Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Peregrine

The fine for most types of illegal parking is just €40 and hasn't been increased in 20 years. There's not a lot DCC can do about that though. It would have to come from Eamon Ryan. The Department recently said they would be open to increasing it. That doesn't mean they're actively working on it though.

Larbre34

"Thelonious wrote:

Mannix wont be getting any sleep tonight lol

I think you've missed the point entirely.

At the moment, if you get clamped for any of those offences, your car is immobilised by the clamp and it costs you 80 quid, paid up front, to release it.

Now they want to reduce that to an OTS fine of half that amount, and not immobilise the car, which means a significant amount of the penalty notices will just be thrown away and never paid up.

I assume you're trying to paint Mannix Flynn as the champion only of cars, which isn't true for starters, but if he were, he'd be popping champagne tonight, not losing sleep.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think you've missed the point entirely.

At the moment, if you get clamped for any of those offences, your car is immobilised by the clamp and it costs you 80 quid, paid up front, to release it.

Now they want to reduce that to an OTS fine of half that amount, and not immobilise the car, which means a significant amount of the penalty notices will just be thrown away and never paid up.

I assume you're trying to paint Mannix Flynn as the champion only of cars, which isn't true for starters, but if he were, he'd be popping champagne tonight, not losing sleep.

It's like this, in terms of enforcement, what do you think is more effective, 50 cars clamped in a day or 500 cars ticketed?

In addition, clamping, as a means of addressing parking issues is a poor solution as it leaves the vehicle in situ for longer than it would otherwise be. This is not a good solution when a car is blocking a street, a path etc

markpb

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's like this, in terms of enforcement, what do you think is more effective, 50 cars clamped in a day or 500 cars ticketed?

In addition, clamping, as a means of addressing parking issues is a poor solution as it leaves the vehicle in situ for longer than it would otherwise be. This is not a good solution when a car is blocking a street, a path etc

Clamping is an excellent deterrent. It’s extremely visible, penalises offenders using their time, money and embarrassment and most importantly, it can’t be ignored so the council don’t have to do any chasing. Issuing parking tickets achieves none of that which is why clamping was introduced in Dublin in the first place.

However, clamping is not suitable for all offences but since we can’t tow-away every offending car in Dublin (unfortunately) and AGS clearly don’t give a crap about enforcing RTA, issuing parking tickets is the next best thing DCC can do.

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote:

Btw, repurposed is factual. Closed is not. However, when trying to cast doubt about something, it is common that incorrect words suck as ‘closed’ in this case are portrayed as fact.

Strand Rd would be effectively closed but the businesses and residents around Sandymount Green, Park Avenue and Gilford Rd will be glad to know they have only been repurposed.

buffalo

First Up wrote: »

Strand Rd would be effectively closed but the businesses and residents around Sandymount Green, Park Avenue and Gilford Rd will be glad to know they have only been repurposed.

He's right you know. As we can see here, nobody can use this road because it is 'effectively closed':

https://twitter.com/robertburns73/status/1366047421931864076

First Up

buffalo wrote:

He's right you know. As we can see here, nobody can use this road because it is 'effectively closed':

That isn't Strand Rd. We'll see how those busy bike lanes will work if the cars and trucks that now use Strand Rd are forced into the village.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Strand Rd would be effectively closed but the businesses and residents around Sandymount Green, Park Avenue and Gilford Rd will be glad to know they have only been repurposed.

What's the difference between "open for one way traffic and two way cycling" and "effectively closed"?

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote:

What's the difference between "open for one way traffic and two way cycling" and "effectively closed"?

Ask a city/East Link/Dublin Port Port bound motorist to explain it to you.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

Strand Rd would be effectively closed but the businesses and residents around Sandymount Green, Park Avenue and Gilford Rd will be glad to know they have only been repurposed.

“Effectively closed” does not equal “closed”. People can still get to the properties and businesses all around Sandymount.

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote:

“Effectively closed†does not equal “closedâ€. People can still get to the properties and businesses all around Sandymount.

See #1240

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

That isn't Strand Rd. We'll see how those busy bike lanes will work if the cars and trucks that now use Strand Rd are forced into the village.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that a 5 axle ban will be in place when the trial goes ahead.

Also, you don’t understand traffic and traffic evaporation. If you do then you are deliberately pretending to be ignorant.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

Ask a city/East Link/Dublin Port Port bound motorist to explain it to you.

Id prefer to ask them what the hell they're doing on Strand Road in the first place instead of using the main roads.

Either way, Strand Road will be a long way off "effectively closed".

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote:

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that a 5 axle ban will be in place when the trial goes ahead.

You don't need 5 axles to bring chaos to Sandymount Village or Lansdowne Rd. How do you expect traffic to get to the East Link?

Fighting Tao wrote:

Also, you don’t understand traffic and traffic evaporation. If you do then you are deliberately pretending to be ignorant.

So now we can add evaporation to repurposed. Keep 'em coming.

Seaswimmer

First Up wrote: »

Ask a city/East Link/Dublin Port Port bound motorist to explain it to you.

We would be a typical example of a lot of people using this route. Living in Deansgrange with relations in Santry and Howth. Merrion gates and the Eastlink is our preferred route and has been for years.
We go over and back twice a week even now to visit elderly inlaws.
Will it affect us? Absolutely.
But our default route now will not be to wind through the backroads of Sandymount and Irishtown. It will simply be to use the M50 travelling over and probably still Strand Road on the way back.
And I think most people travelling Northside would take this view.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

You don't need 5 axles to bring chaos to Sandymount Village or Lansdowne Rd. How do you expect traffic to get to the East Link?



So now we can add evaporation to repurposed. Keep 'em coming.

Sandymount road is not closing. A general traffic lane is converting to a 2 way cycle track. The same way general traffic lanes get changed to bus lanes.

Traffic evaporation is a valid term used and as someone highlighted earlier it is a reality when changes are made to lower traffic volumes. You can sneer all you like.

First Up

Seaswimmer wrote: »

We would be a typical example of a lot of people using this route. Living in Deansgrange with relations in Santry and Howth. Merrion gates and the Eastlink is our preferred route and has been for years.
We go over and back twice a week even now to visit elderly inlaws.
Will it affect us? Absolutely.
But our default route now will not be to wind through the backroads of Sandymount and Irishtown. It will simply be to use the M50 travelling over and probably still Strand Road on the way back.
And I think most people travelling Northside would take this view.

As someone who has often suffered driver idiocy and lane indiscipline on the M50, I wish you luck with that. I don't take the M50 to the Airport because journey time is simply too unreliable. (And yes, I do use the Aircoach when I can.)

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sandymount road is not closing. A general traffic lane is converting to a 2 way cycle track. The same way general traffic lanes get changed to bus lanes.

Traffic evaporation is a valid term used and as someone highlighted earlier it is a reality when changes are made to lower traffic volumes. You can sneer all you like.

Bus lanes don't close a road to other users. Strand Rd is closing for motorists travelling towards the city and toll bridge. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, which isn't a good basis for a sensible discussion.

Seaswimmer

First Up wrote: »

As someone who has often suffered driver idiocy and lane indiscipline on the M50, I wish you luck with that. I don't take the M50 to the Airport because journey time is simply too unreliable. (And yes, I do use the Aircoach when I can.)

Yes the M50 can be unreliable but I don't think I would base my entire travel plans on the fact that I wouldn't use it for the airport. Try going across the Eastlink with a concert on in the 3Arena (remember those days!!) All routes are prone to issues from time to time but you would be extremely unlucky to get delayed each and every trip on the M50. Especially with the current traffic volumes.
Far more likely to get delayed in Sandymount and environs if we follow your logic and blindly continue to try and keep as close to Strand road as possible

First Up

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Yes the M50 can be unreliable but I don't think I would base my entire travel plans on the fact that I wouldn't use it for the airport. Try going across the Eastlink with a concert on in the 3Arena (remember those days!!) All routes are prone to issues from time to time but you would be extremely unlucky to get delayed each and every trip on the M50. Especially with the current traffic volumes.
Far more likely to get delayed in Sandymount and environs if we follow your logic and blindly continue to try and keep as close to Strand road as possible

I don't think Sandymount will be pretty, so its not my intention to use it much, although it may arise from time to time.

I am still curious to know what route is suggested to get to the East Link Bridge.

Grassey

First Up wrote: »

Bus lanes don't close a road to other users.

I must have missed that about the bus gate outside TCD.

ted1

First Up wrote: »

Bus lanes don't close a road to other users. .

They do, they closed college green to busses. One of the busiest bit of road in the city

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, which isn't a good basis for a sensible discussion.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Bus lanes don't close a road to other users. Strand Rd is closing for motorists travelling towards the city and toll bridge. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, which isn't a good basis for a sensible discussion.

Strand rd is not closing.
It is proposed to turn into vehicular traffic in one direction adjacrnt to a two way cycle lane.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, which isn't a good basis for a sensible discussion.

Fighting Tao

First Up wrote: »

Bus lanes don't close a road to other users. Strand Rd is closing for motorists travelling towards the city and toll bridge. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, which isn't a good basis for a sensible discussion.

People in cars, vans, small trucks can still use the east link if they do wish. No different than today.

You said Strand road is closing. It is not. Please stop changing and adding little things to try to make yourself sound right. It’s not the first time you have done so.

Seth Brundle

Ha!

https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1366533878178078722

First Up

Fighting Tao wrote:

People in cars, vans, small trucks can still use the east link if they do wish. No different than today.

Yes, I'm asking how they get to it.

Fighting Tao wrote:

You said Strand road is closing. It is not. Please stop changing and adding little things to try to make yourself sound right. It’s not the first time you have done so.

It is closing to motorists using it to get to the East Link Bridge. I wonder why it worries you so much to deny it.

Seth Brundle

First Up wrote: »

Yes, I'm asking how they get to it.

There are loads of ways.
Google Maps will help you to plan your route!

First Up wrote: »

It is closing to motorists using it to get to the East Link Bridge. I wonder why it worries you so much to deny it.

Stop right there. It is not closing it to motorists to get to the bridge.
Motorists simply are not going to be allowed travel in one direction and need to make alternative arangements, of which there are still plenty. It is not the end of the world, despite your desperate portrayals.

PaulieC

https://twitter.com/LaceyDermot/status/1366471983492390917?s=20

PaulieC

PaulieC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LaceyDermot/status/1366471983492390917?s=20

If anyone was wondering what the next diversion would be.

'Look at this perfect solution over here that will take 5 years to implement and we will probably still oppose it '
(like last time it was suggested)

Weepsie

Lacey voted down quietways too. That would have gone some way to stop cars using estates and such as rat runs, which was one of the reasons for opposing strand road.

Seems he just doesn't want anything to change the status quo. A proper labour party, and proper labour counsellor would be aware that the bike is historically the vehicle of the working class.

My grandad would cycle from Manor Street to Swords with some regularity (and had his tools), but now if someone in a similar position wished to, couldn't do it as easily, because people like Lacey actively push back against any progress.