DCC trying to kill us?

MadsL

The Smithfield ones I thought were bad enough - Now this is just taking the p1ss.... Dorset St/Synott Place

Planning Montage - note the scale is wrong on the structure (compare height with traffic lights)


As erected;


Establishing shot - Spot the child in a buggy anyone (how about at 50kph?) Take extra care driving here folks...please!





Erected in the wrong place.


You have to be kidding me......

5. The developer shall comply fully with the following requirements of the Roads & Traffic Planning Division; a) The proposed structure shall not impede any road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, vision along kerb edge lines or any other road infrastructure. This may require a slight adjustment in the proposed location as submitted.

Slight adjustment I would recommend here would be about 3 metres to the left....into a skip!


From the pedestrian crossing...taken whilst standing on the tactile ped crossing surface.....



Completely obscures cycle lane...

Motorists viewpoint



Spot the ped walking out?


This goes beyond the argument of advertising on our footpaths. This is criminal negligence on the part of DCC, JCDecaux and the contractor. Someone will die at this crossing unless this is removed NOW!

These structures have been slammed by the Dublin Transportation Office, described as a road safety hazard by An Bord Pleanala, a report on their safety has been requested by a city counciller to which no response has been given. If I were a lawyer representing a injury or death compensation claim at this point. I would also be citing the Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2007

Grossly negligent management causing death:
A high managerial agent may be guilty of grossly negligent management causing death if he knew or ought to have known of a substantial risk of death or personal harm and failed to take reasonable efforts to eliminate that risk. Penalties for grossly negligent management include:

A fine; and/or
Up to 12 year's imprisonment; and or
A Disqualification Order whereby the managerial agent may be disqualified from acting in a management capacity by the court for a period not exceeding 15 years.

Breach of the order gives rise to a fine of €3,000,000 and/or 2 years imprisonment and/or further disqualification for 10 years.

latenia

That's some very good work you've done. Could you maybe send this to Frank McDonald at the Irish Times who I'm sure would be able to take it further more quickly than anyone here? I hate the whole concept of these things and I have a feeling that if someone were to look more closely at the process by which they came to be approved that there is some 'dirt' to be discovered.

Goodshape

Do these things serve a purpose or is it nothing but advertising?

trout

Goodshape wrote: »

Do these things serve a purpose or is it nothing but advertising?

No good purpose, if you ask me. :mad:

Dord

That's a fucking joke! :mad:

NextSteps

Send that to all the papers, it's a disgrace.

zAbbo

There's a similar one in Rathmines.

Fajitas!

Is terrible alright.

Some good research done up there, see if the papers will take it on!

Goodshape

trout wrote: »

No good purpose, if you ask me. :mad:

But any purpose at all? Or did someone just say "let's stick a great big advert right across the footpath" and that was the that?

carveone

This is very good work on the part of the OP, thanks for that. latenia is right though, you need an intermediary for newspapers like the Irish Times to care and Frank McDonald could help here (although he's probably fed up after 20 years of this type of thing).

DCC obviously don't care, and the difference between the planning montage and the erected structure indicates nothing less than fraud. Negligence my ass, all this stuff is done deliberately - JCDecaux has a history of this type of infringement including erecting adverts without consent (there are many references on google to this).

Also reference this to give you an idea of the breathtaking incompetence of DCC - they might not even own the land that billboard is on!

mollydolly271

yeah defo forward that on to the papers if not nothing will be done about this till it is too late and someone is killed

MadsL

Lots of posts telling me what I should do. I need your (that's you) help and your friends help. There is a council meeting tonight and action must be taken immediately.

Below are the mobile numbers of the Inner City councillors who have bullied by dublin city management into accepting this deal with JC Decaux. If you feel as I do that this should be removed then call or text them: (also send an email to your friends pointing them to this thread)

Don't wait for 'someone else' to do this, and don't rely on 'the media' - It's your city, and these are your councillers. Be polite - but insist on action NOW! (tonights full council meeting) before someone gets hurt. Tell them you will be watching tonight's council meeting on the web.
http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/#webcast

Inner City Councillors:
Cllr Christy Burke 086 8126347
Cllr Aodhan O'Riordan 086 8190336
Cllr Mick Raffety 087 2351547
Cllr Tom Stafford 086 3036962
(I have left off Deputy Lord Mayor Emer Costello who has been very vocal on these)


Details of consistant failure to address this safety issue;
Dublin City Council at various fora have been repeatly warned of this danger.

John Henry of the Dublin Transportation Office warned Dublin City Council on 7th March 2007 (at the time planning applications were made) that this type of structure "constituted a traffic hazard" I have attached his letter to the Planning Office outlining the DTO stance on this type of structure and the dangers both to pedestrian safety and the risks of driver distraction.
http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00066031.pdf

On 9 th, 10th and 11th October, 2007 at the An Bord Pleanala Oral Appeal Hearing of the the grant of planning permission of 24 advertising structures again the submission of the Dublin Transportation Office highlighed their concern on basis of traffic hazard.

In relation to one case of the 24 that were brought before the board, that of a sign outside BDO Simpson Xavier on Mercer Street similarly sited at the kerb edge, Mr. Eoin Madden, Senior Engineer, Traffic & Roads, conceded the appeal;

"With regard to implications for the safety of pedestrians, Mr. Madden for the planning authority stated that the proposed sign would not pass a road safety audit and accepted the case made in the appeal at the oral hearing as endangerment to pedestrian safety in that the sign would block pedestrian views towards oncoming traffic exiting the two public carparks."
http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/223/R223148.pdf

The Inspectors Report following the hearing re-enforced these public safety concerns:

"In spite of the cases made in the oral hearing submissions and the reference to the prevalence of similar signage in other cities, I am not convinced that adverse risk of distraction to motorists or other road and footpath users leading to endangerment of public safety can be eliminated."
http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/223/R223101.pdf

Following the findings the concerns of the An Bord Pleanala Inspector were voiced in Council in March 2008, a report was requested on the Health and Safety aspects by Cllr Emer Costello in relation to these findings. To date that report has not been published.

Yet the planning authority have decided to take a 'suck it and see' approach to road safety, there is a perfectly adequate methodoly to conduct a Stage 2 road safety audit prior to construction, however in this case have opted to only insist on a Stage 3 road safety audit (in other words construction followed by audit - in the meantime while we are waiting for this audit, lives are endangered)

carveone

MadsL wrote: »

Lots of posts telling me what I should do. I need your (that's you) help and your friends help. There is a council meeting tonight and action must be taken immediately.

Valid criticism and I had it in mind when I wrote my own reply. I was actually thinking that it is pretty hard to get anything done without making it your life's work but contacting a councillor doesn't take much effort.

feel as I do that this should be removed then call or text them: (also send an email to your friends pointing them to this thread)

Done.

MadsL

WELL DONE!

trout

MadsL wrote: »

If you feel as I do that this should be removed then call or text them: (also send an email to your friends pointing them to this thread)

Done.

I brought this up in work today, at lunch time, and several of us have texted and emailed our objections. To make sure the texting happend, I showed people how to use online text service (from their phone provider) ... so there was a consistent message.

Hopefully enough people will kick up enough of a stink that this is rectified ... it smells of bad planning and short sighted thinking to me.

Does anyone know what sums are involved for DCC ?
As in, how much do JCD pay for the authorisation to erect these things ?

carveone

trout wrote: »

Does anyone know what sums are involved for DCC ?
As in, how much do JCD pay for the authorisation to erect these things ?

According to RTE, 4 bicycles. I'm serious!

MadsL

The City Council just passed a emergency motion (unanimously and agreed as without debate) that;

All work be halted on the JC Decaux scheme until a complete health and safety report has been issued (words to that effect)

One of the councillors mentioned the emails and texts that he received - so thank you all that made the effort.

Ste.phen

Well done, sir.
I usually cycle past the sign in the OP and frankly it would be a danger to myself and everyone around me!

meglome

There's one on the traffic island in front of the old entrance to the Cineworld cinema on Parnell Street. So if people are going right from Jervis Street I don't think they'll be fully able to see people crossing Parnell Street. I honestly thought the bottom of it was broken, but I see from the pictures it's a detail cut into the plastic.

trout

MadsL wrote: »

The City Council just passed a emergency motion (unanimously and agreed as without debate) that;

All work be halted on the JC Decaux scheme until a complete health and safety report has been issued (words to that effect)

One of the councillors mentioned the emails and texts that he received - so thank you all that made the effort.

That's a start anyway! Good work all round.
Hopefully sense will prevail and decisions will be made in the best interests of the people of Dublin.

Dord

meglome wrote: »

There's one on the traffic island in front of the old entrance to the Cineworld cinema on Parnell Street. So if people are going right from Jervis Street I don't think they'll be fully able to see people crossing Parnell Street. I honestly thought the bottom of it was broken, but I see from the pictures it's a detail cut into the plastic.

It's dodgy enough trying to cross there as it is and they go make it bloody worse! :mad:

rushisthebest

excellent thread,, good investigation work. keep it up

zAbbo

Good stuff, I text and emailed, and mentioned it to a few others as well.

carveone

MadsL wrote: »

The City Council just passed a emergency motion (unanimously and agreed as without debate) that

Thanks for taking the trouble to listen to the webcast. My brain melted after less than an hour. Honestly, it was like listening to children sometimes...

deaddonkey

cycled past about 5, they've been digging it up again

good work.

MadsL

Ok Dorset St looks like it is being removed. Now for the next one on Parnell St. This is a poor camphone image but notice the traffic light on the right is obscured except for the red. Which if you think about it means that there is only one effective amber light functioning for the ped crossing. :eek: :eek:

Also any pedestrians crossing behind this sign are hidden from oncoming traffic, the view of drivers turning right out of the carpark is also blocked.



Could someone post better pics if they work/live/drive in the area. Thanks.

Also pics needed of the one by the Bleeding Horse.

Also on the bikes debate - read this analysis on Paris.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4289943.ece

Key points:

Paris’s vélibs are used for 120,000 trips a day, each one averaging 22 minutes. However, the pedal boom has been attended by a jump in cycle deaths and injuries. Three vélib riders have been crushed under the wheels of heavy vehicles and about 70 have been injured since January this year. After a 35-year-old violinist was killed by a municipal bus in a bus lane in May, her father called on the Mayor to suspend the vélib scheme.

About 3,000 of the €400 (£320) bikes have been vandalised or stolen

The city of Paris has made about €30 million profit (Dublin is just giving this away in exchange for 450 bikes)

Irish Halo

MadsL wrote: »

Paris’s vélibs are used for 120,000 trips a day, each one averaging 22 minutes. However, the pedal boom has been attended by a jump in cycle deaths and injuries. Three vélib riders have been crushed under the wheels of heavy vehicles and about 70 have been injured since January this year.

120,000 trips a day
183 days since the 1st of January (assuming the numbers that the journo is using are about a week old)
That is 21,960,000 (almost 22 Million journeys) since January
There have been 3 deaths and 70 injuries that is 0.000004% (I rounded up) of journeys made using the vélib system results in death or injury

You also left out the important parts:

The Times wrote:

Many accidents involve inexperienced riders or careless tourists.

The Times wrote:

Yet few riders of the vélibs bother to wear helmets or high-visibility attire and more than half do not stop at red lights.

Also in The Guardian's piece of August last year:

71% (Of regular Paris cyclists) admit to jumping red lights, over a third regularly go the wrong way up one-way streets, and more than half cycle without lights at night.

So people who are not wearing safety equipment, are not familiar with the city or bikes, or ignore traffic laws are getting into accidents? Is this news?

MadsL wrote: »

After a 35-year-old violinist was killed by a municipal bus in a bus lane in May

Did you highlight "in a bus lane"? Where the feck was the bus meant to be? If it said "killed by a municipal bus driving on the pavement" I'd be shocked

I do agree though that the signs in Dublin are dangerous and that DCC should be keeping a better eye on JCDeacux and also getting a lot more out of them.
Paris: 20,600 bikes for 1,628 billboards, 12.7 bikes per billboard
Dublin: 500 bikes in return for 120 billboards on public footpaths around, 4 bikes per billboard (and removal of 100 others elsewhere)

These numbers are slightly skewed as these are the number of bikes provided this year and JCDeacux have to provide infrastructure in Dublin as the scheme is only starting (four kiosks with public toilets, maps and signposts).

However this:

MadsL wrote: »

(Dublin is just giving this away in exchange for 450 bikes)

MIGHT be correct but DCC have not said how much/little they have gotten/will get in cold hard cash from JCDecaux as that is "commercially sensitive" so it speculation that the deal is only billboards for bikes

I like/support the idea of the scheme though.

MadsL

Did you highlight "in a bus lane"? Where the feck was the bus meant to be? If it said "killed by a municipal bus driving on the pavement" I'd be shocked

Sorry, there are three threads running on this issue. It was in response to a comment about riding in Paris and their cycle lane provision. DCC Cycle lane provision is a joke, this was to highlight what happens when buses and bikes collide.

These numbers are slightly skewed as these are the number of bikes provided this year and JCDeacux have to provide infrastructure in Dublin as the scheme is only starting (four kiosks with public toilets, maps and signposts).

The toilets have been cancelled.

The wayposts likely cancelled too. (not mentioned in Annual Report)

(Taken from DCC Annual report)

I support a cycle scheme, but I don't think we need multi-national vested interest behind it and to give away 15 years worth of revenue in exchange for a piss-ant scheme like this. 450 is too few for the value given away.

DCC have not said how much/little they have gotten/will get in cold hard cash from JCDecaux as that is "commercially sensitive" so it speculation that the deal is only billboards for bikes

there is no 'cold hard cash' - the only revenue stream possible is a licence for use of the pavement (no details have been given, but this would be in line with pavement cafe furniture price, ie quite low) - and the revenue from bike rentals.

Paris has 20000 bikes @ 120000 trips per day

6 per bike

Dublin then (let's not forget the weather is worse - would you cycle today?) 450*6=2700 trips
First half hour is free
Most trips are 22 minutes, so lets say 40% approx are chargeable at €3 per hour, so 1000 trips at €3 = €3000 euro per day = Just over €1m a year.

JCD ad revenue has been calculated by an industry analyst, at approx €10m per year over 15 years

Value for money audit anyone?

MadsL

Incidentally the 100 billboards have not been removed (ie still earning money) a full year after the grant of planning permission. These signs are now in breach of a planning condition.

The signs are going up (earning money)

Where are the bikes we are talking about?

MadsL

There will be an item on this on the Breakfast Show on newstalk tomorrow (Thurs 10th July) at approx 8am.

Please send your comments to breakfast@newstalk.ie or text 53106


Appreciate your further support.

ODS

Apparently this is about to be on Liveline on RTE 1.

Just to add to the mess it turns out that there have been dodgy rezonings to get the scheme through

Link to Secret Dodgy Rezonings Map and a magazine article here:

http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2008/000134.html

It all stinks :mad:

MadsL

Tell all your friends to be careful this weekend while they are out in Dublin. Mail them this link, and ask them to spread the word. Warn your friends and family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka2xiMQtqFA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka2xiMQtqFA

fitzyshea

You should send that video into DCC and then maybe they might get sense. Excellent post.

spurious

I've been out of the country for the last few weeks but I'm delighted to hear these monstrosities are getting another bashing. I appealed decisions on two of these (Summerhill and Newcomen Bridge) to ABP and both my objections (along with those of almost anyone else who had objected) were upheld.
The whole deal stinks very highly indeed.
Incidentally, while abroad I saw some of the bigger 'Metropoles' in the flesh and they're hideous.

MadsL

I've been out of the country for the last few weeks but I'm delighted to hear these monstrosities are getting another bashing. I appealed decisions on two of these (Summerhill and Newcomen Bridge) to ABP and both my objections (along with those of almost anyone else who had objected) were upheld.

Well done (did I meet you at the Oral Hearing?) PM me I'd like to get in touch or email no.to.decaux@gmail.com

Incidentally, while abroad I saw some of the bigger 'Metropoles' in the flesh and they're hideous.

Cant argue with that - here's what is coming very soon.

MadsL

On Six One news tonight......

WindSock

Yeah the blind people are having a hard time with them apparently.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Statement from the National Council for the Blind.

Dord

MadsL wrote: »

Well done (did I meet you at the Oral Hearing?) PM me I'd like to get in touch or email no.to.decaux@gmail.com


Cant argue with that - here's what is coming very soon.

That's even worse and how do we know that the representation is anywhere near scale size?!! From what we saw with the smaller ones, the comparison of the representation and the real thing is shocking!

I saw the piece on the 6.01 news yesterday, actually I was nearly expecting yourself to be on it.

Dinter

Coming home yesterday I saw the sign at Empire Chinese restaurant in Rathmines was taken down.

Hope the rest of them follow suit.

Great thread.

ODS

Dinter wrote: »

Coming home yesterday I saw the sign at Empire Chinese restaurant in Rathmines was taken down.

Hope the rest of them follow suit.

Great thread.

Wish you were right Dinter. These fugly yokes have been going up over the last number of days:

MadsL wrote: »

Note the client.

Also note that any of these type of units that were appealed to Bord Pleanala were shot down in flames on grounds of public safety

Sad fact is that many units, such as that above got through Dublin Council planners and was not appealed to the Bord because it would have cost over 30K to appeal the scheme in its whole :mad:

Being erected mostly in working class and disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the whole thing was designed to lock citizens out of exercising their rights in proper commentary... In some places 4 were to be erected within yards of each other, and so it would have cost a local over a grand just for those. I don't see people in Parnell St/ Capel St having a grand to throw at something like that.

Apparently the then Lord Mayor didn't even know of the scheme until after the planning applications were lodged :eek:

Its an outrageous indictment on Dublin City Council - that, and what the blazes is the Gormleys Dept of Environment doing by being the first to hire them up?

The only up side is that as with Rathmines, Dorset St/ Synott St, Im hearing that loads of them are not/ can not be built in the way that was set out in the planning applications... In other words, some are unsafe and non-compliant: Therefore, if people can be vigilant and stick up details about any suspect units on this thread, that would be no bad thing...

As stated earlier in the thread is that dodgy rezonings occurred to get the scheme through - link to secret map and a magazine article on the same is here: http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2008/000134.html

It all stinks :mad:

Dord

I saw one of the big ones on Amiens st., Ridiculous looking!