New Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan

tabby aspreme

If he wants to make waves as Minister for transport, he should use, whatever influence his party has to insentivive working from home, if people had to commute 2 / 3 days a week instead of 5, it would take a lot of pressure off all transport modes

Jizique

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

So, in the case someone needs an SUV, the solution to one car is two cars? Splendid logic.

City dwellers do not need SUVs

tabby aspreme

tabby aspreme wrote: »

If he wants to make waves as Minister for transport, he should use, whatever influence his party has to insentivive working from home, if people had to commute 2 / 3 days a week instead of 5, it would take a lot of pressure off all transport modes

People need to be very careful before laziness sets in too much in that respect. A lot of companies will realise that some lad in Delhi can also sit at home and do the job for a tiny fraction of the cost if it becomes too much the norm.
You might end up with less people on the road but you’ll also have a wasteland with no economy.

Jizique

Jizique wrote: »

City dwellers do not need SUVs

So you want to ban anyone who doesn’t live in a city from the city?

Truthvader

same old same old total focus on "getting" car owners driven by jealousy and spite with no other idea or agenda. Making things **** for everyone does not make it better for anyone

AndrewJRenko

Truthvader wrote: »

same old same old total focus on "getting" car owners driven by jealousy and spite with no other idea or agenda. Making things **** for everyone does not make it better for anyone

Not everyone owns a car.

TrailerBob

Jizique wrote: »

Diesels should be banned from built up areas ergo no SUVs; no problem with a land cruiser out the country but it doesn’t have a role in towns and cities; if the height of our ambition is a >2t vehicles to allow a single person of 80-90kg to commute, we really haven’t evolved much

But the point is that the rural dweller takes a higher hit when the diesel costs and carbon tax goes up.. and no we can't all move into the town (as has been suggested before). I know I'm not unusual in having a 60km commute and nobody to share lifts with, or zeor public transport option

AndrewJRenko

Lundstram wrote: »

That list of things don't use public roads, disrupt traffic or cause accidents.

Next time, engage your brain before replying.

What tax would you suggest for those freeloading pedestrians who use footpaths, cause collisions by walking out without looking, and use public roads frequently when crossing?

unhappys10

Jizique wrote: »

City dwellers do not need SUVs

Stop talking rubbish. 90% of those SUV's are 2 litre diesel or less. Ban them and you can ban the same engine in cars. Like it or not people need cars to get to work and this will remain the case until we have decent public transport.
Morning train from Maynooth to city centre takes about an hour, how is this acceptable in 2020, I'd nearly cycle it quicker.

Ps who caused the place to be flooded with diesels again??

Jizique

Truthvader wrote: »

same old same old total focus on "getting" car owners driven by jealousy and spite with no other idea or agenda. Making things **** for everyone does not make it better for anyone

Nothing to do with jealousy; inappropriate and over engineered product that take up too much space and are more dangerous for pedestrians and other road users; the companies love selling them as they make really high margins but 95% of them are diesels which should not be in built up areas

Yurt2

Fred Cryton wrote: »

If it was such a cartel and so profitable, why are insurance providers leaving Ireland?


Maybe it's because of €25k payouts each for imaginary whiplash for the mother, father and baby when they're involved in an incident which scratches the paint of their car.



The Irish people and the legal system are to blame.

According to Central Bank figures and data from the insurance industry the cost to the individual for fraudulent or suspicious claims is 50 euro on top of each motor insurance premium annually. The average annual motor premium is 600-odd euro. You do the maths.


There's something else going on here other than the fantasy army of whiplash fraudsters that the industry want you to think are up every tree and in every ditch.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/exaggerated-statements-by-insurers-on-fraud-not-helpful-says-faughnan-1.3951203

JC01

Jizique wrote: »

City dwellers do not need SUVs

We don't need 98% of the things we have. Cars are a fact of modern life and I pay enough to use them that I fully intend to drive whatever the hell I want.

Why should you or anyone else get to ban me from the functionality of my own car? Even if there were actual public transport alternatives to my car I've zero interest in starting my day off dealing with people on a bus/train/whatever. So long as I continue to pay this countries extortionate charges for doing so I can't see how your argument has a left to stand on

whisky_galore

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not everyone owns a car.

Do you?

JC01

Jizique wrote: »

Nothing to do with jealousy; inappropriate and over engineered product that take up too much space and are more dangerous for pedestrians and other road users; the companies love selling them as they make really high margins but 95% of them are diesels which should not be in built up areas

On the phone so can't multi quote. You do realise roads are built for the car not the pedestrian or cyclist right?

And Mr Ryan had a strong hand in ensuring 95% of vehicles in this country are diesel because he was messing about in an industry he has zero understanding of. A cock up I'm sure he's soon to repeat.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you know drivers are required by law to drive in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear?

You know well that's completely impractical and ridiculous. Let's follow that logic to conclusion and blame the train driver when someone walks on the tracks.

If you were driving at 20km/h through almost any town in Ireland, I could stand on the footpath and run out in front of you before you could react. By your measure, that would be your fault.

In any environment, there is an expectation of personal responsibly and of reasonable behaviour from both sides, so I don't understand your determination to shift blame to the motorist at every opportunity.

That attitude actually does nothing for road safety, and fosters an "us and them" mentality on both sides.

What annoys motorist about cyclists, is not that the cyclists might do them harm, but that all too often, the cyclists puts their life solely in the hands of the motorist. Whether naïvely sitting in a blindspot, to no lights at night, it's not a responsibility any driver wants, and not one that I hand over to any driver when I'm cycling.




I agree with you 100% on the subsidisation of electrical cars, absolutely bananas logic, and we'll be back in the same mess in 15 years time with scrapyards piled high with lithium (which was dug from the ground by children in thirld world countries) and still no proper mass transit in this country.

As you say, replacing a car with a different type of car is not environmentally friendly whatsoever. If I could take the train to work, I'd do far less milage and actually have the car I really want, because I wouldn't have to base my car choice on fuel cost among other things.

Tax incentives on bikes need to be increased heavily, €500 or so doesn't go far any more when buying a bike and proper gear which you intend to commute on every day. Increase to €3k, purchased by the employer as in the UK, but available to the lower tax bracket too, and watch half of Dublin leave their cars at home and buy an eBike. Then you have serious justification for building far better cycle lanes.

Let's wait and see what he implements in the end, although I just can't see the Greens have the political capital or imagination to achieve much beyond a few piecemeal tax hikes.

The J Stands for Jay

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

People need to be very careful before laziness sets in too much in that respect. A lot of companies will realise that some lad in Delhi can also sit at home and do the job for a tiny fraction of the cost if it becomes too much the norm.
You might end up with less people on the road but you’ll also have a wasteland with no economy.

They can already do that. There's nothing magical about leading a building that stops a company leading a building in Delhi instead.

Duckjob

Lundstram wrote: »

Tax cyclists. They use the road, cause traffic disruption and get the same benefits as cars.

€100 per year flat tax. Subject them to the same punishments as motorists if caught without.

At a time when the rest of Europe is cottoning on to the fact that catering for inefficient private motor traffic is expensive and catering for people to use bikes actually saves the state money, we still unfortunately have this "angry leprechaun" mindset going on here.

Sad.

Eric Cartman

Handing Eamon Ryan the transport brief is like trying to get a dog to choose the colour pallet for a painting.

The man is fiercely anti car, militantly pro cyclist and his policies are all completely centred around funnelling the tax money of the average worker out of their pockets to serve those who can afford to live near public transport or love his cycling fetish.

This is all bad news for those either forced to commute by car because they cannot afford accommodation near public transport, or those who work rurally or depend on cars for their work.

Its very much an attack on the working and lower middle classes.

The J Stands for Jay

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm suggesting that subsidising cars for middle and upper class families makes no sense.

https://www.westernjournal.com/study-driving-electric-cars-can-dirtier-using-diesel-engines/

Have you had a look at the 'About' section of that website, or the headlines on other articles? If I scrolled far enough, there would have been a story about how Donald Trump had allowed people to say merry Christmas again.

Lundstram

Duckjob wrote: »

At a time when the rest of Europe is cottoning on to the fact that catering for inefficient private motor traffic is expensive and catering for people to use bikes actually saves the state money, we still unfortunately have this "angry leprechaun" mindset going on here.

Sad.

I pay about €3000 per year to run my car. That is handsomely taxed.

Cyclists pay nothing.

Both use the same roads.

Cyclists, pay up or shut up moaning.

newcavanman

micosoft wrote: »

Huh? On what basis do you make this statement?

It was discused on Sean O Rourke show recently, about the complete inadequacy of the electrical infrastructure to cope with a large increase in the number of electrical vehicles

TrailerBob

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Handing Eamon Ryan the transport brief is like trying to get a dog to choose the colour pallet for a painting.

The man is fiercely anti car, militantly pro cyclist and his policies are all completely centred around funnelling the tax money of the average worker out of their pockets to serve those who can afford to live near public transport or love his cycling fetish.

This is all bad news for those either forced to commute by car because they cannot afford accommodation near public transport, or those who work rurally or depend on cars for their work.

Its very much an attack on the working and lower middle classes.

It's the main ministerial appointment I have an issue with. I don't have a problem with him having climate action really, but transport is such a big area and requires a level of understanding of the reality outside of south Dublin that the last incumbent lacked and theres no improvement here

kirving

Jizique wrote: »

the companies love selling them as they make really high margins but 95% of them are diesels which should not be in built up areas

1. Automotive OEMs do not typically make high Net Profit Margins at all.



2. Remind me who it was again that pushed diesels so heavily just over 10 years ago?

frozenfrozen

give everyone a house in dublin, build up 30km and use the old cars to power the lifts to get home. your commute in the lift would be quite fast on the way to work (terminal velocity) and you could sleep or read the paper on the way home so it wouldn't matter

Duckjob

Lundstram wrote: »

I pay about €3000 per year to run my car. That is handsomely taxed.

Cyclists pay nothing.

Both use the same roads.

Cyclists, pay up or shut up moaning.

I'm not the one moaning, I'm delighted with Eamon Ryan as transport minister

AndrewJRenko

whisky_galore wrote: »

Do you?

Yes, I do. Why is that relevant?

AndrewJRenko

Lundstram wrote: »

I pay about €3000 per year to run my car. That is handsomely taxed.

Cyclists pay nothing.

Both use the same roads.

Cyclists, pay up or shut up moaning.

Why should your running costs for your personal property have any relevance to public policy?


And the pedestrians who use the same roads for crossing - what should those freeloaders pay?

newcavanman

KaneToad wrote: »

Why should he wear a helmet? It's not a legal requirement and research is mixed about their efficacy. It's usually non-cyclists who insist cyclists should always wear helmets and always use cycle lanes.

Because when they get knocked off or fall off their bikes, they are the first to scream murder , that noone else is worried about what happens to them .
in the last month ive seen 3 cyclist and one e-scooter driver falling off their own machines, with no one else involved .
I think ill burn in hell as i couldnt stop laughing at them

Rows Grower

lalababa wrote: »

I despair. I don't think a qualified phycologist would last long making those leaps of the imagination.
I'm out of this thread.. it's not a serious thread... it's mainly green bashing.

I was answering the questions that were asked by the person who started the thread...

"What's your initial thoughts?"

"Is it a good or a bad thing for Ireland's motor and transport industries?".

I feel sorry for you that you feel so offended by my opinion but it was asked for.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

They can already do that. There's nothing magical about leading a building that stops a company leading a building in Delhi instead.

If a big group of their workforce decide they don't want to work any more and push it then it could be a nice little nudge in that direction.

gordongekko

TrailerBob wrote: »

It's the main ministerial appointment I have an issue with.

Not to drag off topic

but

We have a taoiseach who was in cabinet for almost 20yrs who approved policies that ended with us being almost bankrupt.

A minister for marine from the marine heartland of offaly.

A justice minister who spend the last few years in brussels in what seems like a junket role. Its a huge step up for her and i wish her all the best.

A singer has been put in charge of media and senior hurling.

Someone with little experience in charge of Equality, Children, Integration and Disability.

A lad with a masters in international development in charge of health.

And in Education a department with a need for reform they have handed it to a secondary school teacher.

The west has been forgotten.

At least we know what will happen with Eamon Ryan. God only knows how the rest of them will perform.

JC01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should your running costs for your personal property have any relevance to public policy?

Just read your own sentence back there and see does it even make sense to you.

Jizique

JC01 wrote: »

We don't need 98% of the things we have. Cars are a fact of modern life and I pay enough to use them that I fully intend to drive whatever the hell I want.

Why should you or anyone else get to ban me from the functionality of my own car? Even if there were actual public transport alternatives to my car I've zero interest in starting my day off dealing with people on a bus/train/whatever. So long as I continue to pay this countries extortionate charges for doing so I can't see how your argument has a left to stand on

So even if there was great Munich-style public transport, you would still insist on being allowed to drive as you have no interest in dealing with other people? I suggest this is typical of the SUV driver, zero respect or time for others.

newcavanman

Masala wrote: »

How will be standup to Michael O Leary and his beef on airport charges by the DAA. And what will he do when Shannon Airport come calling playing the poor mouth.

Overall.... how is he on Aviation??? Does he feel that we should only have 1 airport and all the others should be let go

In The World of Greens, we would ban air travel for allordinary people. It would be reserved for our hard working government and public servants, who would put aside their Eco Feelings and endure the nasty air travel , despite their personal views .
In short, the Greens would like us to live in a 1950s type world, albeit with 2020 social policeys

Rows Grower

KaneToad wrote: »

Why should he wear a helmet? It's not a legal requirement and research is mixed about their efficacy. It's usually non-cyclists who insist cyclists should always wear helmets and always use cycle lanes.

He should wear a helmet to help protect himself against head injury if he is involved in an accident while cycling.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who has the ability to type.

If you know of any research that says this is not true throw it up there and educate us all.

The little SUV obsession is laughable. Was your nose put out of joint when the neighbour bought one or something?

Rows Grower

Rows Grower wrote: »

He should wear a helmet to help protect himself against head injury if he is involved in an accident while cycling.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who has the ability to type.

If you know of any research that says this is not true throw it up there and educate us all.

As is normally the case for cyclists, defying the views of motorists is more important than any logic. Whatever the cost.

RandomViewer

Rows Grower wrote: »

He should wear a helmet to help protect himself against head injury if he is involved in an accident while cycling.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who has the ability to type.

If you know of any research that says this is not true throw it up there and educate us all.

suspect his brains are in his arse, head is empty

Jizique

Kevin Irving wrote: »

1. Automotive OEMs do not typically make high Net Profit Margins at all.



2. Remind me who it was again that pushed diesels so heavily just over 10 years ago?

What has that chart got to do with the profitability of individual car models? Look at the discounts available on a Mondeo or a Passat v a Kuga or a Tiguan; look at the volumes of BMW 3/5 series v X3/X5 and the discounts over the last 5 years. Look on one of the UK sites, as discounts aren’t really a thing in Ireland. Margins on SUVs are significantly higher than saloons, and the bulk of SUVs are diesel, which is not suitable or short distance driving

frozenfrozen

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

The little SUV obsession is laughable. Was your nose put out of joint when the neighbour bought one or something?

Imagine how conflicted they are when their neighbour buys a 100k tesla

RandomViewer

frozenfrozen wrote: »

give everyone a house in dublin, build up 30km and use the old cars to power the lifts to get home. your commute in the lift would be quite fast on the way to work (terminal velocity) and you could sleep or read the paper on the way home so it wouldn't matter

Judge Dredd fan?

JC01

Jizique wrote: »

So even if there was great Munich-style public transport, you would still insist on being allowed to drive as you have no interest in dealing with other people? I suggest this is typical of the SUV driver, zero respect or time for others.

Practicalities first: I live in a tiny little village 30 miles from Dublin and commute about 20 miles further into the countryside. Since I'm not seeing this government managing to extend Dublin city to swallow up most of Leinster and building world class infrastructure across the whole thing while there at it that's kind of a pointless question.

But no, even in that unlikely scenario I still do not want to have to pack my boot full of necessities for work into a giant backpack and spend my morning fighting for a seat on a glorified cattle transport. Never mind the return journey after a 12 hour shift.

That's got nothing to do with respect or time for others. In fact I'm very much of the live and let live mentality. If anyone seems to be lacking in respect for others it's you. I could care less how you get about the place but yet your the one demanding to have a say in my transportation options.

RandomViewer

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Imagine how conflicted they are when their neighbour buys a 100k tesla

Gonna be a hard one

Jizique

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Imagine how conflicted they are when their neighbour buys a 100k tesla

If this is aimed at me, I have no problem with it. Diesel SUVs have no place in cities.

Lundstram

Jizique wrote: »

If this is aimed at me, I have no problem with it. Diesel SUVs have no place in cities.

Cyclists have no place in areas with no cycle lanes.

Want cycles lanes? Start paying for them.

Jizique

JC01 wrote: »

Practicalities first: I live in a tiny little village 30 miles from Dublin and commute about 20 miles further into the countryside. Since I'm not seeing this government managing to extend Dublin city to swallow up most of Leinster and building world class infrastructure across the whole thing while there at it that's kind of a pointless question.

But no, even in that unlikely scenario I still do not want to have to pack my boot full of necessities for work into a giant backpack and spend my morning fighting for a seat on a glorified cattle transport. Never mind the return journey after a 12 hour shift.

Hardly much point putting the infrastructure in place then, if people won’t use it

cgcsb

From reading their policies I don't think that they actually understand energy or how renewables work. They propose banning exploration for gas but don't propose what the alternative is. And of course the only alternative is importing gas from the UK and ultimately Russia which wouldn't meet the same environmental standards that extracting gas here would. This is clearly not a pro environment policy but a pro-Putin one.

On transport, Ryan actually fought against a metro route in his constituency because it would add about 5 seconds to some car journies for a tiny number of his wealthiest constituents.

Green party councillors have consistently opposed the development of high density residences on purely nimby grounds despite their lip service to denser, more environmentally friendly cities.

In short I don't view it as a pro environment party but just another one of pure self interest.

That being said if they manage to achieve a serious improvement to public transport is support them going forward and ignore the stupider parts of their manifesto.

Jizique

Jizique wrote: »

If this is aimed at me, I have no problem with it. Diesel SUVs have no place in cities.

Why SUV’s though? Some cars have a bigger footprint than an SUV, and a bigger engine, so is it the height that gets you all riled up about them or something?

JC01

Jizique wrote: »

Hardly much point putting the infrastructure in place then, if people won’t use it

Ergo the need for the cars, see where I'm coming from?

Mines only a diesel because of that clown Ryan.

RandomViewer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What tax would you suggest for those freeloading pedestrians who use footpaths, cause collisions by walking out without looking, and use public roads frequently when crossing?

With dash cam footage it should be possible to prove negligence and no insurance layouts for injury or death. Making dashcams and helmet cameras compulsory might be a good idea