Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

AndrewJRenko

PaulieC wrote: »

The first video looks perfectly fine to me. Nothing untoward. Tweeter seems a bit sensitive.

Would you put a ten year old relative of yours out to cycle in those conditions?

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats just it boss. The majority of Councillors opposed Strand Road.

Can you show me something that confirms the majority of DCC councillors opposed this project?

Larbre34

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can you show me something that confirms the majority of DCC councillors opposed this project?

Take a look at the videos of the recent South East area Committees.

I know for a fact the opposition group secured the support of all bar one of the Pembroke LEA Councillors (Green) and all bar two of the SEIC LEA Councillors (Green and one non-committal). That adds up to 7/10 opposed.

Now, the way local politics works in Ireland, for the bigger parties, is as follows. An issue in a particular LEA is lead by the Councillor and party members in that area. If that issue comes to a full vote of the Council, the other party members vote with their colleague and so they can rely on that member when its their turn.

Of course the Councils also have some independent and single issue members and they are courted as needed. So, and I mentioned this earlier, on its very best day, this project would receive 25 of 63 votes in a full vote of the Council, because in line with their local Councillors, FF, FG, Labour and a good chunk of Indos who will back Mannix, are all opposed.

You don't have to believe me, but tune into the South East Area Committee online on the evening of 8th March, you'll get the idea. It'll be a juicy one too.

Also, if by some miracle a Part 8 on this ever comes before the Council for a final vote, you'll see the dice fall much as I have described.

Neither the residents groups nor Mannix Flynn hung their ass out in the breeze over this without being sure of the numbers they had behind them, so to speak. Believe that.

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

Take a look at the videos of the recent South East area Committees.

I know for a fact the opposition group secured the support of all bar one of the Pembroke LEA Councillors (Green) and all bar two of the SEIC LEA Councillors (Green and one non-committal). That adds up to 7/10 opposed.

Now, the way local politics works in Ireland, for the bigger parties, is as follows. An issue in a particular LEA is lead by the Councillor and party members in that area. If that issue comes to a full vote of the Council, the other party members vote with their colleague and so they can rely on that member when its their turn.

Of course the Councils also have some independent and single issue members and they are courted as needed. So, and I mentioned this earlier, on its very best day, this project would receive 25 of 63 votes in a full vote of the Council, because in line with their local Councillors, FF, FG, Labour and a good chunk of Indos who will back Mannix, are all opposed.

You don't have to believe me, but tune into the South East Area Committee online on the evening of 8th March, you'll get the idea. It'll be a juicy one too.

Also, if by some miracle a Part 8 on this ever comes before the Council for a final vote, you'll see the dice fall much as I have described.

Neither the residents groups nor Mannix Flynn hung their ass out in the breeze over this without being sure of the numbers they had behind them, so to speak. Believe that.

Telling people to go and find it themselves is a conspiracy theorist reply. Where is the vote? Either show the evidence, or take back your words.

Brian?

First Up wrote: »

Of course they are but they are not being inconvenienced.

Cycling in Dublin is a chore because the city wasn't planned with cyclists in mind. Dublin cyclists have nothing but inconvenience to deal with.

breezy1985

PaulieC wrote: »

The first video looks perfectly fine to me. Nothing untoward. Tweeter seems a bit sensitive.

Ya it looked to me like a picture of exactly what people should be doing

breezy1985

Brian? wrote: »

Cycling in Dublin is a chore because the city wasn't planned with cyclists in mind. Dublin cyclists have nothing but inconvenience to deal with.

It's actually the cars that weren't planned for

PaulieC

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you put a ten year old relative of yours out to cycle in those conditions?

Had to watch it again just to make sure I wasn't missing anything, but yes I would. I taught the kids how to cycle, not just cycle on segregated, dedicated paths. That's what the real world is like, they need to know how to handle traffic.

There's nothing remotely dangerous shown in that video, all it does it infantilise people. The closest pass at speed in the video was by another cyclist. All the cars gave them at least a metre and we're travelling slowly.

silverharp

this might help the Strand road

https://twitter.com/donna_cooney1/status/1365969285559033861

Larbre34

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Telling people to go and find it themselves is a conspiracy theorist reply. Where is the vote? Either show the evidence, or take back your words.

Thats the whole point, it was never put to a vote of the City Council, thats partly what the case is about achieving!!

Seth Brundle comes on here stating the majority of Councillors are in favour, without any basis, and nobody challenges it.

I'm telling you what I know to be the case from my contact with the opposition groups. The proof will be if ever the scheme gets to the Council Chamber for a vote. In the meantime, I reiterate, the opposition group got committments from 7 of 10 Councillors in the two effected LEAs that they were opposed to the DCC plan.

Thelonious Monk

silverharp wrote: »

this might help the Strand road

Of course Mannix is the one saying it's a money grabbing ploy. I don't care if it's a money grabbing ploy if it sorts out the issue.

breezy1985

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Of course Mannix is the one saying it's a money grabbing ploy. I don't care if it's a money grabbing ploy if it sorts out the issue.

It only grabs money if people break the law. So easy fix is don't break the law

Fighting Tao

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats the whole point, it was never put to a vote of the City Council, thats partly what the case is about achieving!!

Seth Brundle comes on here stating the majority of Councillors are in favour, without any basis, and nobody challenges it.

I'm telling you what I know to be the case from my contact with the opposition groups. The proof will be if ever the scheme gets to the Council Chamber for a vote. In the meantime, I reiterate, the opposition group got committments from 7 of 10 Councillors in the two effected LEAs that they were opposed to the DCC plan.

Sorry. I thought you had a smoking gun and not just hearsay.

Larbre34

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sorry. I thought you had a smoking gun and not just hearsay.

How about this for hearsay. Tomorrow is 1st March and traffic isn't going to be one way on Beach Road and Strand Road. A cyclelane isn't going to open on it in a few weeks.

I can't see for the smoke.

Peregrine

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Of course Mannix is the one saying it's a money grabbing ploy. I don't care if it's a money grabbing ploy if it sorts out the issue.

Mannix siding with law breakers and opposing a trial to make sustainable transport safer? I'm shocked. Shocked. And here I was thinking he was doing all this because of his love for the law.

It's almost as if he will oppose anything that inconveniences motorists.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

How about this for hearsay. Tomorrow is 1st March and traffic isn't going to be one way on Beach Road and Strand Road. A cyclelane isn't going to open on it in a few weeks.

I can't see for the smoke.

That's doesn't answer the question though. The stay wasn't mandated by the councillors.

breezy1985

Peregrine wrote: »

Mannix siding with law breakers and opposing a trial to make sustainable transport safer? I'm shocked. Shocked. And here I was thinking he was doing all this because of his love for the law.

It's almost as if he will oppose anything that inconveniences motorists.

Motorists need to park on paths and double yellows to "just pop into the shop" and it doesn't matter a damn if people with buggies or wheelchairs can't "just pop into the shop" because of them

Larbre34

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's doesn't answer the question though. The stay wasn't mandated by the councillors.

It wasn't. But they supported the locals in the Court action. Ask Dermot Lacey or James Geoghegan or Claire O'Connor. Only the Green Councillors in each of the two wards were in favour of the scheme.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

It wasn't. But they supported the locals in the Court action. Ask Dermot Lacey or James Geoghegan or Claire O'Connor. Only the Green Councillors in each of the two wards were in favour of the scheme.

I don't know the make-up of the council. Lacey is obviously against it because he opposes all these schemes while claiming to support them in theory. But what are the numbers?

tomasrojo

I think Lacey called an emergency debate over the installation of one cycle rack, in fact.

Edit
Yes, was him.
https://irishcycle.com/2018/05/14/new-bicycle-parking-removed-in-sandymount-after-emergency-motion-from-cllr/

tomasrojo

I only know of Lacey because of his bizarrely frequent habit of calling people liars on Twitter.

Try the search
Lieing from:laceydermot
Lie and liar turn up plenty as well. Very strange behaviour from a public representative.

PaulieC

tomasrojo wrote: »

I only know of Lacey because of his bizarrely frequent habit of calling people liars on Twitter.

Try the search
Lieing from:laceydermot
Lie and liar turn up plenty as well. Very strange behaviour from a public representative.

He called someone a tw*t once too. Claimed he didn't know it was a bad thing

tomasrojo

The tone is this exchange is distinctly odd too, given that the initiating question is pretty reasonable:

https://twitter.com/LaceyDermot/status/1286976187227688961

https://twitter.com/StephenHanleyIE/status/1286669004606709761

Larbre34

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know the make-up of the council. Lacey is obviously against it because he opposes all these schemes while claiming to support them in theory. But what are the numbers?

Greens have 9 out of 63 seats. Google will tell you the rest.

tomasrojo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Greens have 9 out of 63 seats. Google will tell you the rest.

I don't know what the basis of your claim that only Green councillors support it is though. Your posts usually have more detail (to say the least).

Edit: I think your claim is that most of the councillors in the ward and adjoining ward oppose it, rather than most in the council. Which is possible, given that four went as far as supporting the court case, but irrelevant in terms of voting down the trial. Though I don't know enough about how the council works.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm telling you what I know to be the case from my contact with the opposition groups. The proof will be if ever the scheme gets to the Council Chamber for a vote. In the meantime, I reiterate, the opposition group got committments from 7 of 10 Councillors in the two effected LEAs that they were opposed to the DCC plan.

You may end up being right in the long run but you’re presenting yourself as an expert in all things roads, planning and politics and yet the only thing you’ve gotten right so far is that a court case would happen, something that was public knowledge. And you managed to get the outcome of that almost entirely wrong.

Maybe if you presented your opinions as that instead of that, we’d be able to have a sensible debate about this.

downtheroad

breezy1985 wrote: »

Motorists need to park on paths and double yellows to "just pop into the shop" and it doesn't matter a damn if people with buggies or wheelchairs can't "just pop into the shop" because of them

Saw a great example of this on Vernon Avenue in Clontarf earlier. Car parked on double yellow lines that had several no parking traffic cones on top, but the owner left the hazards on while she went to get coffee so that makes it OK. Then she drove over a traffic cone when she had her coffee bought and managed to drive a good 100 metres down the road with the cone stuck under the car, before a kind girl stopped her and for some reason removed the cone instead of making the idiot get out and do it herself.

breezy1985

downtheroad wrote: »

Saw a great example of this on Vernon Avenue in Clontarf earlier. Car parked on double yellow lines that had several no parking traffic cones on top, but the owner left the hazards on while she went to get coffee so that makes it OK. Then she drove over a traffic cone when she had her coffee bought and managed to drive a good 100 metres down the road with the cone stuck under the car, before a kind girl stopped her and for some reason removed the cone instead of making the idiot get out and do it herself.

Should have waved her down and then just tell her it was so you could cross the road to the shops

First Up

bigmac3 wrote:

Brilliant

So cyclists and motorists don't like each other and are uncomfortable in each other's company. I wonder who didn't know that?

Wouldn't it be nice if the likes of the unfortunately appointed Keegan thought about ways to accommodate them both, instead of always coming up with zero sum solutions.

donvito99

First Up wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice if the likes of the unfortunately appointed Keegan thought about ways to accommodate them both, instead of always coming up with zero sum solutions.

Drivers have free reign of the city. Keegan is talked about as if he's banned cars altogether. What measures has Keegan/DCC brought about that disproportionately affect the motorist, Strand Rd aside? It took a pandemic to put a cycle lane on the quays remember. My impression is that Keegan is some sort of plant for the AA given the state of cycling infrastructure in the city