Cities around the world that are reducing car access

duffman3833

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So we can assume that you were effectively blocking traffic and traffic would need to navigate around you.
To mitigate this, you mounted the path (which is not good for the path) and proceeded to block it.
Now, had you kept the car fully on the road, how many more cars would have had to navigate around your car?
The answer is none as they all had to go around you already!
So why park on the path then?

What would you do in that persons situation? carry everything from car park which could be well away from building. Best option was to park on path. Even though traffic was effected, by parking on the path it makes it easier for cars to pass and its only for few minutes. Also parking on a path for short period will not damage it, its concrete.

donvito99

duffman3833 wrote: »

Also parking on a path for short period will not damage it, its concrete.

Tell that to Wicklow and Exchequer Street in Dublin. The pulverised margins of those paths have only recently been repaired with tarmac.

Thelonious Monk

duffman3833 wrote: »

Also parking on a path for short period will not damage it, its concrete.

Take a walk around South Anne St, Merrion Row, and tell me parking on paths doesn't damage them. They are literally mashed into the ground and completely destroyed from people parking there temporarily.

riddlinrussell

duffman3833 wrote: »

What would you do in that persons situation? carry everything from car park which could be well away from building. Best option was to park on path. Even though traffic was effected, by parking on the path it makes it easier for cars to pass and its only for few minutes. Also parking on a path for short period will not damage it, its concrete.

Best option was to park directly on the road so you aren't blocking the highest priority street users, pedestrians.

Parking on the path damages the path, it doesn't have anything to do with how long you're parked there, a multi ton vehicle pressing down on something designed for footfall is going to cause damage, many vehicles doing it over time is going to cause kerbs to crumble and buckle the pavement, making it uneven for mobility impaired people trying to use it.

Seth Brundle

duffman3833 wrote: »

What would you do in that persons situation? carry everything from car park which could be well away from building. Best option was to park on path. Even though traffic was effected, by parking on the path it makes it easier for cars to pass and its only for few minutes. Also parking on a path for short period will not damage it, its concrete.

You're wrong. Traffic is inconvenienced already when someone parks half on the path and half on the road. There isn't any more inconvenience to traffic behind by parking fully on the road!
However, I'd not take the lazy option and park somewhere safe for everyone.

duffman3833

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Best option was to park directly on the road so you aren't blocking the highest priority street users, pedestrians.

Parking on the path damages the path, it doesn't have anything to do with how long you're parked there, a multi ton vehicle pressing down on something designed for footfall is going to cause damage, many vehicles doing it over time is going to cause kerbs to crumble and buckle the pavement, making it uneven for mobility impaired people trying to use it.

If cars are constantly parking there then yes, wear and tear will have an effect, but this person was only parking there once, just to move furniture. Also mentioned that there was room for cars and pedestrians, including wheel chairs to pass, so I don't see the harm in what this person did. Its not as if its daily occurrence

riddlinrussell

duffman3833 wrote: »

Its not as if its daily occurrence

"For that one person" The issue isn't a single person doing it once, that's the point, it happens multiple times every day, and it doesn't answer the real question, why block 'any' of the path when you could just park in the street?

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

That's how it works in pretty much every county outside of Dublin city, though. I'm not sure why Dublin went down the clamping route in the first place. Just opens them up to potential claims of damaged cars, and having to spend a fortune on their oversized tow trucks.

It was because parking in Dublin was 'Park where you like, the parking tickets are never enforced' which changed the week after the clamping started to - 'Park legally, there are plenty of space, and do not park illegally because you get clamped'

The result was a transformation - traffic flowed better because there was next to no illegal parking.

I was in a country a while ago that operated clamping that was a deterent.

In Dublin terms, say you got clamped in SSG - a ticket in your window and a big yellow boot on your wheel. Take the ticket to Kevin St Garda Stn, and join the queue at the window dealing with clamps - typical 15 to 20 minutes wait.

Garda writes out a new ticket that details your name, age, driving licence number, etc. No detail too small to be transcribed, taking 5 to 10 minutes. You then take this new ticket to the GPO in O'C St and join the queue at the special window dealing with clamps, again a long queue. When you get to the front, you hand over the ticket and pay the fee and get your ticket rewritten to become a release ticket.

So now €100 poorer, you return to K St GS, and rejoin the clamp queue and when you get to the front, a release message is sent to the clamping van, and you return to wait the van. Now it might turn up in 5 mins, so you had better be there or might be two hours, but again you had better be there or they might issue a new clamp fine and you have to repeat the whole process. Unlikely you would get released in an hour, but more like two hours.

You would not go through that twice.

I know that is extreme, but making it easy for offenders misses the point - it is not the money though that helps, it is the hassle and uncertainty.

There are systems used internationally for delivery drivers, such as display clocks that show arrival time, and say 5 mins allowed - but only if parked reasonably.

I see delivery drivers delivering into my road - and tradesmen - parking on double yellow line and partly on the pavement instead of parking in marked spaces on the other side of the road. There is no excuse for that.

duffman3833

riddlinrussell wrote: »

"For that one person" The issue isn't a single person doing it once, that's the point, it happens multiple times every day, and it doesn't answer the real question, why block 'any' of the path when you could just park in the street?

Make it easier for cars to pass. I don't know which street this person parked so no idea how big it is etc but if they parked in a way which can help traffic then why not.

In regards every day occurrences, then cars should have to go to designated parking spaces. Schools are one example. daily cars parked on paths to drop of the kids. I know in some locations there is no other options, but i do see the lazy option is to throw hazards on and park on path which is wrong especially if there is car park near by

magicbastarder

duffman3833 wrote: »

Make it easier for cars to pass.

but sure this is the nub, we are then back to designing the streets around cars again.

Seth Brundle

Sam Russell wrote: »

I see delivery drivers delivering into my road - and tradesmen - parking on double yellow line and partly on the pavement instead of parking in marked spaces on the other side of the road. There is no excuse for that.

Every weekend I see take away delivery drivers in Leixlip and Lucan parking on footpaths and double yellows outside their employers but deliberately won't use the empty parking spots across the road.
We have tolerated this laziness for decades and in general see nothing wrong with it.
The same applies with the "I'm only stopping here for a few minutes so it's ok to block the road and path" :rolleyes:

riddlinrussell

duffman3833 wrote: »

Make it easier for cars to pass. I don't know which street this person parked so no idea how big it is etc but if they parked in a way which can help traffic then why not.

Aye and see this is the exact issue I mean, if you have a choice between helping the cars and helping the pedestrians, You Shouldn't Choose the Cars

duffman3833

duffman3833 wrote: »

Also parking on a path for short period will not damage it, its concrete.

It is not uncommon for crushed pavements to break shallow water mains or sewer pipes, so it is not a good idea to park on pavements, they're not designed to take the weight.

duffman3833

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Aye and see this is the exact issue I mean, if you have a choice between helping the cars and helping the pedestrians, You Shouldn't Choose the Cars

I'm referring to the scenario mentioned about. Mentions that there is space either side for both cars and path for wheelchairs and pedestrians.

In other situations, as mentioned where its a daily occurrence, the car shouldn't be parking there in first place.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

You keep using the phrase anti-car like it’s a bad thing.

It is. Commute from Monaghan on your bicycle each day, sure?

cgcsb wrote: »

How is the potential claims different from moving large items from an illegally parked vehicle? Is it not just bone idleness?

Trips, falls, people wandering into you or not looking and knocking stuff. Happens all the time. Moving stuff 10ft from the back of the car/van to the building is different to moving it from a separate street or across multiple streets because that's the closest available parking.

cities in Europe?

I don't see what other cities in Europe, the world, or even Ireland has to do with. It's easy to compare to other places, but they're often different in many, many, many ways. Dublin is car reliant.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So we can assume that you were effectively blocking traffic and traffic would need to navigate around you.
To mitigate this, you mounted the path (which is not good for the path) and proceeded to block it.

You could assume that. Or you could actually read the post. Whatever you prefer.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was because parking in Dublin....

In fairness, I don't think anyone is saying that cars should be parked in a way that hinders others. I see nothing wrong with a car parked on a footpath if there's sufficient space for traffic to continue, and pedestrians to continue as normal around the car.

If you're fully blocking a footpath, or a lane of traffic, I think it's fair to assume no one would be in favour of that.

The big issue that related to Dublin, and for some reason people seem to gloss over it, as though it's not a major aspect of all this, is that a lot of people in cars in Dublin, live nowhere near Dublin. They have to commute into Dublin, and back out of it, each day.

I drive around the city for full days at a time, doing my job, and I'd love to see less cars. I'd get around faster, and I'd get easier parking, etc. but I will still be in my car, because I need my car. As do many who are travelling in from Kildare, Wicklow, Cavan, Monaghan, Meath, Louth (etc.).

If you live in Dublin, and work in Dublin, an electric scooter would probably be the right way to go, but they're still not even road legal.

What should happen, is the government should legalise and promote the electric scooters and bikes, and put a few extra buses on. That'd reduce the amount of people driving from within the city.

Instead, the usual approach is a punishment. Ban cars from certain roads and areas and don't do anything to help those who need their cars.

Seth Brundle

Deleted User wrote: »

You could assume that. Or you could actually read the post. Whatever you prefer.

Usually when people post about their friend's experience, it is them. However, i'll take you at your word and assume that it was your friend.
Still doesn't reduce the inconveniences to traffic (which were always going to happen) and pedestrians (which absolutely didn't need to happen) that I referred to.

riddlinrussell

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think anyone is saying that cars should be parked in a way that hinders others. I see nothing wrong with a car parked on a footpath if there's sufficient space for traffic to continue, and pedestrians to continue as normal around the car.

If you're fully blocking a footpath, or a lane of traffic, I think it's fair to assume no one would be in favour of that.

The big issue that related to Dublin, and for some reason people seem to gloss over it, as though it's not a major aspect of all this, is that a lot of people in cars in Dublin, live nowhere near Dublin. They have to commute into Dublin, and back out of it, each day.

I drive around the city for full days at a time, doing my job, and I'd love to see less cars. I'd get around faster, and I'd get easier parking, etc. but I will still be in my car, because I need my car. As do many who are travelling in from Kildare, Wicklow, Cavan, Monaghan, Meath, Louth (etc.).

If you live in Dublin, and work in Dublin, an electric scooter would probably be the right way to go, but they're still not even road legal.

What should happen, is the government should legalise and promote the electric scooters and bikes, and put a few extra buses on. That'd reduce the amount of people driving from within the city.

Instead, the usual approach is a punishment. Ban cars from certain roads and areas and don't do anything to help those who need their cars.

There is a fundamental problem with the thinking here, the only people who should need to drive in Dublin are those who carry too many tools for their job for any other mode of transport, or deliveries (again even here many last mile deliveries could switch to cargo bike etc).

If you drive in from Monaghan or wherever, that's grand, but those people shouldn't have to drive into the city, if they have to commute to Dublin then there should be an efficient park and ride system to get them in to the actual city.
The actual city centre, and possibly the entire area inside the canals, should either be car free or extremely heavily restricted.

cgcsb

duffman3833 wrote: »

If cars are constantly parking there then yes, wear and tear will have an effect, but this person was only parking there once, just to move furniture. Also mentioned that there was room for cars and pedestrians, including wheel chairs to pass, so I don't see the harm in what this person did. Its not as if its daily occurrence

Is this comment meant as satire? You are saying it's grand if you only do it once, but obviously there is more than one individual doing it. It's not grand, never was.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

It is. Commute from Monaghan on your bicycle each day, sure?

Innocent people die from the pollution caused by those who drive.

They get my sympathy, not you.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

It is. Commute from Monaghan on your bicycle each day, sure?

This is a ridiculous characterisation of people who advocate for the enforcement of the existing rules of the road.

Deleted User wrote: »

Trips, falls, people wandering into you or not looking and knocking stuff. Happens all the time. Moving stuff 10ft from the back of the car/van to the building is different to moving it from a separate street or across multiple streets because that's the closest available parking.

That's a bit silly now isn't it. Both extremely unlikely events, a marginal increase in the distance travelled is not statistically significant. By the same logic you should never drive more than a km from home because the risk of an accident gets to great. It's just a convoluted way to rationalise laziness. Everyone does it of course, but that's exactly what it is.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see what other cities in Europe, the world, or even Ireland has to do with. It's easy to compare to other places, but they're often different in many, many, many ways. Dublin is car reliant.

You brought up Dublin's relative ranking as a livable city, you had some ridiculous claim about how parking enforcement would negatively impact the quality of life. I pointed out that the cities ranked higher than Dublin would never tolerate you parking on a footpath.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with a car parked on a footpath if there's sufficient space for traffic to continue, and pedestrians to continue as normal around the car.

Well it is wrong, even if it's physically possible for pedestrians to circumnavigate your illegally parked car, it's a nuisance and it ultimately it creates a fundamentally unpleasant and hostile environment, particularly for those that are elderly or disabled. Footpaths aren't only about people travelling, streets should be pleasant environments that people can dwell in if they want to. If you cannot see that your actions are wrong, well that just bolsters the argument for more draconian enforcement until similarly minded people start to think it's wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

What should happen, is the government should legalise and promote the electric scooters and bikes, and put a few extra buses on. That'd reduce the amount of people driving from within the city.

Instead, the usual approach is a punishment. Ban cars from certain roads and areas and don't do anything to help those who need their cars.

Current investment plans equate to about €10bn , including a massive expansion of DART services, a new metro line and a completely overhauled bus system and expanded bus fleet. So it's not quite accurate to say that the government is doing nothing. What 'punishment' is there? as you have demonstrated, nothing is done about illegal parking/driving in the city.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Usually when people post about their friend's experience, it is them. However, i'll take you at your word and assume that it was your friend.
Still doesn't reduce the inconveniences to traffic (which were always going to happen) and pedestrians (which absolutely didn't need to happen) that I referred to.

Oh, it was me. I was helping with the stuff. It was a friend who had bought the bits for the apartment, and I was giving them a hand getting it in (couldn't do it on your own, too heavy/awkward).

magicbastarder

cgcsb wrote: »

it's a nuisance and it ultimately it creates a fundamentally unpleasant and hostile environment, particularly for those that are elderly or disabled. Footpaths aren't only about people travelling, streets should be pleasant environments that people can dwell in if they want to.

this x 10. about 200m from where i live (and i'm staring out at a road 7 lanes from nearside kerb to far side kerb) there are a bunch of shops, and between and including rush hours, you would simply not have a situation where there is not at least one car parked on the footpath. we've given over that much space to cars, but it's still not enough and they have to colonise the space for pedestrians as well.
bikes are a simple substitute for cars for many journeys, but one of the main reason many motorists don't make that switch is because of cars and the way motorists treat them, so they end up sticking with the mode that prevents them from switching from that mode in the first place. it's a delightfully ironic scenario.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

This is a ridiculous characterisation of people who advocate for the enforcement of the existing rules of the road.

It's not though. It's the reality of the situation for many people. You're just glossing over those people because, presumably, their situation doesn't affect you, so who cares about them. "Not my problem".

That's a bit silly now isn't it. Both extremely unlikely events, a marginal increase in the distance travelled is not statistically significant. By the same logic you should never drive more than a km from home because the risk of an accident gets to great. It's just a convoluted way to rationalise laziness. Everyone does it of course, but that's exactly what it is.

Nope, happens regularly. Sufficiently enough that it's a problem for delivery companies. Just saying "it doesn't happen" with no experience of it doesn't make it so.

You brought up Dublin's relative ranking as a livable city, you had some ridiculous claim about how parking enforcement would negatively impact the quality of life.

Again, not what I said. I mentioned in passing that dublin had dropped down the list, I remarked then that making day to day life more difficult doesn't help. My remark (and entire post) is about excessive or strict parking enforcement, and it does impact quality of life. If buying anything new, that needs delivering, becomes stressful because of where you live, then that's an issue about the quality of life being affected by the rules of where you live.

I pointed out that the cities ranked higher than Dublin would never tolerate you parking on a footpath.

Of course the other cities would. Dublin people have this weird image of other cities that no one ever does any wrong, or everyone is so strictly tied to the rules that they'd never break or bend them. People are the same everywhere.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

those people shouldn't have to drive into the city, if they have to commute to Dublin then there should be an efficient park and ride system to get them in to the actual city.

I don't disagree with you. But the reality is that doesn't exist (at least, not in any meaningful capacity). Someone driving from outside of Dublin is best just going to their workplace. I do know someone that used to drive to a train station (unsure if it was Drogheda or Laytown off the top of my head) and get the train to Dublin, but the costs of the train ticket itself, plus parking, meant it wasn't sustainable.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Innocent people die from the pollution caused by those who drive. They get my sympathy, not you.

I'm not fully sure, but I think, I could be wrong, but think that's the stupidest thing I've read on boards in the past 12 months.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

one of the main reason many motorists don't make that switch is because

of theft.

magicbastarder

theft is a problem, yes. but i don't see how that addresses my point.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

Well it is wrong, even if it's physically possible for pedestrians to circumnavigate your illegally parked car, it's a nuisance and it ultimately it creates a fundamentally unpleasant and hostile environment

I don't understand how a car parked is 'hostile' if it doesn't impede people. You're exaggerating there. A car is a lump of steel. If it's not in the way, it's a lump of steel you can ignore, much like an ESB box.


If it gets in the way, and prevents people from passing, then I'd agree with you, but there is a difference between the two.

cgcsb wrote: »

Current investment plans

I love plans. Plans are great. Once they're in place then we can look at them. I predict it'll be a long, long time before anyone benefits from them.

Seth Brundle

Deleted User wrote: »

'm not fully sure, but I think, I could be wrong, but think that's the stupidest thing I've read on boards in the past 12 months.

Dublin's air pollution, of which traffic emissions are a significant contributor, has breached EU safety levels...
https://irishcycle.com/2020/09/25/dublin-forced-to-take-action-as-air-pollution-linked-to-traffic-breaches-eu-limits/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bad-air-day-pollution-in-dublin-reaches-levels-of-smoky-coal-era-30-years-ago-1.4423929
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0708/1060952-nitrogen-oxide/

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand how a car parked is 'hostile' if it doesn't impede people.

herein lies the problem, i guess.