Dublin kicked off Cycling-Friendly Cities list

mcgratheoin

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Begs the question, why would you rank some highly on the basis of 'good intentions'.

If a city hasn't a good cycling infrastructure but has plans to construct one, backed by political will then i would argue that that points to a city being "cycling friendly". If a city says we're going to give tax breaks to cyclists, we're going to encourage cycling, build a bike share scheme, remove cars from the roads and construct cycle specific infrastructure then it's fair to say it's cycling friendly. The problem is those measures have only been selectively and half heartedly implemented in Dublin.

average_runner

Weepsie wrote: »

Really? We have massively overspent, and badly planned our trams. They should have done a circular city line, and numerous lines off it to get to other parts of city and suburbs but they put in 2 lines that served the parts of the south side of the city and not much else.

When the LUAS went on strike, the North Side carried on it's merry way.

A lot of people don't want to give up the apparent comfort of their cars, as if it's an attack on their civil liberties that they can't use them.

Encouraging cycling is the cheapest and arguably the best way of improving transport. It will improve our health too. More bikes, means more road space, means easier for public works to happen, means better public transport.



That and everytime there is some form of change to DB, Irish Rail, LUAS people kick up a fuss and want more money. Invest in cycling. It's laughably cheap compared to everything else and it's a wonderfully efficient mode of transport.

Extending Dublin bikes alone would be a good start

You can cycle into the city at an easy pace without breaking into a sweat too.

If you read my full post, i already said they didn't do it right.
Cycling in the city cant be that good for your health with all those car and bus fumes going directly into your face.

Cycling is like any other activity, good for health if only you look after yourself when you get off the bike also.

Weepsie

average_runner wrote: »

If you read my full post, i already said they didn't do it right.
Cycling in the city cant be that good for your health with all those car and bus fumes going directly into your face.

Cycling is like any other activity, good for health if only you look after yourself when you get off the bike also.

average_runner wrote: »

You can do that when you have the infrastructure, ie they have trams, railway, buses and metro in the city!! Its a great city.

We need to invest more in our trams, use most of the transport budget and borrow the rest to get public system to top class. Increase taxes if needs be.

Once this is done, then we can invest in cycling and having a top class cycling network.

Sadly none of this will happen as too many sides only see their own interest!

Where are you saying they didn't do it right, because I'm not seeing it? It will serve it's lines as it is now, but it's already badly laid out, and anything addition will be badly laid out as a knock on. Should've been done so you can go from point to point, hopping on and off to dissect the city. Now you can travel like this on bikes by being able to take multitudes of routes that are not possible in cars/busses/trains etc.

Those fumes would be cut drastically if there were fewer cars and more bikes. The benefits anyway far outweigh the risks, this is not the Smog Filled city of bygone years. You're making a completely different argument now, because the other one was countered.

Don't get me wrong, a proper public transport system is needed, but it should be easier to do this first.

All trams, and trains should have a carriage with no seats for people to bring bikes on too.

My own health has dramatically improved from cycling to and from work everyday. I've taken it further with weekend spins and that does wonders for mental health too.

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

Cycling in the city cant be that good for your health with all those car and bus fumes going directly into your face.

Cycling is like any other activity, good for health if only you look after yourself when you get off the bike also.

Wat?

Cycling is good for your health, no matter what else you do. Yes, you might still end up obese if you eat like a horse or have glandular problems or do zero other exercise, but that doesn't make cycling bad for your health.

tomasrojo

That Glasgow study suggests that cycling is very good for you, even allowing for all-causes mortality. The fumes problem is worse for people inside cars, it was reported this week (and I've seen it reported a few times previousl).

Chips Lovell

Yeah, there's been a few studies done that found this. The latest one found that car passengers are exposed to nine times more pollution than cyclists or pedestrians.

tomasrojo

Guy Sajer wrote: »

I'm sure there is an emergency cabinet meeting taking place on how to respond to this. The sound of running footsteps echoes in the corridors of the Dail while politicians frantically tighten their ties rushing to blame eachother.

I did enjoy this pen picture.

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

If you read my full post, i already said they didn't do it right.
Cycling in the city cant be that good for your health with all those car and bus fumes going directly into your face.

The desperation to nitpick at all things cycling related is just a bit sad.

tampopo

Weepsie wrote: »

Does the Dublin City Cycling officer do an awful lot? A few blog posts, and did help to get Velo-City here, but what else?I'm hoping they are at the various public meetings discussed on here at the very least, but as it is, there is little to no cycling or walking promotion done by Dublin City.

It was a position filled by someone already in the council too, so I'd hope they were in fact the best candidate and no just another example of internal shuffling

She's on maternity leave.