of the amount of waste in the public services here means we'll end over-paying for it dramatically - and I say that as a former public servant. Even the things we could do tomorrow - improved governance and accountability in schools and healthcare - that cost nothing, we won't do.


Advertisement