Another empty cycle lane :(

TempestSabre

I see they added "another" empty cycle lane, this time on stephens green where it joins with cuff street. I go past this every morning and I could count on one hand the number of cyclists I've seen here in 6 months. Maybe in the evening theres a sudden influx of cyclist here, but I doubt it.

They should have cycle routes. To specific parts of the city. Not sprinkle them all over, where they choke the traffic, and there simply isn't the need for them.

For example, up the quays, there isn't a cycle lane all the way up and its a major route. But they did manage to fit in a truck parking lane in front of Heuston, and create a dangerous junction of crazy lane changes at almost every bridge. Muppets. Someone should be accountable for this ineptitude.

BrianD

so what? A cycle lane really has no impact on traffic flows. People complain that they never see buses in bus lanes. yawn. Dublin Bus own approx. 1000 buses. How many buses were they expecting to see?

cyclopath2001

TempestSabre wrote:

I see they added "another" empty cycle lane, this time on stephens green where it joins with cuff street.

It's part of the City Council's scheme to inflate statistics for 'number of km of cycle lane constructed'.

They lay down lanes in obscure locations rather than putting them where they're really needed, such as choke-points on busy main roads. Give it 6 months & it will probably have vanished.

John_C

What is the lane like? Would it allow me to get from the bike rack at St. Stephen's Green shopping centre to Leeson street without going down Dawson Street and back up Kildare Street?

silverside

ah we all know dublin cycle lanes are a joke. ranelagh being a prime example.
the choke points on the quays being another.

but from what i remember the bus lanes are not bad, for example on the navan road. if you cycle in the middle of the bus lanes (not unreasonable if you do 15/20 mph), do you slow and annoy the bus drivers (or vice versa?)

imo the emphasis should be on having good shared bus/cycle lanes, with cyclist contraflows where necessary (around the stephens green/georges steet area in particular). Where there isn't room for a bus lane (ranelagh again) disallow on-street parking to make a cycle lane and f*ck the begrudgers.

Surely someone (DTO / corpo / minister) has ultimate responsibility for the cycle network - maybe someone knowledgeable (looks over at Victor ) can tell us what the chain of command is?

Hagar

Do the Govt really think that there are 72 potential cyclists, plus a few on the crossbar to compensate for standing passengers, for ever potential bus that passes?
If they did, do you not think that there would be a tax on bikes?
If not, WTF is all the fuss about cycle lanes?
We don't live in Holland you know.

silverside

what exactly is your point Hagar?

cyclists don't really slow buses - given that buses stop at bus stops/traffic lights and accelerate slowly - they do well to average 10mph - which is a typical cyclist speed anyway. i.e. bus lanes and cycle lanes are not mutually exclusive. If there is room for a bus lane, make a bus lane and let cyclists use it. If no room for a bus lane , make a cycle lane anyway.

the fuss about cycle lanes is that there is no point doing them if they start , stop 100m later, and have parked cars, driveways and lampposts in the middle of them. they are worse than useless. unfortunately this applies to many of the dublin cycle lanes as they currently exist. And it need not be like this.

Hagar

I never said that cyclists slow buses, both of you slow cars.
How many people would get to work on time if there were no bus lanes?
More is the answer. Given the extra lane is available to to the motorist who paid for it in the first place.
My point is that there are not enough cyclists in this country to justify cycle lanes and there are not enough buses to justify bus lanes. I believe more people could be transported on these empty road spaces by private cars in the same time frame.

silverside

hmm
i strongly disagree!
no bus lanes just means more cars to get stuck in traffic and most of these will just have one driver. experience shows that properly implemented bus lanes are effective. look at 46a bus lane on n11 or 39 lane on navan road for example. dto and dublin bus have done surveys to show improved commuter throughput when buslanes are done. i am sure these results can be found online but i'm not bothering to search now.

there may be an issue with not enough buses being run by dublin bus to use the bus lanes effectively, but this is not a problem with the idea of bus lanes as such.

Hagar

silverside wrote:

dto and dublin bus have done surveys to show improved commuter throughput when buslanes are done.

Fair enough then. Absolutely no danger of bias whatsover.:rolleyes:

Reminds me of the King Herod "All male babies under 2 years old are a danger to the empire".

silverside

Hagar the dto (and dublin bus though they could be seen as biased) are professionals at what they do, surveys etc , they're not going to falsify data.
do you think you will get 50 odd cars through a busy car lane for every bus that would fit in a bus lane - if there is a regular service? for example on the quays at rush hour? i don't.

i am starting to think you are winding me up for fun. maybe i shouldnt take you so seriously.

cyclopath2001

Hagar wrote:

I never said that cyclists slow buses, both of you slow cars.
.....

Cars use space very inefficiently & when motorists drive selfishly & create traffic jams, they slow everyone down.

Hagar wrote:

Given the extra lane is available to to the motorist who paid for it in the first place.

This is only partly true, cyclists also pay for the roads.

There is plenty of space for everyone, it just needs to be used more efficiently. Let's use smaller, space-efficient vehicles, drive more considerately & get rid of on-street parking for motorists.

Proper cycle lanes will encourage people to cycle, this has been proven in other countries. We'll never improve this country unless we are prepared to accept that the status-quo is untenable. Change, while hard for those committed to a car-centric life-style, will yield dividends in the future.

randomname2005

Hagar wrote:

I never said that cyclists slow buses, both of you slow cars.

Bikes and buses dont slow traffic, cars do.

With regard to not having enough cyclists, as someone said recently, why do people not let their kids cycle to school? Is it due to danger from other cyclists or cars? If there were more and better cycling facilities then more people would cycle and kids might also get some exercise.

R

Hagar

randomname2005 wrote:

Bikes and buses dont slow traffic, cars do.

Define traffic.
Personally I always thought the cars were the traffic.
So the cars slow down the cars? Interesting concept...

The purpose of transport of any type is to get from A to B, the goal is not to get exercise.
If you want exercise go and dig the garden and stop clogging up the roads.

Traffic

Tempestsabre I think you should have a closer look at the numbers of cyclists using the above cycle lane looks to be more than a handfull to me.

MorningStar

I am amazed that you found a lane without cars parked in it or people walking in it.

Hagar it is really simple 100 people in a bus takes less space than 100 cars with just one person in each. The increase in congestion is obvious more cars and the same number of roads means more congestion. Keep increasing the roads and more cars appear.

markpb

Hagar wrote:

How many people would get to work on time if there were no bus lanes? More is the answer. Given the extra lane is available to to the motorist who paid for it in the first place.

As others have pointed out, overall traffic throughput would be much less. Stop thinking like an outraged car driver for a minute and apply some logic to the situation If the 90+ people on each bus got off and drove one car each instead of one bus, the overall situation would be much worse. It doesn't take many buses on a bus lane to make an improvement over a car lane.

Secondly, you (as a car driver) didn't pay for the road. You pay motor tax (to operate a car), not road tax so you have no more right to use the road than anyone else.

Hagar wrote:

My point is that there are not enough cyclists in this country to justify cycle lanes and there are not enough buses to justify bus lanes.

Catch 22 I guess. On the other hand, if we provide better cycle lanes more people will (hopefully) cycle instead of driving. If that happens, you can drive past in your traffic-free lanes and everyone will be happy :-)

If nothing else, the state has a right to protect people who choose to cycle. In the same way that rules are applied to other drivers to keep you safe in your car, cycle lanes exist to keep cyclists safe from car drivers (and in some cases, themselves).

cyclopath2001 wrote:

They lay down lanes in obscure locations rather than putting them where they're really needed, such as choke-points on busy main roads.

I remember reading some DCC blurb about cycle lanes saying they could only provide them where the road was wide enough and not in narrower stretches. Obviously someone *completely* missed the point when they were writitng that.

BrianD

Everytime I drive up the M1 I say to myself another empty motorway.

Hagar

markpb wrote:

Secondly, you (as a car driver) didn't pay for the road. You pay motor tax (to operate a car), not road tax so you have no more right to use the road than anyone else.

People keep saying this and it makes no sense if you check the revenue / state expenditure figures. The State collects revenue from the motorist in the following ways VRT, Customs & Excise Duties both on the vehicles and on fuel, Motor/Road Tax, VAT and lets not forget the amount it gathers in fines and penalties. Th motorist pays more into the State coffers than the State spends on the roads. So it is fair to say the motorist does pay for the roads and a lot more besides. Some of the extra revenue collected is probably used to subsidise public transport or had you overlooked that little gem.

It never ceases to amaze me how many users of public transport think that the fare the pay actually covers the cost of the journey! Every single journey on every single piece of public transport be it bus, train or luas is subsidised from central funds. The motorist is responsible for much of those funds being there in the first place.

If the motorist hadn't paid for the road in the first place your bus would be stuck in a muddy rut and there would be no footpaths to put your cycle lanes in.

That is a reality that a lot of people just won't face.

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

People keep saying this and it makes no sense if you check the revenue / state expenditure figures. The State collects revenue from the motorist in the following ways VRT, Customs & Excise Duties both on the vehicles and on fuel, Motor/Road Tax, VAT and lets not forget the amount it gathers in fines and penalties.

Using that logic smokers pay for roads and hospitals.
If you pay a tax it is not directly proportional to the services provided for the source of that tax. Some taxes are to restrict not fund. All the taxes cars pay are probably used up by the many problems they cause other than simple roads and repair. I want them to bring in a carbon tax on inefficent cars and restrictions on where 4X4s are allowed.

You can want your car all you like but there is no way you can win the argument that high car ownership and lack of public transport is a good thing.

BY the way not every single journey is subsidised in this country as Dublin Bus made a profit in some of its years in operation. As they will eventually privatised you arguement falls flat there anyway. The individualisation of everything is not benificial to all

Hagar

MorningStar wrote:

Using that logic smokers pay for roads and hospitals.

No need to pay for the roads, they are already paid for.
They should and do pay to fund the hospitals.

As for "carbon tax", that's just a buzzword that some tax whizz came up with so that a new form of taxation could be introduced without doing away with any existing taxes.

I wonder how much carbon all the bicycle factories pour into the athmosphere?

I think your attack on 4x4 vehicles is based on jealousy, like much else in the Emerald Isle.

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

As for "carbon tax", that's just a buzzword that some tax whizz came up with so that a new form of taxation could be introduced without doing away with any existing taxes.

No it is a tax based on the environmental cost of good and their use you can speculate on the desire of it's use but it will be based on production cost. Not a buzz word but a calulable cost on goods.

Hagar wrote:

I wonder how much carbon all the bicycle factories pour into the athmosphere?

Less than those producing cars and I understand my bike has a carbon cost.

Hagar wrote:

I think your attack on 4x4 vehicles is based on jealousy, like much else in the Emerald Isle.

Well you would be wrong. You may find this hard to beleive but lots of people don't think much of cars and find ones that are dangerous to other users, inefficent etc... are even less liked. I am not jealous and chose not to drive because it is cheaper and better for me.

In the end of the day all your desires for cars and lots of road is doomed and my view point is being encouraged. You fail to see what is progress and sustainable.

Hagar

The economics of the situation dictate that the cash contributors will have a big say and the non-contributors will have very little say.

The economy cannot survive without the revenue generated by the motorist.
So the motorist is here to stay.
Unless you want to pay all that tax on your bike?

John_C

Hagar wrote:

Define traffic.
Personally I always thought the cars were the traffic.
So the cars slow down the cars? Interesting concept...

I think the traffic is everyone going from A to B, not just the cars. And yes, cars do slow down the other cars, have you never been in a traffic jam?

The bulk roads I normally cycle on (going into and around Dublin City) were built long before the car was invented and are a finite resource. A car, even one with more than one passenger, takes up a lot more space per person that a bus or a bicycle so it is an inefficient use of that the resource. No matter how much motor tax anyone pays there is no room to build any more roads into or around Dublin City so talk of earning your right to the road by paying tax is irellavant.

randomname2005

If you think of traffic as a combination of cars, buses, bikes, vans, trucks and emergency vehicles (probably something I am missing) cars being the largest volume slow everything down.

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

The economics of the situation dictate that the cash contributors will have a big say and the non-contributors will have very little say.

The economy cannot survive without the revenue generated by the motorist.
So the motorist is here to stay.
Unless you want to pay all that tax on your bike?

What you fail to realise is a lot of the cost is generated by the cars. As they are currently the big tax payers (according to you) then they would be getting their way now and they aren't. Paying the most tax does not garentee anything. So your are simply wrong.
As I have already stated some taxes are a peanality not a method to pay their way. You seem to be missing the basics of tax principles so your understanding of economics doesn't hold much water with me. YOU also seem to forget that the EU has some control on this too.

Hagar

I do realise that some taxes are penalties rather than pay your way.

My take on the economics of the situation is every bit as valid as yours.
Economics is one of the few fields in which all men are created equal. We all have a different viewpoint and there are enough reports and statistics out there to allow anybody to prove anything.

And have you noticed that other countries in the EU have cars too.
Driven by voters.

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

I do realise that some taxes are penalties rather than pay your way.

My take on the economics of the situation is every bit as valid as yours.
Economics is one of the few fields in which all men are created equal. We all have a different viewpoint and there are enough reports and statistics out there to allow anybody to prove anything.

And have you noticed that other countries in the EU have cars too.
Driven by voters.

If what you say is true ithings would be happening to suit drivers. It isn't explain why ?

Economics don't make people equal haven't you heard of economies of scale.:p I think you must be trolling becasue you aren't making any sense are arguing your point. You don't get to have a make a economic theroy about policies that has an documented intent to do the opposite of what you want. You don't have an economic theory at all you just want things to be different.

Hagar

I'm not an economist so tbh I would find it very difficult to argue some points with you. My views are based on what I can see happening around me, not some financial model.

I'm not a troll. I just have a different viewpoint. I know that doesn't make my views correct, but just because you have a different agenda doesn't you correct either.

The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle ground.

Un-ecnomic use of dwindling fossile fuels will have to stop. Eventually all use of fossile fuels will have to stop. They will just run out.

The way Irish industry is structured isn't helping. It's mostly based in cities that workers cannot afford to live in. The road network around these areas is generally inadequate, it's as if nobody expected trucks or workers to be going to the factories. In most EU countries industrial estates are based adjacent to motorways and there is ample on/off ramps to cope with the number of vehicles. Here we try to squeeze in the roads after the Ind Estate and nearby housing estates have grown to saturation point. I use grown in the organic sense ie nature just takes its course, no planning.

We have people living in satellite towns around our major cities commuting long distances to work by car because there large is no other way to get there at the times they need to be there. Even in the cities public transport is poor. Before you blame cars explain to me why the Luas was not underground. Please don't say costs as the amount spent on Luas in the end was greater than/ equal to the original projected cost for the underground option. Too many pockets were lined and too much bad management. In London amny people would scoff at the idea of owning a car as they can manage quite well with a working public transport system.

Until the Govt gets its act together Joe and Mary will drive little Johnny to the childminders for 7:00am to be in work at 8:30. Joe Punter is forced to have a car. He doesn't necesscarily want one.

OT
I wish someone else would join in the topic. I wouldn't want you to think this is a personal arguement.

MorningStar

So you admit there is a problem and yet you want to defend what is not working or workable in the long run?
You don't have a view point you have a personal desire for easy use of your car yet you know that can't work. The economic of bad use of fuel is obviously a car. Your view and understanding of the situation conflict and doesn't make any sense. Cars are not supportable to reduce traffic we need to use public transport and other means to take cars off the road. AS this is the case you must support public transport and other transport such as the bicycle.

People can afford to live in the city or closer to places of work but they have to curb their desires. Not everybody needs a 3 bed semi yet that is what people buy and then commute large distances. Make the car more expensive and don't build good roads so that it is not viable for peoples' desires.

People who live in the sattelite town also don't have to take their cars all the way to work. Ultimately these peoiple decided to move out from services and complain about lack of services and long commutes. Only person to blame is themselves, it was choice.

If the Luas cost more than the pricings for overground it would have also been over for underground work. :rolleyes:

markpb

Hagar wrote:

How many people would get to work on time if there were no bus lanes? More is the answer. Given the extra lane is available to to the motorist who paid for it in the first place.

As an example, if you look at page 21 of the DTO QBC report, there were 28,000 cars and 800 buses crossing the canal cordon, yet the buses managed to carry almost twice as many people (45k vs approx 28k).

It's not an argument for bus lanes in itself but you can reasonably assume that if the bus lanes were removed, less people would use buses because of the decrease of speed. If even half those people changed, you'd have roughly an extra 14,000 cars on the road.

My views are based on what I can see happening around me, not some financial model.

Your views are (perfectly reasonbly) based on your experiences. If you drive into town, get stuck in traffic and see an empty bus lane, you might assume it would be better used as a traffic lane but the statics show that isn't true.

The way Irish industry is structured isn't helping. It's mostly based in cities that workers cannot afford to live in.

Maybe I'm wrong but if industry is spread out away from cities, transport costs are higher, especially for goods-producing companies. I do agree about the organic nature of growth, we do seem to be spectacularly poor at planning for the future (or for anything).

Until the Govt gets its act together Joe and Mary will drive little Johnny to the childminders for 7:00am to be in work at 8:30. Joe Punter is forced to have a car. He doesn't necesscarily want one.

Thats very true but whenever the government tries to improve things, by introducing bus lanes and cycles lanes for example, car drivers and the AA scream that they're being attacked and margianised.

Hagar

I could have gone all out and itemised every flaw in local govt planning and transport planning but I didn't. Instead I took a reasonable middle ground and what's the response "So you admit there is a problem and yet you want to defend what is not working or workable in the long run?".

If you really think we should all buy bikes and have mixed families in tiny inner city housing, you need more help than anyone can offer on this forum.

Now do I invest my money in Toyota shares or Raleigh shares? Now there's a hard choice.

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

I could have gone all out and itemised every flaw in local govt planning and transport planning but I didn't. Instead I took a reasonable middle ground and what's the response "So you admit there is a problem and yet you want to defend what is not working or workable in the long run?".

If you really think we should all buy bikes and have mixed families in tiny inner city housing, you need more help than anyone can offer on this forum.

You win. Congratulations.

Now do I invest my money in Toyota shares or Raleigh shares? Now there's a hard choice.

Yes you were so balanced when you suggested using all bus lanes for cars!

You never argued your point for the car. You admit that the car doesn't work and feel that the government are to blame and the people have no input on their own personal choices.

THe reason I won was you never had a point other than love of a car:D

Hagar

At the time of posting we both had identical post counts 1797. Your's run up since January this year , mine since April 2002. What a coincidence.

Now I have to go out for a while to do some work but when I come back I am going to make you eat that last few. The last one in particular.

So no snacking while I'm away

Hagar

Zaph0d

A friend suggested to me the other day that maybe we should make another lane on all roads by laying tarmacadam on footpaths. She was taking the piss, unlike Hagar.

However cycle lanes are very lightly used and it might be an idea to get them working well in one neighbourhood rather than spreading disconnected unused segments of badly designed track all around the city.

Bus lanes are beneficial from a transport point of view if they improve the passenger capacity of a road or reduce the journey time on the road. Stillorgan QBC does this but other QBCs have been followed by a reduction in people using the road (eg Rathfarnham). Some QBCs are faster by car than by bus. (eg Ballymun).

QBC progress reports are assembled by the DTO every year. The latest is http://www.dto.ie/qbc2004.pdf

bk

I'm currently writing this from Prague, from what I've seen here, we don't need more cars, we need far less. Here cars and even buses (!!!) are banned from the city centre. The city centre is almost completely walking, bikes and trams.

People seem to drive outside the city, but leave there cars and get trams or metro into the city centre. It makes for a far more efficient and stress free experience. I wish that Dublin was a lot more like this.

Cars are simply too inefficient, we simply do not have the road infrastructure or even the space to build more roads, we badly need to move away from a car centric view to a public transport view which will include more bikes, buses, trams, Dart, Metro, etc. In the future car drivers will increasingly be penalised with carbon taxes and congestion charging etc. It has nothing to do with paying for more roads, it has to do with changing peoples actions.

That is the future, hopefully this is what the Transport 21 plan will deliver.

cyclopath2001

Hagar wrote:

If you really think we should all buy bikes and have mixed families in tiny inner city housing, you need more help than anyone can offer on this forum.

Indeed, a great many people want it all: big houses and easy access to the city in absurdly large, empty cars.

It certainly will take a lot of help in persuading people that their aspirations are unreasonable & that it's time to reconcile theire desires with reality & the need to show respect for the wellbeing of others.

That's the challenge in making Ireland a better place to live.

Hagar wrote:

Now do I invest my money in Toyota shares or Raleigh shares? Now there's a hard choice.

There's more to life than money. How about investing in a better way of life?

Hagar

I realise this post does not address global warming etc etc. I’m simply saying why people use cars. This list is by no means exhaustive. When Public Transport at least satisfies 50% of an individual’s needs it will start to be considered a viable alternative. Until then people will buy cars. More people will buy more cars, regardless of the cost simply because they have no alternative option.


Choice of Destination
Car: Go wherever you want in a single journey
PT: Unless there is a direct service to destination be prepared to wait for more than one public transport service. There may well be a lot of time spent waiting on subsequent services as the first will invariably be running late so meeting predicted connecting services may be well nigh impossible

Choice of Predictability of Time of Travel
Car : Set of as early or late as you wish.
PT: Set off only at times allowed by timetables, note there is no guarantee that there will be a service at the advertised time. Arrive early to facilitate boarding and or anticipate early departure of service. Actually only travel whenever the bus/train/luas turns up

Employment Options
Car: I can work anywhere I like within a reasonable radius
PT: I can only work in places that are reasonably accessible by PT

Family Safety
Car: State of the art airbags, seatbelts, child-seats, headrests, crumple zones etc
PT: No airbags, seatbelts, child-seats

Family Transport
Car: Family always able to sit together and younger kids can be amused on longer journeys
PT: Dependant on how full the bus/train/luas is family members may be split up perhaps even in different carriages. This is particularly problematic for families travelling with small children.

Flexibility to Change Plans
Car: Free to change travel plans at short notice, even stay overnight if required
PT: Subject to timetables, value of return tickets may well be lost and new charges incurred

Leisure Activities
Car: Go fishing, golfing, to the gym, family picnics, visits to mountains and seaside, take kids to sports activities and other social outings
PT: Quite limited really only useful for point to point travel

Load Carrying
Car: Well suited to carrying loads consisting of numerous small packages eg shopping or medium stuff like golf clubs, other sporting equipment or child’s buggy, bicycles on roof racks etc
PT: Not suitable for carrying loads consisting of numerous small packages eg shopping or medium stuff like golf clubs, other sporting equipment or child’s buggy, bicycles on roof racks etc You may be refused service depending on what you are trying to transport, or you may be forced to travel upstairs on a bus with your valuable property open to theft in the baggage area downstairs. The driver must refuse you permission to stand downstairs to watch over your property if there are seats available upstairs.

Personal Health
Car: Travel only with persons of my own choosing
PT: Travel with people who potentially have colds, flu, HIV, aids, leprosy etc

Personal Safety
Car: Travel only with persons of my own choosing
PT: Travel with decent people and scumbags, drunks junkies, pickpockets, muggers etc

Lack of Standards in Public Transport
Car: Maintained correctly and kept in pristine clean condition
PT: Slipshod work by uninterested semi-state employees who cannot be sacked regardless of how poorly they do their job

If you are affected by Lack of Local Amenities
Car: Drive to next nearest required amenity
PT: Watch the Late Late or the Ard Fheis of your choice

If you are affected by Lack of Local Health Care
Car: Drive to doctor, dentist, specialist, clinic, hospital of your choice
PT: Go to nearest rather than the best

If there are no PT services near where you live.
Car: You are you own boss.
PT: You are fúcked. PT apologists should note that we all have the right to live wherever we can afford. Our rights are not limited, thank God, by the presence or absence of a local bus-stop.

If you are Physically Handicapped
Car: Dignified transport with independence
PT: It’s so bad I’m not even going to try.

I should also mention the Lack of Public Parking at Dart/Rail/Luas Stations which make it impractical for most people to combine travel to outlying stations by car and use PT to final destination. PT bodies claim to move X thousand commuters per hour yet only supply dangerously unsupervised car-parking for a tiny fraction of this number.

I think the only "people who want absurdly large empty cars" are the very wealthy. Most of us do not fall into that category. We just want to get to work and squeeze a bit of value out of our remaining leisure time. As for "more to life than money" most of us are just keeping our head above water and would be happy enough not to have to worry about money all the time. Personally I'd settle for only having to worry about it some of the time.

saobh_ie

I'd imagine the cycle lane would look empty and un-used because there's nobody stuck in it half an hour waiting for the traffic in front to move a few feet.

And potentially your not seeing the cyclists that are actually there... its a pretty common thing.

I'm all for bus and cycle lanes, bus lanes especially because they open up another avenue for motorcyclists, (its illegal but better than mixing it up with the lottery 1 in every 100 car drivers will try to hurt you, better off staying away from the lunatics.)

Any efforts to improve the lot of a minority of road users is grand by me. I belive buse's should have pirority over all other traffic followed by cyclists and other people with engines. Bikes don't nessesarily need to have things put in place to make them more advantageuos because they're already so great. =]

I understand a certain number of people need to commute by car but park and ride places should be put outside of the city.

Also, does anyone know WTF all the cars go when they get into the city? I mean theres a lot of them flooding in from all over the country. In the evenings my estate is jammers, new place, big wide roads but everybodys got three cars... everywhere in the village is the same at night, you couldn't kick a football in any direction without hitting a car... and during the day the vast majority disappear city bound... to where?!?!

And travelling at 10mph if todays indo is to be believed, although with the blantant fiction they had a few pages later... i dunno.

Metrobest

Most journeys by car are journeys that could, should have been made by another more sustainable mode.

Let's narrow this down to commuting, shall we? Everyone accepts that there are valid reasons for using a car to transport bulky household goods or for motorway journeys over long distances or to reach parts of the country unpenetrated by public transport.

The same cannot be said for travelling to and from work. You have a choice; everyone has a choice.

For example, in the Amsterdam 30% of people choose to travel to work by bicycle. That equates to two hundred thousand journeys that, in Dublin, would have been made by car. Granted the conditions are there in the Netherlands to encourage the use of the bicycle and discourage use of the car but the same things could easily be done in Dublin. We need imagination. More roads and more car congestion must not be the future - it has to be sustainable transport and that means more bicycles, more rail, more metro.

We have designed our city streets to accomodate maximum numbers of cars and we are all suffering the consequences in terms or pollution, noise, stress, accidents, and delays which have social and economic costs.

We cannot allow the car-centric culture to fester just because people like their cars and find them convenient. Smokers also loved puffing away in bars and restaurants, oblivious to the damage they were doing to the non-smoking population. Ireland legislated to ban smoking indoors on health grounds and now look what's happened: pubs are better places than ever.

The same will be true of car-free streets in the city centre when our inept (corrupt) planners eventually get around to curbing this car menace. We will all sit around our (smoke free) pubs in our clean, unpolluted car-free city centre and wonder why we ever tolerated a situation such as that of O'Connell Bridge or College Green where trucks and double decker buses splutter around and choke up our fine streets, sucking the life out of the city centre.

Sorry. You do not have a right to cruise around Dublin in your bling-bling SUV, polluting the whole city. Your car-centric beliefs must be challenged and crushed.

Hagar

Metrobest wrote:

Sorry. You do not have a right to cruise around Dublin in your bling-bling SUV, polluting the whole city.

Ehhh... just when am I getting this bling-bling SUV? I don't have one.

Metrobest

That point was addressed to car users in general. Not just to you.

Hagar, you cannot be taken seriously as you hinted above that HIV/Aids are contagious. Anyone who's read a newspaper in the last 25 years knows that's an offensive and wholly untrue statement. Such lack of awarness of the health issues of the world is also evident in your senseless promotion of the private car.

bungeecork

Hagar wrote:

Personal Health
Car: Travel only with persons of my own choosing
PT: Travel with people who potentially have colds, flu, HIV, aids, leprosy etc

:eek: Ahhhhhh! Get me off this bus NOW!

Actually, you forgot that buses don't have sunroofs so there's no risk of getting bird flu from bird poop coming through the roof of the bus. That's a Personal Health plus for PT. Attention Car Owners: Keep the roof closed!

I think that all polluting traffic (buses and cars and motorbikes and trucks) should be treated like sewerage and put in undergound tunnels. Above ground electric trains and trams are OK with me. Police and emergency vehicles are OK too I suppose.

And now, back to the real discussion.

Hagar

Metrobest wrote:

Hagar, you cannot be taken seriously as you hinted above that HIV/Aids are contagious.

That's typical, pick something that you imagine was said and try to use it to it as justification to ingore every other point that was made.

I know that these dieseases aren't contagious unless by transmission of bodily fluids such as saliva etc.

cyclopath2001

Hagar wrote:

I know that these dieseases aren't contagious unless by transmission of bodily fluids such as saliva etc.

Hagar wrote:

Personal Health
Car: Travel only with persons of my own choosing
PT: Travel with people who potentially have colds, flu, HIV, aids, leprosy etc

So you must agree that it's perfectly safe to travel with people who have HIV or AIDS?

AFAIK leprosy is quite rare in Ireland.

The demands of your preferred lifestyle affects the wellbeing of others. You do have alternatives, but you choose not to see them. Why not get a smaller house or apartment & move nearer to where you work? Or find a job nearer your house? Either way, you'd be showing consideration to others and there could be one less car choking the city streets.

Hagar

cyclopath2001 wrote:

So you must agree that it's perfectly safe to travel with people who have HIV or AIDS?

It is never "perfectly safe" to be in the company of large number of strangers in a public place but regardinging HIV/AIDS infected strangers in particular, as long as they don't spit on me or threaten me with blood filled syringes...

Of course that would never happen on public transport, not even the NiteLink...

I would however be loathe to share a sweaty bicycle saddle with one
( a vain attempt to keep on the bikes/cars/traffic theme )

Why is it so important to you to have me agree with you on that point?
Have you got HIV/AIDS and need my reassurance?

/Bangs head slowly on desk

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

It is never "perfectly safe" to be in the company of large number of strangers in a public place but regardinging HIV/AIDS infected strangers in particular, as long as they don't spit on me or threaten me with blood filled syringes...

Road rage is unheard of too where an angry motorist can't get their precious car through congested traffic.
There are dangers drinking a glass of water.

Not everybody needs a car and not everybody needs to live away from transport. Peoples' choice but it is being discouraged and will continue to be discouraged. Ultimately Hagar's wishes mean nothing as it is unsubstainable and the government is planning for the opposite. This is not a choice but the reality. There is a reason property along the Luis line has gone up. Public transport has a value but it can be equally said when buying a cheaper house away from transport it is because you have to consider the running cost of a car. Houses away from public transport aren't actually better value but discounted products missing parts. The individualisation of everything does not benifit the whole or the individual

Hagar

Your ideal world does not exist and it is a long way from being achievable.

In the meantime have a look at the official stats for car registrations, both new and second-hand, for the last few years. Naturally there are other cars older than this on the road to be taken into account. Remember that every one is owned by a voter with an investment in property / lifestyle to protect.

The mistake you're making in your attacks is that you assume I'm the only one who places a value on private transport.

These official figures tell a completely different story.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/motvehlicfirstime.htm

MorningStar

What you fail to realise is the population increased dramatically too and people who have cars don't all drive to work many people who own cars don't use them to get to work now. There are also seasonal drivers who abandon the bike whenit is cold. You are looking at the wrong figures

Votes don't translate into things you want happening. What politicians are promising more roads and less public transport? They say they will reduce congestion and use better planing. That doesn't mean you get more room for cars and less tax. Face it cars are not the solution and anybody who researches the subject knows it. Try to isolate your personal wants and what is practicle and substainable.

They said the smoking ban wouldn't happen and people wouldn't put up with it. They did and everybody knows people are better off.

Hagar

The majority of people were in favour of the smoking ban.

your personal wants

Your personalization of this debate is starting to irritate me.

MorningStar

Hagar wrote:

Your personalization of this debate is starting to irritate me.

Is that why you personally attacked me yesterday.

By saying personal wants it mean peoples' personal wants it isn't all about you so try to grow up. You personalised this and I haven't