FF pushing the bike

rp

Nice to see, but surely this is going to alienate their voter base?
http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/8827/#.UFL1siM7AGo.facebook

Lumen

rp wrote: »

Nice to see, but surely this is going to alienate their voter

Fixed it.

rp

Lumen wrote: »

Fixed it.

They do all this, I may become that voter:

• Law requiring mandatory use of cycle lanes by cyclists to be revoked (unsafe for cyclists to use certain cycle lanes due to the condition of the road surface)
• Implementation of a ban on parking in cycle lanes at all times
• Mandatory minimum amount of space to be given by motorists when passing cyclists
• Legalize the practice of cyclists passing cars on the inside
• Integrate cycling with public transport (dedicated carriages on trains and front carriers on buses).
• Database of bike serial numbers for cyclists to register their bikes
• Minimum number of secure bike parking to be made available in all private car parks
• All bike locks to be zero rated for taxation purposes
• No individual to be allowed sell a second hand bike without providing ID
• Garda sponsored bike tagging system to be implemented
• Set aside portion of €2.25bn stimulus package for construction of new cross city cycle routes
• Prioritise delivery of the s2s (Sutton to Sandycove) cycleway and extend to Howth; this would provide a continuous bike lane (It would have a material impact on commuters, tourists and retailers on the route)
• Urgent upgrade of existing cycle lanes/paths to a minimum standard (width & quality). Majority of cycle lanes are currently unsafe and discourage cycling
• Install cycle contra flows on all one way streets
• All 44 ‘Dublin Bike’ stations to be linked by dedicated cycle lanes

Lumen

FF dude #1: We're supposed to be the populist party. Why does everyone hate us?

FF dude #2: Beats me. Economic mismanagement, cronyism, something, something, whatever. We need new popular policies. What's popular?

FF dude #1: Well, thanks to us no-one can afford petrol or cars so they're all using bikes. Bikes are popular. Remember the bike to work scheme? That was our idea. Geniuses, us.

FF dude #2: Er, that was the Greens.

FF dude #1: Right, whatever. Anyway, what do biker type people want?

FF dude #2: Who cares? We're the builder's party. What can we build "for the cyclists"?

FF dude #1: Cycle lanes. Lots and lots of cycle lanes. Imagine all the construction work! It'll be brilliant. We can call it "economic stimulus".

<high fives all round>

doozerie

Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised to see politicians make some promising noises in favour of cycling. I can't help feeling that it's nothing more than just another political stick with which to beat the other party(ies) though. I can't seem to shake off my cynicism about politicians' motives generally when it comes to a variety of things, including cycling.

Also, their reference to cycling tracks being "unsafe for cyclists to use certain cycle lanes due to the condition of the road surface" annoys me. That's certainly one reason they are unsafe, but more fundamentally they are unsafe because their design never seemed to have cyclist safety as it's goal anyway, getting cyclists out of the way of motorised traffic seems to have been the primary aim. Any initiatives around cycle lanes which sidestep or gloss over the flawed thinking behind the basic design of many of the cycle lanes do little or nothing to tackle the ignorant and prejudiced thinking which are the root of the problem, I believe, and the result will be little better than what we have right now.

The thread title did make me snigger though, it had me picturing Micheal Martin and his cohorts pushing a punctured bike to work, and my inner voice cheered and enthusiastically yelled "Ha, take that, ya smug feckers!".

Undercover Elephant

I don't understand this crap about repealing mandatory use of cycle lanes. What exactly is supposed to be so difficult about it? It's not like we're asking the government to build the Hoover Dam. All it would take is a one-page statutory instrument signed by Leo. Half an hour's work for a civil servant and nearly a whole minute for him, if he bothers to read it first.

Will someone please just accost him with it on his way to a radio studio some Sunday morning?

Undercover Elephant

And another thing.

Why do we need to ban parking in cycle lanes when it's already illegal?

"No, we're really banning it now. It's illegally illegal. What's that? You're only parked for the last day of the financial year so that you don't have to declare your parking space? Grand, so."

monument

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I don't understand this crap about repealing mandatory use of cycle lanes. What exactly is supposed to be so difficult about it? It's not like we're asking the government to build the Hoover Dam. All it would take is a one-page statutory instrument signed by Leo. Half an hour's work for a civil servant and nearly a whole minute for him, if he bothers to read it first.

This seems to be the process:

• It's proposed
• It's promised, again
• It's argued about it
• It's promised, once again
• It's argued about it, again
• It's drafted by the department
• It's argued about it, once again?
• It's sent to the Office of the Parliamentary Council for further drafting
• (this only happened before the summer apparently -- when I had asked the department before they said that it was nearly ready to send to them and then before the summer it was being "finalised" by them)
• It's delayed with their heavy workload
• It's argued about it again and again?

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

And another thing.

Why do we need to ban parking in cycle lanes when it's already illegal?

"No, we're really banning it now. It's illegally illegal. What's that? You're only parked for the last day of the financial year so that you don't have to declare your parking space? Grand, so."

It's often not illegal.

ednwireland

doozerie wrote: »

. I can't help feeling that it's nothing more than just another political stick with which to beat the other party(ies) though. I can't seem to shake off my cynicism about politicians' motives generally when it comes to a variety of things, including cycling.

this, I dont beleive a word of it i think politicians are a class that maange to say anything to get votes and never seem to be held accountable for what they promise.

average_runner

And while they are at it, can they back cycling two a breast when road is narrow and people trying to get by!!

rp

average_runner wrote: »

And while they are at it, can they back cycling two a breast when road is narrow and people trying to get by!!

Dangerous overtaking is already illegal, but enforcing the recommended 1.5m clearance in law will be a help.

average_runner

rp wrote: »

Dangerous overtaking is already illegal, but enforcing the recommended 1.5m clearance in law will be a help.

So people by law cant cycle double breast on country roads or roads where it is hard for cars to get by one never mind 2?

Good to see. That's about all this influenced me.

Lumen

average_runner wrote: »

And while they are at it, can they back cycling two a breast when road is narrow and people trying to get by!!

average_runner wrote: »

So people by law cant cycle double breast on country roads or roads where it is hard for cars to get by one never mind 2?

I see.

magicbastarder

monument wrote: »

It's often not illegal.

it's been a few years since i was on the bike, but i used to see houses with no driveways - i.e. with street parking the only option - have cycle lanes run past them.
so enforcing a no parking rule would be idiotic considering the placement of the bike lane suited neither the cyclist nor the people living on the road.

monument

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's been a few years since i was on the bike, but i used to see houses with no driveways - i.e. with street parking the only option - have cycle lanes run past them.
so enforcing a no parking rule would be idiotic considering the placement of the bike lane suited neither the cyclist nor the people living on the road.

Not every street should have parking regardless of houses without parking.

Just as not every street should have a cycle lane.

dave_o_brien

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's been a few years since i was on the bike, but i used to see houses with no driveways - i.e. with street parking the only option - have cycle lanes run past them.
so enforcing a no parking rule would be idiotic considering the placement of the bike lane suited neither the cyclist nor the people living on the road.

So when a person buys a house (by choice), and the house they choose does not have a parking space, and they also own a car, the solution is for them to take ownership of a portion of the public highway?

Sorry, something about that just seems incorrect...

buffalo

Not to mention houses that do have a driveway, but have multiple cars and park one of them on the dedicated cycle path - I'm thinking of Braemor Road in Churchtown, Dublin.

rp

buffalo wrote: »

Not to mention houses that do have a driveway, but have multiple cars and park one of them on the dedicated cycle path - I'm thinking of Braemor Road in Churchtown, Dublin.

For which I thank them: you'd want full-suss and balloon tyres to ride down that particular path...

Cee-Jay-Cee

It looks good on paper but the reality is that if FF got back into power this idea would be put on the back burner and some excuse made about financial constraints blah blah blah and it simply wouldn't happen.

petethedrummer

This was all in the cycling policy document they released about 4 years ago.

reallyunique

Obviously this is just a lot of nonsense to designed to make the current lot look bad.

This, however, is a good thing! When politicians start talking about a topic it's more likely to get funding. It raises general awareness of the issues and can lead to change.

As long as cycling is a non-issue it will get the sort of attention from the State that it traditionally has. I'd much rather these eejits were arguing about the state of cycle infrastructure than about putting water meters in one of the most water-logged countries in Europe.

monkeypants

petethedrummer wrote: »

This was all in the cycling policy document they released about 4 years ago.

Really? Well then, we should definitely believe them now.

alexanderomahon

CJC999 wrote: »

It looks good on paper but the reality is that if FF got back into power ........

Good one! Best joke I've heard all day.:D:D:D:D

hardCopy

magicbastarder wrote: »

monument wrote: »

It's often not illegal.

it's been a few years since i was on the bike, but i used to see houses with no driveways - i.e. with street parking the only option - have cycle lanes run past them.
so enforcing a no parking rule would be idiotic considering the placement of the bike lane suited neither the cyclist nor the people living on the road.

Roads have never belonged to the residents on them, nor should they