Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160

Arthur.beaker

Deedsie wrote: »

The relevance is a critique of the inefficiency of the AGS Traffic corp to police both cyclists and motoring offences.

Relevance of motoring offences when discussing cycling and cycling offences?

Arthur.beaker

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm sorry now i linked the idea of motoring offences to cycling infrastructure. i was just trying to be funny. can we rewind the thread, back to the other stupid debate about what motor tax means?

You mean road tax?

Rakish Paddy

Carawaystick wrote: »

Could you outline the lawlessness of the Grand Canal Cycle path?
Could you also state which part of the Grand Canal cycle path you mean?
It is in different guises from Clondalkin into the Dock
Shared Use, wide path, out near the M50,
Shared use, narrower path at Davvitt Road
On road Mandatory cycle lane at Dolphin's Barn
Segregated cycle track Charlemont Place

What is it as a pedestrian you wouldn't want to replicate?

Cyclists don't have to use cycle lanes except in narrow circumstances like pedestrianised streets or contraflow cycle lanes. Just like motorists don't have to use motorways.

I can't speak for the farther out sections, but in town around the Baggot St. area it's a complete disaster for pedestrians. It's honestly not hyperbole to say that the red traffic lights/green pedestrian lights are either entirely ignored or taken as a suggestion by a majority of cyclists using the track at the junction with Baggot St. bridge.

I would only support development of further similar infrastructure where the junctions are equipped with an automatically-lowering barrier to stop red light jumping, or have regular Garda checkpoints with actual enforcement, or have some other effective means of stopping the ass-hattery that is so prevalent at the moment on that track.

Stealthfins

A tax disc would look nice on a bike.
Would a hundred Euro's a year be enough ?

Arthur.beaker

Stealthfins wrote: »

A tax disc would look nice on a bike.
Would a hundred Euro's a year be enough ?

And registration plates so the public can report them and have them picked up by traffic cameras.

ED E

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

And registration plates so the public can report them and have them picked up by traffic cameras.

And you'll wear a strap around your right arm with your PPSN so the Gardai can ID you on CCTV yeah?

Are you sure your username isnt end of the road?

ted1

SeanW wrote: »

The tax is not linked to motor ownership, but the placement of said motor on the road.

Well, firstly, the Grand Canal cycle path is totally lawless, so as a pedestrian that's out there sometimes it's not something I'd be keen to replicate. Second, cyclists will ignore a cycle lane for any reason, up to and including just plain laziness.

Did the cycling body ask for €1bn? Yes or no? There are only two possibilities here:

1. The cycling groups did ask for €1bn, and that fact is being reported accurately. Your post is a complaint that this factually quoted figure was not massaged from €1bn to "10%" or "X over Y years".
2. The cycling groups did not ask for €1bn, so the article is wrong and those who quote it are inaccurate.

Which is it?

Where to start >_<
The technical term is indeed "Motor Tax" however the use of the term "Road Tax" provides three key advantages.
1) It accurately reflects that the tax must be paid to place said Motor ON THE ROAD. If a tax is tied to the roads, or usage of the roads, in any way, it is a Road Tax.
2) The use of the term "Road Tax" allows for a fast and easy comparison between Motor Tax in the Republic of Ireland, vis-a-vis Vehicle Excise Duty in the United Kingdom. Both taxes operate in a similar way and serve the same function, the only difference is that Irelands' is 2-5 times higher in all categories.
3) It rolls off the tongue a lot easier than Motor Tax.

Additionally, the tax is not linked to emissions, for two reasons:
1) Motors registered on or before June 30th 2008 are taxed according to engine size. Or more specifically, the use of a car with the specified engine size on the road.
2) "Emissions" based motor tax takes no account of the cars actual emissions - a 1 Litre Micra that drives 500+ miles per week emits more CO2 than a Ferarri that is only driven 100 miles or less on the weekend.

Secondly. Reg plates for cyclists. Without reg plates for cyclists, lawbreakers who cycle on footways, jump red lights and so on, it's extremely hard to enforce laws on cyclists without such measures. And it shows.

It's motor tax, some cars like the Nissan Leaf pay very little some large cars like range rovers pay more. Is the Range Rover entitled to more usage on the road than the Nissan Leaf?

As regards to you spouting rubbish about cyclists needing reg plates as they break lights and go on footpaths.
With proper investment in infrastructure they wouldn't need to snd those issues which have arosen as a result of lack of investment would be gone.
Finally cars have reg plates but drivers could tinue to break speed limits ,use their phones , break red lights etc, should there be a stop an investment in infrastructure for cars!

magicbastarder

again, it boils down to the government wanting more people out on bikes, not fewer, so they're not going to create a mass of paperwork for someone to have to fill out simply so they can spin down the shops to pick up milk.

insurance
reg plates
licencing
mandatory helmet law
not going to happen; the last one explicitly confirmed only about six months ago. any measure taken should be commensurate with the problem it addresses, and the problems the measure itself might cause.

having a bike licence probably would result in a very noticeable fall in the number of injuries caused to or by cyclists. because it'd halve the number of people cycling.

ED E

magicbastarder wrote: »

having a bike licence probably would result in a very noticeable fall in the number of injuries caused to or by cyclists. because it'd halve the number of people cycling.

Only if the Gardai enforced it, which they would in their arse.

ted1

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

And registration plates so the public can report them and have them picked up by traffic cameras.

Nothing happens when cars are reported, report away. A cyclist never killed a driver , and i can't recall a cycle list killling a pedestrian but I do recall a pedestrian killing a cyclist during a collision on a cycle path I phoniex park earlier in the year.

Arthur.beaker

ED E wrote: »

And you'll wear a strap around your right arm with your PPSN so the Gardai can ID you on CCTV yeah?

Are you sure your username isnt end of the road?

More deflection. Classic cyclist response. Fair play, at least you remain predictable.

Arthur.beaker

ted1 wrote: »

Nothing happens when cars are reported, report away. A cyclist never killed a driver , and i can't recall a cycle list killling a pedestrian but I do recall a pedestrian killing a cyclist during a collision on a cycle path I phoniex park earlier in the year.

Relevance?

ThisRegard

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

So bringing up other forms of transport as justification or to divert attention isn't moving goalposts? Why does every cyclist bring up motorists when cyclist rule breaking is brought up? Why can it not be discussed for what it is rather than muddying the water with references to motorists?

Did you read anything of what you posted?

You started by asking will cyclists who break laws be penalised. It was pointed out that they did by the gardai, just as much as they enforce the laws on others.

Then for some reason you then changed your stance to say that that only happens rarely, and twisted it again with your "So it isn't the fault of cyclists that they break the law?" question.

You don't know from where you're trying to argue.

Danjamin1

I love how quickly every single one of these threads degenerates in to cyclists vs motorists vs pedestrians. Road tax, licencing, lawbreaking exclusively by cyclists & group mentality always form the bulk of the moronic posts.

Regardless of the amount it spent isn't going to go very far unless they invest in better infrastructure than is already there, someone mentioned earlier that the quality has to be at least on par with the road surface to encourage use & I second that. More than that I would like to see some actual infrastructure that makes sense around junctions instead of just ending at a set of pedestrian lights or continuing left around a corner without any means for going straight, this is one of the main reasons I use the road more often than the off-road cycle lanes.

Cienciano

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

And registration plates so the public can report them and have them picked up by traffic cameras.

So we need a database of bikes with it's owners, we need to have a log book when we sell bikes that you need to fill out and send in to an office somewhere. We need to mount these reg plates on a bicycle somehow. My son is 5, where would you put the reg plate on his spiderman bike?
Can we put an end to the reg plate thing, the cost massively outweighs the benefits, or to put it bluntly, it's a fúcking stupid idea.

Roadhawk

monument wrote: »

Roadhawk -- reply to this or don't post on this thread again...


...thank you!

-- moderator

Replying to your warning above...

I thought my view would have been self explanatory on this issue. To clarify, i am asking if €1 billion is a realistic amount to invest in cycling infrastructure that may or may not be used.

My view on this is, if €1 billion is invested, over 5 years, then gauging the current number of cyclists as 65,000 approx then over €3000 euro per cyclist per year is being spent? again, is this realistic? Cycling being said to be the most cost effective mode of transport is suddenly seeking €1 Billion.

Then, lets say this investment is granted. Will the infrastructure be used by all cyclists? It would be a great shame to see this investment granted and then wasted just ask quick.

I am all for good investment into the cycling infrastructure but personally i would want to see sort of analysis to show how much is needed in terms of priority instead of plucking a figure out of the air just because the current government says they want to see cycling raise to 10% of transport commutes.

ted1

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

Relevance?

The relevance is that you want to report cyclists, but when cars which are many times more dangerous nothing happens.

ted1

Roadhawk wrote: »

Replying to your warning above...

I thought my view would have been self explanatory on this issue. To clarify, i am asking if €1 billion is a realistic amount to invest in cycling infrastructure that may or may not be used.

My view on this is, if €1 billion is invested, over 5 years, then gauging the current number of cyclists as 65,000 approx then over €3000 euro per cyclist per year is being spent? again, is this realistic? Cycling being said to be the most cost effective mode of transport is suddenly seeking €1 Billion.

Then, lets say this investment is granted. Will the infrastructure be used by all cyclists? It would be a great shame to see this investment granted and then wasted just ask quick.

I am all for good investment into the cycling infrastructure but personally i would want to see sort of analysis to show how much is needed in terms of priority instead of plucking a figure out of the air just because the current government says they want to see cycling raise to 10% of transport commutes.

The investment is on infrastructure that will last 50 years +, not just three years.


As the infrastructure is out in place the numbers will increase. As the numbers increase traffic will ease, less time and money will be lost with people sitting in traffic . Savings will be made in the health budget due to a mire active population , emissions and emission based levies will decrease . The city will be able to accommodate higher density populations. Etc

As regards to you asking will it be used, provided its done right it will be. The current infrastructure is weak and is not safe to use. So that is why it's not used, segregation is what is required .
If they paint a white line with a picture of a bike on it but can't fit a 2 foot high kerb between it and traffic then it's not safe

magicbastarder

there would also be an ongoing maintenance cost too; worth bearing in mind considering cycle lanes can quickly end up useless if not cleaned/maintained.

magicbastarder

also, there are several factors often overlooked when infrastructure is talked about - i know people who would cycle to work, except the distances involved are such that they would be unwilling to do so without shower facilities at the far end - so tax incentives for employers to provide cyclist friendly facilities could be effective.
another obvious factor (not overlooked by cyclists) which would affect uptake of the infrastructure is the oft mentioned crime problem; cf. one friend who borrowed a bike on a long term basis, but quickly became short term as it was stolen the first afternoon he used it. stories like that have legs. so secure bike parking at the workplace is an issue.

my employer is probably as good as you get on both fronts - three showers in the men's changing rooms in the basement (i assume the same for the women); lockers for kit; they've boxed off one of the outlets from the A/C units so if you do arrive wet in the morning, you hang your gear up in the 'drying room' and it's bone dry and warm when you're leaving; and a bicycle cage accessible only with an employee swipe.

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, there are several factors often overlooked when infrastructure is talked about - i know people who would cycle to work, except the distances involved are such that they would be unwilling to do so without shower facilities at the far end - so tax incentives for employers to provide cyclist friendly facilities could be effective.
another obvious factor (not overlooked by cyclists) which would affect uptake of the infrastructure is the oft mentioned crime problem; cf. one friend who borrowed a bike on a long term basis, but quickly became short term as it was stolen the first afternoon he used it. stories like that have legs. so secure bike parking at the workplace is an issue.

my employer is probably as good as you get on both fronts - three showers in the men's changing rooms in the basement (i assume the same for the women); lockers for kit; they've boxed off one of the outlets from the A/C units so if you do arrive wet in the morning, you hang your gear up in the 'drying room' and it's bone dry and warm when you're leaving; and a bicycle cage accessible only with an employee swipe.

Do you work in the oval ?

bk

It is interesting to note, that in the 1970's Amsterdam City Council decided to priorities spending on cycling infrastructure over car and even public transport.

The reason being that they had excellent public transport (buses and trams) but the city was growing quickly and they know that there just wasn't enough space in the narrow medieval city streets to fit more buses and trams (sound familiar) to meet the needs of the growing city and instead they would need to spend 10's of billions building Metros to cope with the increases (again sound familiar).

Instead they decided to focus on building cycling infrastructure, with the hope that it would take the pressure off the existing bus and tram network and delay the need to spend 10's of billions on Metros.

As we now know, it was a complete success. Massive numbers of people switched to the new cycling infrastructure, which too the pressure off the existing public transport and allowed them to delay the building of the Metro for 40 years, thus saving them 10's of Billions, creating a very pleasant city and a much healthier population.

Doesn't this all sound rather familiar?

1 billion might sound like a lot, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the 10 billion or so we need to spend on Metro North and Dart underground. If 1 Billion gets us a cycling infrastructure as good as Amsterdam, then it will likely allow us to delay be years spending 10's of billion more on more roads and undergrounds, all the while helping us build a nicer city and healthier population.

Arthur.beaker

ThisRegard wrote: »

Did you read anything of what you posted?

You started by asking will cyclists who break laws be penalised. It was pointed out that they did by the gardai, just as much as they enforce the laws on others.

Then for some reason you then changed your stance to say that that only happens rarely, and twisted it again with your "So it isn't the fault of cyclists that they break the law?" question.

You don't know from where you're trying to argue.

It is difficult to argue anything when people like you deflect constantly.

ThisRegard

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

It is difficult to argue anything when people like you deflect constantly.

Relevance?

Isn't that how you do it?

Arthur.beaker

ThisRegard wrote: »

Relevance?

Isn't that how you do it?

Ha, keep up the good fight.

Banjoxed

eeguy wrote: »

They're probably as well enforced as motorist fines in fairness.

On my 3k cycle home from work yesterday (where I didn't break any red lights), I saw 5 cars break red lights, two instances of cars stopped in a yellow box and in the latter incident a taxi mounted the kerb to get around the stopped car.

No penalties for any of these lads.

Good man for not breaking any red lights. Have a biscuit :pac:

Arthur.beaker

Banjoxed wrote: »

Good man for not breaking any red lights. Have a biscuit :pac:

And a medal. Sounds like he thinks he deserves it.

eeguy

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

And a medal. Sounds like he thinks he deserves it.

I'm just pointing out that the motorist v cyclist argument is stupid.

There are members of both groups that constantly flout the rules and you don't have to look far to see a motorist or a cyclist break a red light. There's no "us vs them" since we're all the same. Some keep to the rules and some don't.

The point is that cyclists need better infrastructure, because there's next to none out there. We need something to separate us from traffic where we're most vulnerable.

Arthur.beaker

eeguy wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that the motorist v cyclist argument is stupid.

There are members of both groups that constantly flout the rules and you don't have to look far to see a motorist or a cyclist break a red light. There's no "us vs them" since we're all the same. Some keep to the rules and some don't.

The point is that cyclists need better infrastructure, because there's next to none out there. We need something to separate us from traffic where we're most vulnerable.

And to keep you off the footpaths.

eeguy

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

And to keep you off the footpaths.

It's not illegal to be on a footpath. If you don't like it, contact your TD to change the law and build a cycle path.