If cycle lane bollards don't belong in Architectural Conservation Areas, why do cars?

The cars have an obvious utility - there's a good chance they belong to the people who live there. I don't see why the cars would be any more objectionable than the plastic bollards.

Fair enough, I can't speak to issues with the plastic bollards because I don't have any such issues (it was another poster in that thread who mentioned them). However, I did see a number of posters posting about getting rid of the "cars" which is something I suspect that the people who live in the area might have real problems with.

The parking spaces are permantent though. Get rid of them and you'll get rid of static cars uglying the place up a lot.

Could put something nice in instead, grass, art, cafe seating, planter boxes etc and make it a street where you would actually like to be instead of the current picture where you'd simply want to be out of there as fast as possible.

If cars don't belong there because they aren'thistoric, then neither do other modern forms of transport like bicycles, scooters, buses, trams.

Bring back the horse and cart!

The bollards are there as training aid for drivers and safety. Because we are bad at following the law. But where an area becomes pedestrianised safety isn't the only objective. There's a raft of other benefits.

That said these streets were designed they weren't pedestrian only. They have features for conveniences of the day. Boot scrapers, and coal chutes.

I think it's a distraction to be honest. I doubt many of the people pontificating about the 'visual awfulness' of bollards etc. really give that much of a toss, or for consistency, they would be demanding that visually fugly vehicles be limited or more controlled as well as well, but that never happens.

As I suggested in another thread where a similar point was raised, I think the real baseline objection is all to do with the fact that the bollards force drivers to slow down, mind their lanes and enforce sharing of the roadspace in a way that paint is insufficient to do. It's not easy to just out and out oppose that, so instead we get whinging about the impact on 'near-UNESCO graded historic Joycean architectural ensembles' etc.

I don’t think it’s that that black & white Noel. You wouldn’t see a mass of flappy hiviz plastic bollards in front of any of the fantastic vistas in London or Rome or Bordeaux and we shouldn’t accept it here either. There are far prettier and far more effective ways of segregating cycle lanes that also force drivers to slow down. This is sloppy work from a council who have a small number of people trying to do their best but with no budget and no support so we end up with temporary solutions that never go away.

No, that's not how "if / then" statements work in either English grammar or mathematical logic.

At least the bollards serve a public function, the cars in the OPs picture are private property that only benefit the owner/user.

Many parts of Dublin city centre were demolished and widened to make direct motor-routes into the core city area, e.g. Clanbrassil street which leads into a dual carriageway past St. Patrick's cathedral, and a motorway that was planned along the Grand Canal which would have had an off-ramp at Mount Street, didn't get the go ahead, though I am sure some of the more right-wing contributors here would be using the same points, cars are needed for the city, what about <Insert> group who need a car to get to the city centre..The R803 dual carriageway through Summerhill is an example of the large road projects that actually got the go ahead whereas many didn't...

So the destruction of Dublin's architectural history had it's worst times in the 1960's and 70's, many Georgian buildings allowed to become derelict or destroyed to make roads wider, e.g. Cork street Dublin.. Which makes some of the gripes about plastic bollards seem a bit hysterical to say the least..

Here's a current example of a Georgian house clipped to make wider roads:

There is no difference in the visual impact of the cars themselves. However there are far fewer disability parking places required than normal cars. They also tend to need to be closer to business.

It is possible to have a car park at locations around the city and keep the streets more or less clear of car parking as the people driving the cars can walk to their location. It would mean you could have disability places and loading bays without really affecting the streetscape.

The street in the opening post looks awful due to the bollards and the car parking. You could widen the footpaths, use staggered car parking at both sides as traffic calming so that the road could be shared by cars and bikes, it would allow you to introduce greenery into the street also which would make the whole street a more pleasant place. Cars and bikes would still be allowed, there is still some parking for businesses.

Something like this.

You’re allowed an opinion. It’s just that it would be great if that opinion was in any way related to the thread instead of the victimisation that you seem to feel. Go back, read the OP again.

Sure why not stick it up in AH to get a broader response? Not everyone is watching this sub.

Remove cars, no need for any of it. Simple.

Is it simple? Is it?

Perhaps you'd explain to the class how ending the social and economic lifeblood of the City in one fell swoop would be simple?

Its not cool.

Its cool for about 10 minutes at lunchtime, otherwise its a sketchy deserted kip.

Ask the local traders (not hospitality) how cool they think it is.

Who ever wrote that article didn't have a clue what they were talking about.