JC Decaux signs start appearing - Shocking.

Stark

IanCurtis wrote: »

This is an absolute disgrace. The Government are selling off our footpaths. Who voted these fcukers in over and over again? Oh yeah, you did.

Altogether now: "You're gonna reap just what you sow"

Like we had such great stock to choose from

MadsL

Comment from Youtube:

Great work. I had to push a buggy past that sign on Dorset street. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. And then it was gone! Well done!!!

Hotblack Desiato

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Manditory cycle helmets certainly have not discouraged cycling in Australia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8870773?dopt=Abstract

Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws.

Robinson DL.

AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.

The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling. In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%.

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

In fact many cycle clubs in Ireland recommend them and those participating in road circuts must have them.

Totally missing the point. There is a huge difference between recommended helmet use, and compulsory helmet use.

My Sister won't let her two daughters outside the gate with out them.

Good idea, provided the result isn't that they stop cycling and play video games instead.

I think It would be a great move for Ireland to push this law before any of the Eurocrats try to take the credit for it.

No it would be a huge mistake.
As a motorcyclist, you should be more than aware of the damage done by 'we know what's good for you' legislation.
Adults, at least, should be let make up their own minds.

MadsL

My video comments with the soundtrack of Liveline on Friday, two councillors appear to defend these and Mannix Flynn gives them a roasting;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDJXQKkTobk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo89H_EooI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQEbzC5tYFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVNFyf30YNA


My introduction to the situation...

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

Daithi Doolon for the defence (I have added background info and corrections)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo89H_EooI

Mannix Flynn gets exercised....(

listen for the 'you're no pal o'mine' comment

)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQEbzC5tYFo

Final part (I was dropped for some reason and not allowed the final comment)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVNFyf30YNA

monument

There looks to be a mixture of anti-cycling rubbish and hyperbole a how dangerous cycling is in Dublin. Is this really needed when the safety issues around the signs are strong enough to stand alone?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Manditory cycle helmets certainly have not discouraged cycling in Australia...

The facts of the matter say otherwise. But you seemed to have given up on your crusade???

As pointed out on that thread, reserch from the University of Bath suggests that "wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk".

Run_to_da_hills

monument wrote: »

wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk[/URL]".

You could say the same about those wearing full face motorcycle helmets, i.e. their vision and hearing is impaired compared to an those that are not wearing any helmet. :rolleyes:

monument

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You could say the same about those wearing full face motorcycle helmets, i.e. their vision and hearing is impaired compared to an those that are not wearing any helmet. :rolleyes:

Well, the difference is that what I linked to - if you actually followed the link - is based on academic research by a traffic psychologist at the University of Bath.

Here's an extract:

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

MadsL

There looks to be a mixture of anti-cycling rubbish and hyperbole a how dangerous cycling is in Dublin. Is this really needed when the safety issues around the signs are strong enough to stand alone?

With respect guys, could we keep the helmet/vis debate to a separate thread. As Monument correctly points out there are enough safety concerns about these signs alone. Could we focus on that. Thanks.

BrianD

Couple of questions:

Did normal planning rules apply to all the JCD sites? There are two outside the bleeding Horse pub on Camden St./Charlotte Way. Being local to the area I never noticed any of the statuatory notices being displayed.

As a driver and a pedestrian these signs are dangerous. This is a busy pedestrian area with plenty of people crossing the delta at all times of day - particularly at night given that Camden St. is a popular entertainment street.

The sign on the left as you approach Charlotte Way southbound from Camden St. conceals pedestrians waiting to cross the road. The sign on the island conceals pedestrians as they progress accross the junction.

Whoever positioned these signs positioned them brilliantly from an advertising visibility point of view but had no regard whatsoever for the safety of all road users.

EDIT: I actually wrote the above without having viewed the videos posted above.

MadsL

Brian,

If you feel strongly please do the following.

1. Email planning enforcement that the signs are obstructing the pedestrian crossing - planing reference is 1489/07 and 1484/07
2. Email the city manager and Councillor Daithi Doolan and complain about the placement. Email addresses are on www.dublincity.ie

Many thanks for your support

mike65

JC Decaux on rte news at one right now

Mike,

MadsL

Mike - Thanks, was this radio or TV?

MadsL

Featured on Six One news now.....

mike65

That was radio (it may have been tv too, I just saw the promo for the above slot).

Mike.

lostexpectation

http://www.village.ie/Ireland/Environment_%26_Planning/%22Hazardous%22_advertising_signage_erected_in_Dublin/

though they attributedthe first vid to jazzbiscuit?

mike65

They include the boards link at the bottom though.

Mike.

lostexpectation

the rte six one piece will be at this link later
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0716/6news.html

MadsL

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0716/6news_av.html?2399683,null,230

Direct linkage

MadsL

http://www.dermotlacey.ie/blog/2008/07/erection-of-dangerous-jc-decaux-metropoles-must-be-suspended/


Councillor Dermot Lacey throws his weight behind stopping this fiasco.



Well done Dermot!

lostexpectation

useless though

BrianD

Got a response from Daithi Doolan via the Planning Department saying that he had forwarded it to the "Manager". Which is odd as I thought he was all for the idea.

Item about this in the Irish Times today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0717/1216073195174.html

MadsL

Reply and ask him if he will ensure that any signs that fail to comply with planning conditions will be removed...

MadsL

It's taken me longer than usual to put this together (I :mad: realmedia!)

but here is my commentary on the RTE newsreport from 16th July

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azi0NqSKrMA

Keep the pressure on - mail nda@nda.ie and make a formal complaint

I'm also uploading the council meeting where the City Manager once again blocks attempts to have this whole fiasco subjected to an independent Health & Safety review. Thanks to all who mailed and texted - Cllr Christy Burke mentions you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYqE6lv2M8

Rawr

So the City Manager's position is: We're in a contract - to hell with the people's safety!

Something is seriously rotten in the City of Dublin.

MadsL

So the City Manager's position is: We're in a contract - to hell with the people's safety!

Something is seriously rotten in the City of Dublin.

More seriously a contract that the councillors have not seen. The only explaination for keeping this contract secret I have heard is Daithi Doolin explaining that it was because JCD are negotiating with neighbouring councils.

Why is DCC protecting JCD's interests and not neighbouring councils?

If you live in Finglas, Dun L, South Dublin etc I'd be worried....

Rawr

MadsL wrote: »

Why is DCC protecting JCD's interests and not neighboring councils?

It beggars belief that anyone blatantly ignore the safety of fellow human beings for the sake of a sheet of paper. On watching the video of the council meeting, I just couldn't believe the City Manager's refusal to listen to sense for the sake of Contractual Obligations.

Really...what of the people? How have we gotten to this stage where our public servants have become so cocky about selling out their fellow citizen's for a 'buck'?

lostexpectation

ever get a reply from jcdecaux?

AlekSmart

The stance of the City Manager in all of this beggars belief.

As a senior administrator who has access to publicly owned property and the ability to disburse this at will He should be held accountable.

The current situation smacks of something very deceptive going on in Civic Offices which may well take some time to investigate.

In my personal opinion there may be the seeds of something seriously damaging to the entire fabric of Irish Public Administration at work here.

Dublin City Council as a representative body need to collectively think very seruously about their next moves and whether or not they simply accept what their Manager is telling them (and Us).

spurious

Wait til you see the size of the 'Metropoles'.

spockety

I gather that Dublin Castle has had enquiries about reserving facilities for a tribunal starting in 2023 and running for 5 years, at a cost of 3 billion euro (adjusted for future inflation)