Rathgar meeting tonight about quietway

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

Indicator on and come to a stop before the drive, then move forward a little and then reverse.

Reversing out, is proven to be more dangerous

I agree, but half the country don't understand what indicators are for

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

I agree, but half the country don't understand what indicators are for

Parking on cycle paths while you play the lotto otgrab a bottle of wine ?

Chuchote

Well, the meeting was well attended by people very worried that they'd lose their right to store their private property on the public highways - "But I won't be able to park!" and people with more reasonable worries about losing their bus (on Cowper Road) or having their road blocked off by bollards, which was also fair enough.
But in general I personally found it to be a feast of selfishness and quite a lot of nastiness; for instance, one young woman who spoke up rather quietly from the back was spitefully told by some nice bourgeois lady that "I don't know where you're from, dear, but in this country we have democracy"!
I really didn't like some of the people there, and didn't feel at all happy to have them for neighbours.
Apart from the parking, there was a definite sense that some at least didn't want smelly poor people hanging around near their houses…
I used magicbastarder's "quiet meeting about the quietway" crack and it did calm things down, briefly, at first (though there had already been a raging row about someone who was filming earlier, apparently). I also described my own usual daily cycle route to Ringsend in what probably sounded like arrant boasting, in the company, but was an attempt to normalise the idea of cycling around and about the city as an ordinary thing to do.
If boardsies were there and saw a small, red-faced woman bouncing with rage, sorry.
There was a fairly quiet and reasonable representation from people who obviously wanted the quietway but said little. One of the have-to-parkers asked how many people here had kids who would use the quietway and a forest of hands went up, to the obvious surprise of the mainly comfortably-off middle-aged conservative crowd.
A series of local councillors hung poor Pad Smyth out to dry, while weasel-wording about how much they respected his dedication in this yada yada. One referred to Dublin being a mediaeval city, which is news to me in the case of Harold's Cross, Kimmage and Terenure!
Various people objected for some bizarre reason to being offered comparisons with London, Portland, Amsterdam and Copenhagen - "We don't live there! This is Dublin!"
All in all, I suspect that this won't be the first quietway in the area; however, when the other cycle route that's hopefully in process happens, and it gentrifies the area it goes through, this may change the mind of the residents.
Others will no doubt feel that they were at an entirely different meeting than that I saw; however, that's what I saw.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

Parking on cycle paths while you play the lotto otgrab a bottle of wine ?

At first I thought you said drinking a bottle of wine. Much the same though.

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, the meeting was well attended by people very worried that they'd lose their right to store their private property on the public highways - "But I won't be able to park!" and people with more reasonable worries about losing their bus (on Cowper Road) or having their road blocked off by bollards, which was also fair enough.
But in general I personally found it to be a feast of selfishness and quite a lot of nastiness; for instance, one young woman who spoke up rather quietly from the back was spitefully told by some nice bourgeois lady that "I don't know where you're from, dear, but in this country we have democracy"!
I really didn't like some of the people there, and didn't feel at all happy to have them for neighbours.
Apart from the parking, there was a definite sense that some at least didn't want smelly poor people hanging around near their houses…
I used magicbastarder's "quiet meeting about the quietway" crack and it did calm things down, briefly, at first (though there had already been a raging row about someone who was filming earlier, apparently). I also described my own usual daily cycle route to Ringsend in what probably sounded like arrant boasting, in the company, but was an attempt to normalise the idea of cycling around and about the city as an ordinary thing to do.
If boardsies were there and saw a small, red-faced woman bouncing with rage, sorry.
There was a fairly quiet and reasonable representation from people who obviously wanted the quietway but said little. One of the have-to-parkers asked how many people here had kids who would use the quietway and a forest of hands went up, to the obvious surprise of the mainly comfortably-off middle-aged conservative crowd.
A series of local councillors hung poor Pad Smyth out to dry, while weasel-wording about how much they respected his dedication in this yada yada. One referred to Dublin being a mediaeval city, which is news to me in the case of Harold's Cross, Kimmage and Terenure!
Various people objected for some bizarre reason to being offered comparisons with London, Portland, Amsterdam and Copenhagen - "We don't live there! This is Dublin!"
All in all, I suspect that this won't be the first quietway in the area; however, when the other cycle route that's hopefully in process happens, and it gentrifies the area it goes through, this may change the mind of the residents.
Others will no doubt feel that they were at an entirely different meeting than that I saw; however, that's what I saw.

People hate change and are afraid of it. It all takes time.

Victor

I went along this evening. Quite a fractious meeting, with a group or groups supporting other politicians and one of the residents associations who went along to sabotage it. Meeting was dominated by fear uncertainty and doubt. Profound constitutional issues raised. :rolleyes:

Fears of cyclists bringing paedophiles to sit on bollards outside people's houses. Don't they know that paedophiles prefer white vans?

magicbastarder wrote: »

btw, Chucote, if you're going to the meeting, and there are raised voices, please make sure you get a strangeloveian comment in about shouting at the quietway meeting.

Comment was made by someone.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Pretty much what I expected it would be. The negative impact entitled car owners have on this city and country are totally underestimated.

And to be fair it's such a deep seeded car owners entitlement mentality it would be nearly impossible to reverse.

Not at all! Just impose a parking tax for using the public street to park outside your house. Like magic, all the cars would disappear into front gardens!

Was there any mentioning of emergency service access to these new closed roads?

Chuchote

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there any mentioning of emergency service access to these new closed roads?

There was, and Cllr Smyth explained that various types of bollard were possible, but all of them were removeable by the emergency services.

Feckofff

Yeah interesting lesson in democracy.

I was particularly disappointed by Clare O'Connor (FF) her comments were very amateurish.

I grew up in the area so I was expecting a lot of nimbyism and to be fair if the majority of people do not want it then the energy and investment should go else where.

Chuchote

Feckofff wrote: »

Yeah interesting lesson in democracy.

I was particularly disappointed by Clare O'Connor (FF) her comments were very amateurish.

I grew up in the area so I was expecting a lot of nimbyism and to be fair if the majority of people do not want it then the energy and investment should go else where.

Sure. But the next time someone starts talking about cyclists having "a sense of entitlement", just think back to tonight.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

But in general I personally found it to be a feast of selfishness and quite a lot of nastiness

i don't know if there's something about public meetings which bring out certain types, but most of the ones i've been to have been fractious (i once found myself at a waterford council meeting which saw the only ejection of a member of the public in the council's history); i just think those sort of meetings tend to attracted more polarised opinions - i.e. people who are going along who are already invested in supporting or opposing the topic.

regarding resident's associations, i'm always reminded of my father's experience, who was roped in to become the treasurer of the resident's association where i grew up, and left in short order because of the politics. the same association fell apart about a year later when the faction who lived around the green area in our estate tried to pass a motion which would have blocked kids who did not live on the green from playing on it.

Feckofff

Chuchote wrote: »

Sure. But the next time someone starts talking about cyclists having "a sense of entitlement", just think back to tonight.

D6/D4 are probably the epicentre of entitlement.

I do wonder if the idea could have been "sold" another way.
Maybe if the residents though they were getting one over on the rest of the city by getting a "quietway"
As having a quietway is a mark of wealth/sophistication.
which is only possible because of how incredible superior the resident of this area are when compared to the rest of the city.

Chuchote

Feckofff wrote: »

D6/D4 are probably the epicentre of entitlement.

I do wonder if the idea could have been "sold" another way.
Maybe if the residents though they were getting one over on the rest of the city by getting a "quietway"
As having a quietway is a mark of wealth/sophistication.
which is only possible because of how incredible superior the resident of this area are when compared to the rest of the city.

Which would actually be true, if it happened! It's interesting to see Sadik-Khan's TED talk, where she talks about getting past exactly this kind of attitude - including the same kind of inaccurate things people were repeating tonight.

Doctor Bob

https://twitter.com/doccer/status/846841132369760257/photo/1

Chuchote

Some interesting comments here, especially the last:

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/28/terenure-to-ballsbridge-quietway-cycling-route-meeting-is-on-tonight/#comments

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

Some interesting comments here, especially the last:

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/28/terenure-to-ballsbridge-quietway-cycling-route-meeting-is-on-tonight/#comments

Convincing people to give up a quiet cul de sac was always going to be tough. People see them as a quiet area, a safe area for kids with no traffic etc and secure.

People probably paid extra for the house in the cul de sac.

Need to sell the vision.

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

Convincing people to give up a quiet cul de sac was always going to be tough. People see them as a quiet area, a safe area for kids with no traffic etc and secure.

People probably paid extra for the house in the cul de sac.

Need to sell the vision.

People also pay extra for off street parking. The on parking should be removed or pay and display with no resident permits.

Chuchote

average_runner wrote: »

Convincing people to give up a quiet cul de sac was always going to be tough. People see them as a quiet area, a safe area for kids with no traffic etc and secure.

People probably paid extra for the house in the cul de sac.

Need to sell the vision.

So true. Most of the objectors were well-padded drivers in their sixties and up; they seemed to think 'cyclists' meant burly working-class youths in Lycra, and every time someone said this was mainly to allow children to cycle there would be a chorus of "No, this is about commuting" or the like.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

People also pay extra for off street parking. The on parking should be removed or pay and display with no resident permits.

Best of luck with that one.

Mercian Pro

Experienced something similar a few years ago when the Health Board bought a local B&B for use as a home for people who had been in Grangegorman. The first public meeting on the proposal was an eye-opener with vitriolic comments flying ranging from paedophiles, rapists, burglars and just about everything else you could imagine.
The second public meeting a few months later had only a handful of attendees who endorsed a slightly modified proposal and the house has been in use ever since with zero problems.
Not sure if this is going to happen in this case but you never know.

tomasrojo

Some press about the meeting:
https://twitter.com/padsmyth/status/848580906059276288

Moflojo

If anyone's interested in a follow-up to the infamous Quietways meeting, Councillor Paddy Smyth is giving a talk on the subject at tonight's Dublin Cycling Campaign monthly meeting, which is public and free to all.

8pm, Central Hotel, Exchequer Street.

http://www.dublincycling.com/events/quietways-%E2%80%93-new-way-view-our-city

Chuchote

Moflojo wrote: »

If anyone's interested in a follow-up to the infamous Quietways meeting, Councillor Paddy Smyth is giving a talk on the subject at tonight's Dublin Cycling Campaign monthly meeting, which is public and free to all.

8pm, Central Hotel, Exchequer Street.

http://www.dublincycling.com/events/quietways-%E2%80%93-new-way-view-our-city

Damn, just saw this now. Anyone go to it and can report?

Moflojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Damn, just saw this now. Anyone go to it and can report?

It was a good presentation on the Quietways principle along with some of the specifics of Paddy Smyth's proposed route across south Dublin city.

Some local objectors to the proposal came along to the meeting for the craic and were quite vocal in their opposition to it. Who'd have thought that improving someone's quality of life could rile them up so much?

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the feasibility report on Smyth's Quietway came back a couple of weeks ago and it was recommended not to proceed with the project, due to the €1.4m cost estimate and the "number of end users" that would be affected.

I'm not 100% sure what the number of end users means, and whether the number was too big or too small, but I assume it's a reference to the number of local objectors, or NIMBYs.

Smyth made reference to the fact that €1.4m equates to the cost of building approximately 100 metres of motorway.

Chuchote

Moflojo wrote: »

It was a good presentation on the Quietways principle along with some of the specifics of Paddy Smyth's proposed route across south Dublin city.

Some local objectors to the proposal came along to the meeting for the craic and were quite vocal in their opposition to it. Who'd have thought that improving someone's quality of life could rile them up so much?

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the feasibility report on Smyth's Quietway came back a couple of weeks ago and it was recommended not to proceed with the project, due to the €1.4m cost estimate and the "number of end users" that would be affected.

I'm not 100% sure what the number of end users means, and whether the number was too big or too small, but I assume it's a reference to the number of local objectors, or NIMBYs.

Smyth made reference to the fact that €1.4m equates to the cost of building approximately 100 metres of motorway.

HivemindXX

I'm not sure that they mean by that reference to it costing the same as 50m of motorway. Are they trying to say it is the cycle facility is extremely cheap compared to the massive spending on roads or that it's money that would be better spent on something useful like 50 entire meters of motorway. I would think the former but I fear it's the latter.

The objectors frustrate me. It's difficult to understand how objections to things like this can't at least partly be motivated by an irrational dislike of cyclists and not wanting to see them get any facilities, or you know, see them on your road making the place look all low class. Although ironically I know of at least one person who persistently claims that cycling and cycle lanes are elitist and regular down to earth people can't avail of those opportunities and have to use cars and roads instead.

Chuchote

What kind of neighbours think their right to park outside their house is more important than a kid's right to ride a bike safely to school?

I love Sean nos

Dublin City Council has even conducted a feasibility study, which put the cost as less than €325,000.

a total of circa €1.4M would be required to complete the scheme.

That's some jump in cost in 2 months. Were Arthur Andersen doing the sums?

magicbastarder

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'm not sure that they mean by that reference to it costing the same as 50m of motorway. Are they trying to say it is the cycle facility is extremely cheap compared to the massive spending on roads or that it's money that would be better spent on something useful like 50 entire meters of motorway. I would think the former but I fear it's the latter.

i'd very definitely read that as the former - it'd be an odd way to promote road building, pointing out it costs €1m for every 100 foot of that road.