State creates a Cycling Office

zell12

Minister Ross has said that the National Transport Authority has been tasked with opening a dedicated office
“to ensure much-needed cycling infrastructure is delivered as quickly as possible”.

Ross has also said that there will be an additional €44m in funding for cycling and walking programmes in 2019.

https://www.thejournal.ie/new-cyling-office-announced-by-ross-as-funding-for-cycling-and-walking-set-to-increase-4406483-Dec2018/

Grassey

33% increase in funding to 10% of Department total capital expenditure on public and sustainable transport in 2019.

Seems like a good thing no?

magicbastarder

interesting timing. it takes a motion from opposition TDs to get Ross to realise this is a good idea.

Weepsie

Are they hiring?

dense

zell12 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/new-cyling-office-announced-by-ross-as-funding-for-cycling-and-walking-set-to-increase-4406483-Dec2018/

Cycling and walking programs now need a quango.



The latest advice from the RSA on their radio ad is for walkers is to give way to oncoming traffic, which is the most sensible advice they've produced in some time.


Might stop the death wish walking fanatics from playing chicken with oncoming motor vehicles.



Hopefully the new quango will follow this new departure by the RSA and address the victim culture that permeates cycling. Cyclists the same as pedestrians need to not be placing themselves in dangerous positioning situations and then blaming everyone else for whatever subsequently happens.

Weepsie

dense wrote: »

Hopefully the new quango will follow this new departure by the RSA and address the victim culture that permeates cycling. Cyclists the same as pedestrians need to not be placing themselves in dangerous positioning situations and then blaming everyone else for whatever subsequently happens.

I've been hit twice by cars. Had nothing to do with my positioning and everything to do with p!ss poor driving behaviour.

It's not a victim culture at all, particularly when most of the deaths would have been avoided with more considered driving.

Speed is the killer. The person in the 2 tonnes of metal is the one who should be taking the absolute most care. they have a duty of responsibility to other road users, and your attitude is an awful one.

LeinsterDub

Grassey wrote: »

33% increase in funding to 10% of Department total capital expenditure on public and sustainable transport in 2019.

Seems like a good thing no?

It depends on how much goes to cycling. The vast majority will go to e car chargers and pretend cycling projects like the Merrion gates removal

dense

dense wrote: »

Cycling and walking programs now need a quango.



The latest advice from the RSA on their radio ad is for walkers is to give way to oncoming traffic, which is the most sensible advice they've produced in some time.


Might stop the death wish walking fanatics from playing chicken with oncoming motor vehicles.



Hopefully the new quango will follow this new departure by the RSA and address the victim culture that permeates cycling. Cyclists the same as pedestrians need to not be placing themselves in dangerous positioning situations and then blaming everyone else for whatever subsequently happens.

Apt username is apt.

Grassey

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It depends on how much goes to cycling. The vast majority will go to e car chargers and pretend cycling projects like the Merrion gates removal

Ooopsss would have been more helpful if I'd qualified it by

"increasing funding for cycling and walking programmes by 33%...."


http://irishcycle.com/2018/12/19/minister-ross-asks-nta-to-set-up-cycling-office-after-dail-inaction-criticism/

Chips Lovell

I'd be very wary. To date, the majority of state interventions regarding cycling have done more harm than good.

cgcsb

a new quango... I'd rather the NTA just build the liffey cycleway, the canal cycleways and the busconnects CBC routes. Why not just start building it instead of setting up a new quango? Hire more staff to the NTA and TFI if required.

Edit: after reading it seems it'll be a cycling office in the NTA, not a new quango.

dense

Weepsie wrote: »

I've been hit twice by cars. Had nothing to do with my positioning and everything to do with p!ss poor driving behaviour.

It's not a victim culture at all, particularly when most of the deaths would have been avoided with more considered driving.

Speed is the killer. The person in the 2 tonnes of metal is the one who should be taking the absolute most care. they have a duty of responsibility to other road users, and your attitude is an awful one.

It is awful but it is an attitude that is formed by 30 years of experience as a cyclist and motorist.

All I see from cycling forums are things like thinking up every reason under the sun not to wear hi vis and and to not wear helmets.
There's no sense of pro active safety being discussed, no sensible discussion about what duties or responsibilities the cyclist has to make sure they're safer on the road and everything that happens is every one else's fault. It is a devil may care attitude, based on wanting to have the right to be placing themselves in a truck's blindspot and screw the consequences.

Nobody wants to see cyclists being injured or killed but we need to start educating cyclists from a young age about the risks that are involved in cycling instead of only saying that motorists are always at fault.

If you accept that there are risks involved in cycling the next logical step is to decide what the risks are and whether those risks are worth taking, not thinking that you know the risk but you'll take it anyway and blame someone else later.
Is it risky cycling around Dublin? London? Is it risky cycling on rural roads?
Answer is yes. Eliminating those risks appears to require that motorised vehicles be banned from roads altogether.

Alternatively speed limits across the country for shared space could be halved.
Neither of these solutions are going to happen.

The unfortunate fact is that that the more that cyclists are content to engage in what is a risky activity the more casualties we're going to see.

Chips Lovell

dense wrote: »

All I see from cycling forums are things like thinking up every reason under the sun not to wear hi vis and and to not wear helmets. There's no sense of pro active safety being discussed, no sensible discussion about what duties or responsibilities the cyclist has to make sure they're safer on the road and everything that happens is every one else's fault.

I think that's a gross mischaracterisation of a lot of the dicussion here. Most people care deeply about safe cycling. Just because they don't agree with you on what constitutes safe cycling, does not mean they have a "devil may care" attitude.

loyatemu

dense wrote: »

It is awful but it is an attitude that is formed by 30 years of experience as a cyclist and motorist.

All I see from cycling forums are things like thinking up every reason under the sun not to wear hi vis and and to not wear helmets.
There's no sense of pro active safety being discussed, no sensible discussion about what duties or responsibilities the cyclist has to make sure they're safer on the road and everything that happens is every one else's fault. It is a devil may care attitude, based on wanting to have the right to be placing themselves in a truck's blindspot and screw the consequences.

Nobody wants to see cyclists being injured or killed but we need to start educating cyclists from a young age about the risks that are involved in cycling instead of only saying that motorists are always at fault.

If you accept that there are risks involved in cycling the next logical step is to decide what the risks are and whether those risks are worth taking, not thinking that you know the risk but you'll take it anyway and blame someone else later.
Is it risky cycling around Dublin? London? Is it risky cycling on rural roads?
Answer is yes. Eliminating those risks appears to require that motorised vehicles be banned from roads altogether.

Alternatively speed limits across the country for shared space could be halved.
Neither of these solutions are going to happen.

The unfortunate fact is that that the more that cyclists are content to engage in what is a risky activity the more casualties we're going to see.

I find it hard to believe you're a cyclist when every post you've made in this forum is blaming cyclists for being on the roads and saying they should take more responsibility. Anyone who spent anytime on a bike would realise this is nonsense.

thejaguar

dense wrote: »

The unfortunate fact is that that the more that cyclists are content to engage in what is a risky activity the more casualties we're going to see.

The risk you refer to is created by the use of cars on the road.

If your position is that cars are entitled to use of the roads with no regard for other road users, then your point is valid.

If your position is that all road users should be entitled to safe use of the roads, then it's less sensible.

So from any individuals point of view - it is correct that cyclists should be aware of the risks and take necessary precaution.
However, from a policy point of view - which is what we're talking about - the risk itself should be addressed - conditions should be improved to allow other road users to interact with cars safely.

That means better infrastructure and education of drivers as to their responsibilities to vulnerable road user.s

fat bloke

dense wrote: »

Eliminating those risks appears to require that motorised vehicles be banned from roads altogether.

Or, ban cyclists and pedestrians from roads altogether. - If you want the risk eliminated.

Obviously the real solution lies within those two extreme logical conclusions. -But what makes cycling on the road risky? -The activity itself? The weather? The condition of the roads? Or vehicular traffic? Clearly it is vehicular traffic that makes cycling on the roads risky in the first place. Therefore I would argue that the overwhelming burden of responsibility is on the drivers of those vehicles to reduce the risk.
Your argument seems to be the opposite, that the vehicles are there, nothing can be done about that, it is the cyclists' responsibility to take themselves out of danger, and drivers are absolved of any blame.

I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with you on that.

jhenno78

If everyone just ignores this person they'll go away.

magicbastarder

i'd be curious to see what sort of headcount would be expected for this new sub-unit of the NTA; but i strongly suspect they won't be allowed hire or appoint based on the mode of transport any employee would use to get to work.
are the NTA based in dublin, too?

07Lapierre

dense wrote: »

Is it risky cycling around Dublin? London? Is it risky cycling on rural roads?
Answer is yes. Eliminating those risks appears to require that motorised vehicles be banned from roads altogether.

The unfortunate fact is that that the more that cyclists are content to engage in what is a risky activity the more casualties we're going to see.

Nobody is calling for cars to be banned... I'd settle for greater enforcement of existing Rules of the road for all road users.

Stiffer penalties for road offences would be nice too. Oh, and can you ask the Gardai to stop giving out Hi-viz vests to cyclists cycling at night with no lights? they should confiscate the bikes instead.

cgcsb

fat bloke wrote: »

Or, ban cyclists and pedestrians from roads altogether. - If you want the risk eliminated.

Obviously the real solution lies within those two extreme logical conclusions. -But what makes cycling on the road risky? -The activity itself? The weather? The condition of the roads? Or vehicular traffic? Clearly it is vehicular traffic that makes cycling on the roads risky in the first place. Therefore I would argue that the overwhelming burden of responsibility is on the drivers of those vehicles to reduce the risk.
Your argument seems to be the opposite, that the vehicles are there, nothing can be done about that, it is the cyclists' responsibility to take themselves out of danger, and drivers are absolved of any blame.

I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with you on that.

The burden is certainly on the motorists. As both a cyclists and an ocassional driver, I'm aware of how the conflicts arise. Lots of drivers tend to turn without looking. Lots of cyclists (I guess they are cyclists who don't drive), don't actually get how hard it is to see them in the right wing mirror at night with no lights on, especially when you can only glance as you have to check in other directions also. Maybe there should be some education made available through some non-compulsory system for cyclists and incoporate more cycling awareness into the driving test.

fat bloke

jhenno78 wrote: »

If everyone just ignores this person they'll go away.

He won't though. He's a car driver. It's in his nature to steam aggressively into a cyclist forum with a sense of entitlement and attitude. Horn blaring, lights flashing, fist waving.

Are you suggesting we should all just "get off the fcukin thread"?

magicbastarder

all - said without mod hat on for now - can we keep it on topic, i.e. away from a circular debate about why cyclists are their own worst enemy, yadda yadda, or whatever the latest timewasting accusation is?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

are the NTA based in dublin, too?

to answer my own question, they appear to be based in dublin 2. so nice and central for bike commuting.

mamax

dense wrote: »

The unfortunate fact is that that the more that cyclists are content to engage in what is a risky activity the more casualties we're going to see.

That is the single most anti-cycling comment I've ever read on here, if you are indeed a cyclist then shame on you for that.
You're basically saying if a cyclist gets hit by a car it's their own fault in the first place for engaging in "a risky activity"

Shameful comment, better training for motorists and investment in our cycling infrastructure is what we need not your backward attitude.

cgcsb

magicbastarder wrote: »

to answer my own question, they appear to be based in dublin 2. so nice and central for bike commuting.

Ironically the road that the NTA is on, an unnamed road between Adelaide Road and Harrington St., is probably the worst street in Dublin for cycling on. There aren't even any lanes for cars and merging/exiting is only doable in an Indian style. It's also one of the darkest streets at night in Dublin. This street and Nassau st are very dark and anti pedestrian/cyclist.

LeinsterDub

Grassey wrote: »

Ooopsss would have been more helpful if I'd qualified it by

"increasing funding for cycling and walking programmes by 33%...."


http://irishcycle.com/2018/12/19/minister-ross-asks-nta-to-set-up-cycling-office-after-dail-inaction-criticism/

Again I'll welcome this while being cautious. Projects like the failed Merrion gates project have illustrated this

Blaizes

dense wrote: »

It is awful but it is an attitude that is formed by 30 years of experience as a cyclist and motorist.

All I see from cycling forums are things like thinking up every reason under the sun not to wear hi vis and and to not wear helmets.
There's no sense of pro active safety being discussed, no sensible discussion about what duties or responsibilities the cyclist has to make sure they're safer on the road and everything that happens is every one else's fault. It is a devil may care attitude, based on wanting to have the right to be placing themselves in a truck's blindspot and screw the consequences.

Nobody wants to see cyclists being injured or killed but we need to start educating cyclists from a young age about the risks that are involved in cycling instead of only saying that motorists are always at fault.

If you accept that there are risks involved in cycling the next logical step is to decide what the risks are and whether those risks are worth taking, not thinking that you know the risk but you'll take it anyway and blame someone else later.
Is it risky cycling around Dublin? London? Is it risky cycling on rural roads?
Answer is yes. Eliminating those risks appears to require that motorised vehicles be banned from roads altogether.

Alternatively speed limits across the country for shared space could be halved.
Neither of these solutions are going to happen.

The unfortunate fact is that that the more that cyclists are content to engage in what is a risky activity the more casualties we're going to see.

Yes, it is very dangerous and I tend to think they would need cyclist only or motorist only roads. I have seen cyclists without any lighting on country roads and cyclists signalling me to pass on bendy country roads which I won't do in case of an oncoming car.I have absolutely nothing against cyclists but like water and oil cyclists and motorists are not a good combination.It's just too dangerous I think.

brocbrocach

It's a small step but a good one and hopefully one that can be built on. In time you'd hope that engineers and planners are forced to take heed of this office when they design our roads. You'd hope that the RSA consults them before putting foot in mouth again.

brocbrocach

The title of the thread should probably be changed if there's to be real discussion on this office. "Quango" and "Cycling" in the same sentence is red rag for some.

Duckjob

dense wrote: »

Eliminating those risks appears to require that motorised vehicles be banned from roads altogether.

Nobody is suggesting that and suggesting that they did is a pretty pathetic attempt at straw-manning on your part.

As a cyclist, I could quite happily live with the current speed limit structure if every car that passed me simply made the easy decision to just pass me with care:

- slow down
- wait behind if necessary
- give space
- the less space there is, the more you slow down. If not enough space to pass safely, just waiting a F'ing minute or two. It won't kill you!



As a motorist, i do the above all the time, and you know what? It's easy. You just make a decision to treat the human being in front of you with respect. Road safety really is that simple.

I do this all the time and you know what? It feels good - at worst I may stay behind a cyclist for 30 seconds to 1 minute and then I go happily on my way knowing that at least I've made a safe environment for that person while I passed them.

hesker

Duckjob wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that and suggesting that they did is a pretty pathetic attempt at straw-manning on your part.

As a cyclist, I could quite happily live with the current speed limit structure if every car that passed me simply made the easy decision to just pass me with care:

- slow down
- wait behind if necessary
- give space
- the less space there is, the more you slow down. If not enough space to pass safely, just waiting a F'ing minute or two. It won't kill you!



As a motorist, i do the above all the time, and you know what? It's easy. You just make a decision to treat the human being in front of you with respect. Road safety really is that simple.

I do this all the time and you know what? It feels good - at worst I may stay behind a cyclist for 30 seconds to 1 minute and then I go happily on my way knowing that at least I've made a safe environment for that person while I passed them.

100% agree with everything you’ve said.