Motorist oppression: Parking bays 10 seconds from houses to 30km/h on motorway ramps

Iwannahurl

Off-topic posts split from the "Junction design the Dutch pedestrian and cycle friendly way" thread.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

... in the Netherlands, which is where we are talking about, the engineers will often seek to reduce delay for cyclists by whatever means possible.

...

And yes if some engineer puts in some design that imposes delay, if they are trying to manage one set of road users (cyclists and pedestrians) for the benefit of some other set of road users (motorists) then there is no moral obligation on the first groups to respect or obey the controls being applied.

We can see this in relation to pedestrian crossings and pedestrian phases at traffic lights all over the country. Several generations of Irish road engineers have been training several generations of pedestrians to ignore the red man at traffic signals.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not only do we need a 'level playing pitch' for these modes of travel, but as a society we need positive discrimination in order to ensure a much greater modal share for them in future. Other countries have gone much further in that direction than we have, but there are early signs that we are starting to get the message in Ireland.

And no, there is no moral obligation on motorists, for example, to engage in civil disobedience or to ignore laws that favour, say, public transport. Take bus lanes, for instance. Motorists mightn't like them, but they serve a useful societal purpose and are there for the greater good. This is in no way equivalent to situations such as roads engineering practices that treat pedestrians and cyclists as second-class citizens.

I just want to clarify this clumsily-phrased sentence: "there is no moral obligation on motorists, for example, to engage in civil disobedience or to ignore laws that favour, say, public transport."

In the context of the OP, regarding cyclist/pedestrian friendly junction designs, the Dutch approach is clearly 'positive discrimination' in favour of cycling and walking. As galwaycyclist puts it, Dutch roads engineers "will often seek to reduce delay for cyclists by whatever means possible."

The controls being applied in the Dutch situation make the better transport choice the easier choice. It could be argued that the high-quality cycle facilities impose a 'moral obligation' on cyclists to use them, but such an obligation is unnecessary because cyclists are already highly incentivised to use them.

Again, the opposite is often the case in Ireland. Cycle and pedestrian facilities are so poorly designed, often because the primary objective is the facilitation of motorised traffic, that cyclists and pedestrians have "no moral obligation to respect or obey the controls being applied."

Controls on private car use are not analagous in this context. We often hear complaints from some quarters that measures such as speed surveillance, traffic calming, reallocation of road space, parking restrictions, car-free streets and the like are "punitive" and "anti-motorist".

As stated earlier, there are sound public policy justifications for such measures, so there no good arguments for claiming that motorists are under no moral obligation to accept them. For example, a motorist in a bus lane is not making a statement or demonstrating the folly of unreasonable restrictions; they are just breaking the law and causing a nuisance.

Cyclists breaking red lights, going the 'wrong way' up one-way streets and using the footpaths, and pedestrians allegedly 'jay-walking', are breaking the law and/or may be a nuisance to other road users at times. However, in many (though I would not say all) cases they are adapting to unnecessary restrictions. I personally find such behaviour to be very annoying on occasion, but I would also agree that the sustainable way to deal with it is to greatly improve the standard of engineering and education for cyclists and pedestrians.

Make cycling and walking the easier choice at all times and you remove both the motivation and the opportunity for real or perceived misbehaviour. When walking and cycling has been facilitated to that degree, the real recidivist law-breakers will stand out like a sore thumb and should be dealt with accordingly.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

'positive discrimination'

Is an oxymoron.

It could be argued that the high-quality cycle facilities impose a 'moral obligation' on cyclists to use them, but such an obligation is unnecessary because cyclists are already highly incentivised to use them.

You really should tell this to the fool on the bike I saw at the junction of Talbot St and Gardiner street a couple of weeks ago.

He was continuing along Gardiner street, or more precisely the footpath on Gardiner street, where the pedestrian lights were red but the traffic lights for the road version of the same route were green. He did obey the "pedestrian(cyclist)" lights and stopped, to his credit, but could have sailed through the junction on a green traffic light if he were on the street, which included a decent cycle lane and had very light vehicular traffic.

that cyclists and pedestrians have "no moral obligation to respect or obey the controls being applied."

Translation: the controls are inconvenient, but if I'm on a bike I can disregard them?

Controls on private car use are not analagous in this context.

Controls on private car use can have good rationale, but not all of them do. The "controls" being advocated in certain quarters range from the ridiculous to the sublime.

We often hear complaints from some quarters that measures such as speed surveillance, traffic calming, reallocation of road space, parking restrictions, car-free streets and the like are "punitive" and "anti-motorist".

They are not? Please explain.

However, in many (though I would not say all) cases they are adapting to unnecessary restrictions.

Perhaps, but I am sure you would agree that the same is true of motorists adapting to 18.5MPH speed limits on dual carriageways and motorist hostile layouts such as this housing estate in Portlaoise?

Can you please explain to me how the the above, especially the latter, are not "anti-motorist."

If it is appropriate to suggest that cyclists can disregard laws simply because catering for them might not have been priority 1, then why does the same concept not apply to restrictions applied to motorists that have no basis in logic whatsoever, as the above are.

Or should the level of "positive discrimination" be so extreme that common sense should also be the subject of prejudice?

TINA1984

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, but I am sure you would agree that the same is true of motorists adapting to 18.5MPH speed limits on dual carriageways and motorist hostile layouts such as this housing estate in Portlaoise?

What exactly is "motorist hostile" about the layout in your Portlaoise example?

SeanW

TINA1984 wrote: »

What exactly is "motorist hostile" about the layout in your Portlaoise example?

Umm ... I should have thought it was obvious, the streets are too narrow and the houses dont have driveways, so parking is strictly rationed and arranged into inconvenient, ridiculous "parking court" arrangements. And it was built like that on purpose, with the explicit intention of being hostile to the needs of the people who would live there.

It's like a moronic child squeezing as many green houses onto a property on a Monopoly board as possible, and it even has a name, "The Essex Design," and is heavily promoted in certain quaters. Presumably in Essex, it's the only kind of house you can buy and the design is imposed on you whether it fits your needs and lifestyle or not.

Furthermore, the view taken in certain quarters, taken very strongly I expect, is that when the residents of that estate adapted to unnecessary restrictions and their own needs as residents, they are to be condemned in very strong terms and should be the subject of an immediate, iron-fist clampdown. But cyclists who do the same thing (at best?) No such condemnation.

Noone would suggest intentionally making things hostile to cyclists or pedestrians, e.g. building a train station with no cycle parking because the train company hates cyclists or a street with a narrow footpath because of explicit hostility to pedestrians.

TINA1984

SeanW wrote: »

Umm ... I should have thought it was obvious, the streets are too narrow and the houses dont have driveways, so parking is strictly rationed and arranged into inconvenient, ridiculous "parking court" arrangements. And it was built like that on purpose, with the explicit intention of being hostile to the needs of the people who would live there...

I think you're being slightly hyperbolic here. Is it really that great a hardship to park your car in a designated parking bay a few metres away from your house?

SeanW

TINA1984 wrote: »

I think you're being slightly hyperbolic here. Is it really that great a hardship to park your car in a designated parking bay a few metres away from your house?

Why should someone have to? This is a new build housing estate that should have been built to accommodate the residents, not to force the residents to retrofit their lives IN ANY WAY around some bizarre design principle.

Again, noone would suggest doing this to pedestrians or cyclists and with good reason. But with motorists, it seems anything is fair game.

Qualitymark

I have to agree with SeanW that far too little attention is paid to proper parking in Ireland. Parking lots are seen as a chance to harvest profit from the unlucky motorist who has no choice but to use them.
If we built enough high-rise parking lots and let the space out cheaply to motorists, at a *fair* price, it would be possible to release the whole of the street surface for proper cycle lanes, adequate car and vehickle driving space, separation of cars and cycles so both could flow properly and independently, and happy camping all around.
Don't even *start* me on the cynicism of high charges for hospital parking, or the multi-lane stack-up of garda-owned cars outside Pearse Street.

markpb

TINA1984 wrote: »

I think you're being slightly hyperbolic here. Is it really that great a hardship to park your car in a designated parking bay a few metres away from your house?

Perhaps if you're too stupid to realise at the time of rental/purchase that there is no parking at your house, there's a risk you might not find your car if its not in your direct line of sight Unless of course people were rounded up and ordered to live there like PoW camps?

SeanW, the 30kph limit on some M50 on-ramps is because they're too tight and too cambered to take safely at normal speed, especially for HGVs. The limit was imposed after a truck jack-knifed on one and the driver was killed. Not every speed limit is there to persecute drivers, there's a conspiracy theory forum if you believe they are.

The reason that the estate is planned like that is to make it safer for residents and their children. It removes the possibility of a child being struck if they emerge between two parked cars. Again, not a persecution.

I don't expect to get a rational reply to the post - your previous posts have shown that you believe motorists to be victims of some international conspiracy and any attempt at making lives easier or safer for people using any other mode of transport to be a) ridiculous or b) also part of the conspiracy.

TINA1984

SeanW wrote: »

Why should someone have to? This is a new build housing estate that should have been built to accommodate the residents, not to force the residents to retrofit their lives IN ANY WAY around some bizarre design principle.

I'm not au fait with the design principle, but I'd presume its grounded in reasoning that a neighbourhood is a more pleasant place to live in when it doesn't have on street car parking either side of the street.

As for people having to "retrofit" their lives around the terrible inconvenience of having to park their cars a few metres away rather the directly outside their front door, presumably they were aware of this tyrannical measure when they decided to live in this fiendishly designed suburban hellhole?

SeanW wrote: »

Again, noone would suggest doing this to pedestrians or cyclists and with good reason. But with motorists, it seems anything is fair game.

What about pedestrians and cyclists in your Portlaoise example? say if you're in a wheelchair attempting to use the footpath, or a cyclist going one way on the street with a car coming the other way, you're seriously inconvenienced by motorists parking their car on the pavement. I find it hard to have any sympathy for people so lazy they refuse to park their cars a few metres away from their house in a designated space.

TINA1984

Qualitymark wrote: »

I have to agree with SeanW that far too little attention is paid to proper parking in Ireland. Parking lots are seen as a chance to harvest profit from the unlucky motorist who has no choice but to use them.
If we built enough high-rise parking lots and let the space out cheaply to motorists, at a *fair* price, it would be possible to release the whole of the street surface for proper cycle lanes, adequate car and vehickle driving space, separation of cars and cycles so both could flow properly and independently, and happy camping all around.
Don't even *start* me on the cynicism of high charges for hospital parking, or the multi-lane stack-up of garda-owned cars outside Pearse Street.

I think we have better things to do with public money then building a network of state subsidised parking lots for motorists looking for cheaper parking.

If you can afford, to buy, insure, maintain, tax, and fuel a car then I'm pretty sure you're able to pay parking charges.

SeanW

Perhaps if you're too stupid to realise at the time of rental/purchase that there is no parking at your house, there's a risk you might not find your car if its not in your direct line of sight Unless of course people were rounded up and ordered to live there like PoW camps?

Or maybe the poor eejits who bought those houses did so during the boom for the same reason that everyone else bought houses at the time?

I would liken the crappy, resident hostile design of this estate to Priory Hall - yet people bought properties in both places for the same reasons.

SeanW, the 30kph limit on some M50 on-ramps is because they're too tight and too cambered to take safely at normal speed, especially for HGVs. The limit was imposed after a truck jack-knifed on one and the driver was killed.

All I know is that when I had to use that junction a few years back (continuing through the N3 inbound), I found the 30kph limit to have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what could be considered a sensible speed limit for safe driving. None. Though granted, this was in a car with good handling and in the quieter hours of the night.

Ideally if there are trucks jacknifing, then there should be separate speed limit for trucks, not a low speed limit applied to personal vehicles because trucks have differing requirements. Additionally the view that is taken in palces is that speed laws should be considered a 100% absolute with no flexibility or room for the applicaton of common sense whatsoever.

So if a speed limit is laid down because of jacknifing lorries, it should have speed camera vans crawling all over it because of the sheer terror that a car driver might exceed that limit.

Not every speed limit is there to persecute drivers

True, but many things are proposed to make motoring inconvenient even if there is no counter-beneficiary, simply because making things hard for motorists is in itself virtuous.

Take for example Dom Nozzi's blog in the U.S. where the language is very hostile "War on cars" "The car is the ENEMY" and every page ande every idea within, without exception follows that theme. I have little doubt that this is a blueprint in certain quarters in Europe.

The reason that the estate is planned like that is to make it safer for residents and their children. It removes the possibility of a child being struck if they emerge between two parked cars. Again, not a persecution.

Has there been a single case of that happening in the history of the State?

SeanW

TINA1984 wrote: »

I'm not au fait with the design principle, but I'd presume its grounded in reasoning that a neighbourhood is a more pleasant place to live in when it doesn't have on street car parking either side of the street.

Obviously the people who live there dont agree.

What about pedestrians and cyclists in your Portlaoise example? say if you're in a wheelchair attempting to use the footpath, or a cyclist going one way on the street with a car coming the other way, you're seriously inconvenienced by motorists parking their car on the pavement. I find it hard to have any sympathy for people so lazy they refuse to park their cars a few metres away from their house in a designated space.

Fair enough, your point would be acceptable but for the fact that it was built to be inadequate by design. The design should have been able to facilitate the needs of all of its residents: pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, everyone.

But it delioberatly built to be hostile to the needs of its residents and is thus little better than Priory Hall. And that design is advocated quite heavily with the explicit intention of spreading the insanse ideology behind it.

TINA1984

SeanW wrote: »

Obviously the people who live there dont agree.

Some, not all.

SeanW wrote: »

Fair enough, your point would be acceptable but for the fact that it was built to be inadequate by design. The design should have been able to facilitate the needs of all of its residents: pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, everyone.

From what I can tell, it appears everyone is catered for. Residents have car parking if they so choose. Pedestrians have pavements and the internal road appears to be designed for exactly what it is, a road in a residential area. Thus it should be low-speed by design. It appears only to be inadequate to those who think they should be able to park their car wherever they feel like it? even when it inconveniences everyone else?

SeanW wrote: »

But it delioberatly built to be hostile to the needs of its residents and is thus little better than Priory Hall. And that design is advocated quite heavily with the explicit intention of spreading the insanse ideology behind it.

Again with the hyperbole! all this dramatic license being used to describe the tyranny of being forced to park in a designated parking space a few metres from a person's front door. Clearly this Portlaoise housing estate must some kind of communist plot to impinge our our freedoms & civil liberties!

Qualitymark

TINA1984 wrote: »

I think we have better things to do with public money then building a network of state subsidised parking lots for motorists looking for cheaper parking.

Except that it would get parked cars off the road, freeing more road space for use (by cyclists and pedestrians as well as by drivers).

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

If it is appropriate to suggest that cyclists can disregard laws simply because catering for them might not have been priority 1, then why does the same concept not apply to restrictions applied to motorists that have no basis in logic whatsoever, as the above are.

Nobody here has said it is appropriate to disregard any traffic laws. The exchange has been very carefully framed in terms of moral obligations. The application of law is a two way street there are obligations on two parties - those to whom the law applies - and those who apply those laws.

TINA1984

Qualitymark wrote: »

Except that it would get parked cars off the road, freeing more road space for use (by cyclists and pedestrians as well as by drivers).

Flesh out your idea for me then. Say we build 4 or 5 new multi - storey car parks around Dublin CC, each capable of say handling a couple of thousand commuter cars. Can you see any drawbacks to such an idea?

SeanW

TINA1984 wrote: »

From what I can tell, it appears everyone is catered for. Residents have car parking if they so choose.

Yes, they have strictly rationed car parking in a hostile, incoventient "court" arrangement.

So much better than having, oh, say, individual driveways.

Pedestrians have pavements and the internal road appears to be designed for exactly what it is, a road in a residential area. Thus it should be low-speed by design.

I agree residential streets should be low speed and there should be provisions for pedestrians etc. Absolutely. But why so hostile to motorists?

It appears only to be inadequate to those who think they should be able to park their car wherever they feel like it?

Oh the horror! A motorist resident lives in a place and thinks it should be adapted to their (and most everyone elses) needs, rather than the residents having to alter their lives to accommodate a retarded, ideologically driven design ideal?

The horror!

even when it inconveniences everyone else?

If only there was a way that could have been avoided, oh, say, suggesting that Essex should take a leaf from Las Vegas' book - "What happens in Essex stays in Essex" :rolleyes:

Again with the hyperbole! all this dramatic license being used to describe the tyranny of being forced to park in a designated parking space a few metres from a person's front door.

Only there absolutely no reason whatosever that the place should have been designed like that.

I know it sounds crazy but if you think about it for 5 seconds you should ge the idea :rolleyes:

BTW as for the designated spaces, what to the residents do when they have visitors visiting by car? Where do the visitors park? Since parking is strictly (artificially) rationed?

markpb

SeanW wrote: »

Or maybe the poor eejits who bought those houses did so during the boom for the same reason that everyone else bought houses at the time?

I would liken the crappy, resident hostile design of this estate to Priory Hall - yet people bought properties in both places for the same reasons

Let's see where that emotive analogy might be incorrect.

Was it possible for the prospective owners of PH to tell from the plans that it wouldn't be built in accordance with the fire safety acts?

Was it possible for the prospective owners of your favorite whipping boy estate to tell from the plans that there was no driveway outside their prospective homes?

One group of people were swindled by an incredibly unscrupulous builder, the others were blind.

As for your M50 gripe, your last post says it all. Your experience is driving down it once at night. I'm not sure on which planet your single experience trumps the collective, professional experience of the people who designed it, the people who police every road in the country or the people who respond to fatal RTCs. Maybe it's more the case that you want the road to be designed for you and no-one else?

Iwannahurl

Images of illegal, obnoxious and utterly lazy parking taken from StreetView. The housing development is in Portlaoise and is based on the Essex Design concept, I'm told, which tries to make streets more pedestrian and child friendly. One of the ways this is done is to minimise on-street parking and place it instead between and behind houses.

The first photo shows a "parking court" typically seen in the Essex Design. There seems to be only one car parked in it. The second photo (of the street immediately adjacent) shows what some people think of the concept, of parking laws and of pedestrian friendly notions.





Because of the residents' unwillingness to walk a few metres from a parking court to their front door, illegal parking became endemic. I was informed that the Council's response to the obstruction of the footpaths and streets by cars was to introduce one-way systems in the area. This of course has the immediate effect of making it illegal to cycle your bike up and down the street in front of your house.

You couldn't make it up.

Qualitymark

TINA1984 wrote: »

Flesh out your idea for me then. Say we build 4 or 5 new multi - storey car parks around Dublin CC, each capable of say handling a couple of thousand commuter cars. Can you see any drawbacks to such an idea?

Not if it's accompanied by controls on the number of cars coming in.

I mean, look at this: I don't know about the place where you live, but where I live, the number of cars parked here, and the traffic, plunges during all school holidays. If there were US-style school buses picking kids up and dropping them to all Dublin schools, I suspect that the number of cars in regular use would go down a lot, especially as it's so very dear to drive now. And if there were a really good bus service, with buses that arrived on time and got to their destination on time, and were clean and pleasant and well-regulated, I don't think people would be averse to taking them.

I think an awful lot of the driving, certainly around this Dublin area, is because people can't rely on the public transport service, or find it unpleasant to take buses. While working evening shifts a few years back I tried to rely on buses and was late all the time; I had to take buses because the shift ended very late. We got taxis home, courtesy of the labour laws. I should really have bought a fold-up bike, but this didn't occur to me. When the buses finally did arrive to pick up their frozen, soaked, coughing passengers, they were filthy, with half-chewed 'ready meals' dumped on the floor, cans of soft drinks and cups of takeaway coffee sloshing around underfoot, and the friendly local drug users having a loud slurred conversation in the back as they shared their heroin smoke with the rest of us. And that's not even mentioning the infective sneezers and don't-cover-their-mouths coughers-on-the-back-of-necks.

A bus service where the time on the board meant the bus would arrive at that time, and where the buses were clean, nice-smelling, properly ventilated and properly driven (no putting the foot on the clutch at stops so the bus judders sickeningly all the time it's waiting), and where the routes actually covered the city and suburbs properly - well, that would get so many people out of their cars.

monument

Posts removed from the other thread as all are off-topic -- more massively off-topic posts in the other thread will result it a formal warning or an infraction.

TheBandicoot

monument wrote: »

Posts removed from the other thread as all are off-topic -- more massively off-topic posts in the other thread will result it a formal warning or an infraction.

The thread title is needlessly antagonistic and not conducive to a proper discussion by either side.

EDIT: and I was infracted for this post :rolleyes:

SeanW

markpb wrote: »

Let's see where that emotive analogy might be incorrect.

Was it possible for the prospective owners of PH to tell from the plans that it wouldn't be built in accordance with the fire safety acts?

Was it possible for the prospective owners of your favorite whipping boy estate to tell from the plans that there was no driveway outside their prospective homes?

Both bought their properties likely during the boom under the same circumstances:
"Buy off the plans"
"Only 1 unit left"
"You can only afford some tip 50 miles from your job"
"It'll be twice as much 2 years from now"

If you had actually lived in Ireland and you were aware of the property bubble we had, you would realise that the line between "swindled" and
"blind" was much murkier than you would paint it.

Hint: Others apartment construction were legal but after you buy it you realise that the building is lowest-common-denomiator garbage and you can hear your neighbors conversations and bathroom movements and vice versa.

Priory Hall is just an extreme example of garbage being built on the cheap and hostile to their residents' needs. This estate in Portlaoise is no different.

As for your M50 gripe, your last post says it all. Your experience is driving down it once at night. I'm not sure on which planet your single experience trumps the collective, professional experience of the people who designed it, the people who police every road in the country or the people who respond to fatal RTCs. Maybe it's more the case that you want the road to be designed for you and no-one else?

I was driving along the N3 mainline and found that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to be slowing motorists down to such ridiculous speeds (again, 18.5MPH on a grade separated dual carriageway) or anything like it.

But the view in certain quarters is that when I broke that speed limit - and I'm not ashamed of it in the slightest - that it was the same as driving twisted drunk and proof that motorists still have dangerous attitudes that need to be knocked on the head.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Images of illegal, obnoxious and utterly lazy parking taken from StreetView. The housing development is in Portlaoise and is based on the Essex Design concept, I'm told, which tries to make streets more pedestrian and child friendly. One of the ways this is done is to minimise on-street parking and place it instead between and behind houses.

...

Because of the residents' unwillingness to walk a few metres from a parking court to their front door, illegal parking became endemic. I was informed that the Council's response to the obstruction of the footpaths and streets by cars was to introduce one-way systems in the area. This of course has the immediate effect of making it illegal to cycle your bike up and down the street in front of your house.

You couldn't make it up.

You're right about that part.

Housing estate was built in a crappy, lowest common denominator fashion designed as policy to be hostile to its residents needs - the same as a ****ty but legal apartment block with no soundproofing or insulation, only this is defended by people with questionable perspectives.

Residents adapt the design to their needs rather than fitting their lives around it, and the council responds by recongising that it was a bad idea to do it the way and make changes to accommodate the needs of the residents.

And all because aparently the driveway hadn't been invented yet :rolleyes:

You're right, you couldn't make it up.

Furthermore:

The fact that you can show a picture where every single resident was "voting with their wheels"

and automatically assume its' the residents fault for not fitting their lives around the design
not the designers fault for laying down a ****ty design that is hostile to its residents - in fact defending the design despite it being demonstrably proven by your own photographic evidence to be hostile to its residents and contrary to their interests - is something that I consider to be quite revealing.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

and automatically assume its' the residents fault for not fitting their lives around the design
not the designers fault for laying down a ****ty design that is hostile to its residents - in fact defending the design despite it being demonstrably proven by your own hostile to its residents and contrary to their interests - is something that I consider to be quite revealing.

they bought the houses fully aware of the plans and design so of course it's their own fault, stupid design or not.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they bought the houses fully aware of the plans and design so of course it's their own fault, stupid design or not.

Partly, I agree. But the view taken in certain quarters is that this is a design that should be promoted, perhaps even made a requirement. I think that there are some people who would like to restrict the choices that others can make - for example as I understand it in Essex this kind of garbage is all they are allowed to build.

I contend that there is no difference between building a housing estate with this design and building an apartment block with no soundproofing (which happened a lot, as I said, Priory Hall was just an extreme example as far as apartment buildings are concerned).

Iwannahurl

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they bought the houses fully aware of the plans and design so of course it's their own fault, stupid design or not.

I don't believe the design is stupid, but the residents' use of it certainly is in this case. I like this example just around the corner from the photos above. Is that a garage I see, with a car illegally parked up on a footpath outside it? You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him think...

monument

I agree with SeanW here, possibly to different degrees.

On 30km/h on motorway -- 30km/h advisory or a solid 40km/h would even be better idea.

With the Portlaoise example: It's poorly designed for what it is even designed to do (as clear by the parking) and so it's a mess and a failure.

There's loads of examples of something like it, in this area of Amsterdam -- some of the main differences:

• At local level it creates many good to excellent spaces of different sizes for people to enjoy.
• High-grade walking and cycling corridors.
• It's a part of a wider planned network and system.

Trying these types of designs half-heartedly tends to fail, annoy people and stop any real progress.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't believe the design is stupid,

Err...

Recent Development has taken place has reflected a different approach:

– Adamstown (Lucan)
– Ongar (Blanchardstown)
– Tyrrelstown (Blanchardstown)
– Kilminchy (Portlaoise)

Adamstown -- or what has been built so-far -- is very poor on cycling compared to what it's been billed as; Tyrrelstown is a planning mess and even more so poorer for cycling; I'm still trying to figure out what parts of Ongar and Kilminchy are supposed to be good (links and ideas please?).

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't believe the design is stupid, but the residents' use of it certainly is in this case. I like this example just around the corner from the photos above. Is that a garage I see, with a car illegally parked up on a footpath outside it? You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him think...

It's pretty obvious that that garage isn't wide enough to fit any but the smallest of small cars.

Also, a design is stupid if it plain doesn't work. Arguing that the design is fine and it's the end users fault for the design being flawed is an oxymoron. You design living around those who will live there. You design transport around those who will you use it.

ThisRegard

monument wrote: »

Tyrrelstown is a planning mess and even more so poorer for cycling;

Once the Essex design came up I had an idea Tyrrelstown would get a mention. I would dispute it's a planning mess and even more so poorer for cycling. For the most part it works compared to the Portlaoise example. The parking spaces on the interior of the estate are at the side of the houses as opposed to courtyards, and there's no parking whatsoever on the main boulevard that loops around the estate.

On the residential roads people now expect to come across kids, people walking, or whatever so traffic, again excluding the morons you find everywhere, travels at a lower speed than most other places.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

With the Portlaoise example: It's poorly designed for what it is even designed to do (as clear by the parking) and so it's a mess and a failure.

There's loads of examples of something like it, in this area of Amsterdam -- some of the main differences:

• At local level it creates many good to excellent spaces of different sizes for people to enjoy.
• High-grade walking and cycling corridors.
• It's a part of a wider planned network and system.

Trying these types of designs half-heartedly tends to fail, annoy people and stop any real progress.

Tragedy wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that that garage isn't wide enough to fit any but the smallest of small cars.

Also, a design is stupid if it plain doesn't work. Arguing that the design is fine and it's the end users fault for the design being flawed is an oxymoron. You design living around those who will live there. You design transport around those who will you use it.

It depends on the prevailing culture, perhaps.

Footpaths, cycle lanes and disabled parking bays are clearly designed for particular functions. Irish motorists still park in them illegally, primarily because they get away with it more often than not.

Parking on footpaths in Ireland has become endemic, not because the function of footpaths is unclear or contested, but because enforcement and public policy in this regard are a mess and a failure.

There are housing estates all over the country featuring 'standard design' and motorists still treat the footpaths as private parking space.

No excuses I say.

Aard

I find it interesting reading the comments about the flawed design of courtyard parking spaces and similar designated residential parking. Some people are saying: the amenities (parking spaces) are there so you should use them even if they're slightly inconvenient. Others are saying: they might be there, but they're impractical for real-world living and convenience trumps poor design.

I'm inclined to agree with the latter.

However, does this line of thought sound familiar to anybody? There was a recent very heated debate here about the provision of cyclist infrastructure, and whether or not cyclists should be required to use sub-standard infrastructure and chastised for cycling on the road as opposed to a poorly designed cycle path. I'm not going to elaborate, as I think it's fairly obvious what point I'm trying to make. Ultimately, good design should be at the heart of urban planning and infrastructure provision. This goes across the board from drivers to cyclists to pedestrians. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating: if something isn't being used right, then it has been failed by poor design.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

The proof of the pudding is always in the eating: if something isn't being used right, then it has been failed by poor design.

Loath though I am to disagree with you, I have to disagree with you.

Should we conclude that if motorists drive up on the pavement and park on cyclepaths, as they do routinely around schools for example, that the pedestrian and cycle facilities are somehow in the wrong place?

Is that how planning is supposed to work? Walking-phobic car dependants vote with their wheels, so we should change our urban design principles to fully accommodate their desires?

Aard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Should we conclude that if motorists drive up on the pavement and park on cyclepaths, as they do routinely around schools for example, that the pedestrian and cycle facilities are somehow in the wrong place?

Is that how planning is supposed to work? Walking-phobic car dependants vote with their wheels, so we should change our urban design principles to fully accommodate their desires?

No no no. Perhaps I phrased it badly, or more likely - I didn't expand enough on what I meant. Of course in the example you give the illegally parked driver is at fault. Assuming it's a hypothetical example, I would say that there isn't adequate parking provision.

What I meant was that if a cyclist uses cycling infrastructure 'incorrectly' (e.g. only on certain stretches or indeed not at all) then it is likely that the cycling infrastructure is poorly designed. Likewise, if a driver uses parking infrastructure incorrectly (e.g. parking elsewhere than designated like on the footpath) then it is likely that the parking infrastructure is poorly designed.

I'm not going to comment too heavily on your example of parking near a school, as I feel that is a bit of a can of worms. But to the kernel of your point: if a driver parks on a footpath/cyclepath, that does not mean that the path has been poorly designed. Only if its intended users used it incorrectly would it be a design flaw.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

Assuming it's a hypothetical example, I would say that there isn't adequate parking provision.

What I meant was that if a cyclist uses cycling infrastructure 'incorrectly' (e.g. only on certain stretches or indeed not at all) then it is likely that the cycling infrastructure is poorly designed.

Likewise, if a driver uses parking infrastructure incorrectly (e.g. parking elsewhere than designated like on the footpath) then it is likely that the parking infrastructure is poorly designed.

I'm not going to comment too heavily on your example of parking near a school, as I feel that is a bit of a can of worms.

Well, the whole issue is a can of (mechanised) worms.

There are no hypothetical examples here: the reality is all around you.

Our urban areas in general are being used incorrectly by cars. Does that mean that every town and city in the country is badly designed for cars? No, it means that car use, car dependence and car-is-king culture have spiralled out of control.

O'Connell Street in Dublin became increasingly clogged with cars over many decades. Was it badly designed for motorists when it was laid out in the 18th Century?

Comparing infrastructure for bikes with that for cars is, perhaps, like comparing apples and oil-rigs. Cars have filled not only their existing designated spaces (or not, if their owners don't want to walk more than a few metres :rolleyes:) but are also colonising space intended for (or that would be better used by) cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport.

To suggest that such domination by motor vehicles of finite road space is due to inadequate provision for motor vehicles is to miss the big issue entirely, I'm afraid.

Aard

Again, I probably haven't properly explained myself. I do not equate good car design with over-provision of motor infrastructure. I cannot lay enough emphasis on this. You are certainly right in saying that there has been too much accommodation of people who drive to the detriment of people who don't drive. (Again, putting it mildly.)

I really think you have picked me up wrong in this case. Good design for cars does not mean wide turning radii and wide lanes and a driveway for every single house. The problem with the Portlaoise example given is not that there is courtyard parking, but that the courtyard parking isn't well designed.

Car-use can be tempered, but it is only effective if it is done well. In the Portlaoise example, it is not done well -- which only leads to resentment on all sides. The idea behind courtyard parking is to make a more pleasant environment for non-drivers (the street as a place, rather than as a conduit for movement), while still accommodating motorists. But if you make it too inconvenient, they won't use it. Like cyclists with cyclepaths. I was trying to make an analogy I suppose, rather than a one-for-one comparison between cycling infrastructure and car infrastructure.

People will be lazy. I'm not saying that it's right -- but it's how it is. All people -- drivers, cyclists, pedestrians. Designers need to accept this laziness and not just cross their fingers and hope that people will behave like robots. We've seen it time and again where sub-standard cycle paths have been put in, and quite rightly cyclists don't use them. I think the aforementioned courtyard parking is analogous to this. The courtyard parking in question should have been jigged around at the design stage so that each homeowner could see their car from their house. The whole estate is terrible in this respect: it is a wholly residential development on the outskirts of a large town, with few amenities within walking distance. It is inevitable from the get-go that the entire development would be car-dominant. Perhaps the courtyard parking would work well in an area closer to town, where the homeowners could avoid using the car as much as possible. But in this example, every time they leave their house, they'll pretty much have to hop in the car. The whole estate is shoddily designed if we're honest. I think courtyard parking is the least of the occupants' issues.

markpb

Aard wrote: »

What I meant was that if a cyclist uses cycling infrastructure 'incorrectly' (e.g. only on certain stretches or indeed not at all) then it is likely that the cycling infrastructure is poorly designed. Likewise, if a driver uses parking infrastructure incorrectly (e.g. parking elsewhere than designated like on the footpath) then it is likely that the parking infrastructure is poorly designed.

I think there's a small difference between the two. (Some) badly designed cycling infrastructure can be dangerous to use by placing the cyclist in a drivers blind zone, by placing obstacles in the lane, by forcing cyclist-pedestrian conflict, etc. The Essex design is not dangerous, just less convenient for the motorist. It means they may have to walk a few meters, it doesn't place their life at risk.

Aard wrote: »

People will be lazy. I'm not saying that it's right -- but it's how it is.

It's how it is because of years of no enforcement by the Gardai in this respect. If we lived in a country where the Road Traffic Acts were enforced, those motorists would park in the bays provided and get used to walking a few meters. They wouldn't think twice about it because it wouldn't be socially acceptable to abandon your car on the footpath, denying it's use to other road users and being a complete cunt towards disabled people.

Iwannahurl

I think designers/"planners" have accepted, and catered for, that laziness for far too long.

I fail to see the necessity for people being able to see their cars. People park their cars out of their own sight all the time.

I often park our car down the road to make space on the driveway for various purposes, from kids playing to tradesmen working. Never lost a second's sleep over it.

I don't know how well regarded the Essex Design is in professional circles, but my understanding is that it's a coherent set of well-developed urban planning principles.

Maybe the general location is a problem? If the neighbourhood as a whole is car-dependent because of distance from shops and services, then car use will be high. That doesn't excuse an unwillingness to walk a few metres from a parking court though. In my locality there are people driving 800 metres to the nearest school, and there are even a few using their car to travel 300-400 metres to a creche. The same people happily obstruct the footpaths outside their house because the concept of walking is apparently alien to them.

Aard

markpb wrote: »

I think there's a small difference between the two. (Some) badly designed cycling infrastructure can be dangerous to use by placing the cyclist in a drivers blind zone, by placing obstacles in the lane, by forcing cyclist-pedestrian conflict, etc. The Essex design is not dangerous, just less convenient for the motorist. It means they may have to walk a few meters, it doesn't place their life at risk.

It's how it is because of years of no enforcement by the Gardai in this respect. If we lived in a country where the Road Traffic Acts were enforced, those motorists would park in the bays provided and get used to walking a few meters. They wouldn't think twice about it because it wouldn't be socially acceptable to abandon your car on the footpath, denying it's use to other road users and being a complete cunt towards disabled people.

Yes absolutely. And I fully agree that it's not like-for-like in the instances cited. Not least because cycling on the road is perfectly legal, while parking on the footpath is entirely not.

Aard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think designers/"planners" have accepted, and catered for, that laziness for far too long.

They have catered for it, for cars at least. I'm not trying to be glib here -- but if the laziness of pedestrians and cyclists had been accommodated over the years to a commensurate extent, then things would be a lot better for these latter groups.

Iwannahurl

Precisely.

If pedestrians, cyclists and bus users were indulged to the same or greater extent, there would be far more of them. Win-win all round.

I had that epiphany in Copenhagen, where I was amazed by the hordes of relaxed cyclists with headphones, as well as by the number of tiny kids on tiny bikes zipping through major junctions with no apparent angst.

It's called making the healthier (or generally better) choice the easier choice, a principle routinely ignored in Ireland for decades.

Aard

Funnily enough I had an epiphany of sorts in Copenhagen too. Except this was at 1 in the morning, where the roads were deserted of cars, and instead there were cyclists queueing up for the green light. On wide, dedicated cyclepaths. Cycle traffic really is 24/7 there, as opposed to motor traffic which dies off after the peak. Anyway, I won't go off topic.

monument

ThisRegard wrote: »

Once the Essex design came up I had an idea Tyrrelstown would get a mention. I would dispute it's a planning mess and even more so poorer for cycling. For the most part it works compared to the Portlaoise example. The parking spaces on the interior of the estate are at the side of the houses as opposed to courtyards, and there's no parking whatsoever on the main boulevard that loops around the estate.

On the residential roads people now expect to come across kids, people walking, or whatever so traffic, again excluding the morons you find everywhere, travels at a lower speed than most other places.

Tyrrelstown is a mess for cycling -- from poor junction design to cycle tracks beside (and I think level with) narrow footpaths. And few signs of positive things like greater accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

Planning wise, the distance between Tyrrelstown and a main urban centre seems excessive and there's very poor cycling links between them.

Will post more detail later.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It depends on the prevailing culture, perhaps.

Footpaths, cycle lanes and disabled parking bays are clearly designed for particular functions. Irish motorists still park in them illegally, primarily because they get away with it more often than not.

Parking on footpaths in Ireland has become endemic, not because the function of footpaths is unclear or contested, but because enforcement and public policy in this regard are a mess and a failure.

There are housing estates all over the country featuring 'standard design' and motorists still treat the footpaths as private parking space.

No excuses I say.

While there's an acute Irish lack of enforcement that's largely a symptom of a lack of caring / respect for walking and cycling.

Self-enforcing design plays it part too -- people are less likely to park in an area, for example, where they will be fully blocking access for others or where they would be interrupting quality spaces.

ThisRegard

monument wrote: »

Tyrrelstown is a mess for cycling -- from poor junction design to cycle tracks beside (and I think level with) narrow footpaths. And few signs of positive things like greater accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

Planning wise, the distance between Tyrrelstown and a main urban centre seems excessive and there's very poor cycling links between them.

Will post more detail later.

The main cycle path around the area is indeed level and parallel with the footpath. But most cyclists I see stick to the roads anyway as either they'll bring their bikes in via the back of the house or for access to homes that are off the main road. "Internal" roads I suppose you could call them that have none but in a lot of the places, at junctions mostly, the roads are level with the footpath with the intention to make motorists aware they're in a residential area as I'm sure you're aware of so I don't think there's the need to designate cycle lanes otherwise.

From my own observations it works for the most part, kids and pedestrians happily wonder down and across the roads and the cars will give way or stop.

As for being distant from a main urban centre, I don't think that's a big an issue as it once was, there's all sorts of shops up there now and has a local, although don't know how regular, bus service to Blanchardstown centre anyway. Not sure about the village, there used to be one before Dublin bus stopped the 38 route going up there and UrBus ceased doing business.

But you can cycle from Tyrrelstown to Blanchardstown village on a cycle lane only having to come off it to cross roads at the college, the entrance to Castlecurragh and the N3 junction itself at the centre. Once you're there the problems of poor cycling infrastructure is not a Tyrrelstown one so overall I don't think it's bad, relatively speaking.

The other way via the aquatic centre has a few more junctions. It does have some of those drops off the cycle lane instead of a smooth transition up and down near the pharmacy plant but that's the same all over Dublin. And if you were really adventurous you have two all the way to Cappagh, once there it's every cyclist for himself, even by car around there is ridiculous.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Loath though I am to disagree with you, I have to disagree with you.

Should we conclude that if motorists drive up on the pavement and park on cyclepaths, as they do routinely around schools for example, that the pedestrian and cycle facilities are somehow in the wrong place?

Is that how planning is supposed to work? Walking-phobic car dependants vote with their wheels, so we should change our urban design principles to fully accommodate their desires?

You are showing a deficiency of thinking here. If motorists are routinely parking on cyclepaths and pavements around schools, clearly there is a lack of designated parking for motorists dropping off children to school. Why are you trying to conflate it to pedestrian/cycle facilities being in the wrong place? It's just plain stupid.

SeanW

Tragedy wrote: »

You are showing a deficiency of thinking here. If motorists are routinely parking on cyclepaths and pavements around schools, clearly there is a lack of designated parking for motorists dropping off children to school. Why are you trying to conflate it to pedestrian/cycle facilities being in the wrong place? It's just plain stupid.

The biggest joke about it is that if it were proposed to retrofit a legal parents waiting area for their children, I expect the same people moaning about parents illegally parking waiting would be the first to oppose providing a legal waiting area. Because it "sends the wrong cultural signals" or some such.

In fact could someone ask IWH this because I think I'm still on his Ignore list:

"If new school, or major retrofit to an existing one, were to provide a legal waiting area for parents to wait to pick up their children, would you support or oppose this aspect of the plan?"

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

You are showing a deficiency of thinking here. If motorists are routinely parking on cyclepaths and pavements around schools, clearly there is a lack of designated parking for motorists dropping off children to school. Why are you trying to conflate it to pedestrian/cycle facilities being in the wrong place? It's just plain stupid.

I'm not trying to conflate anything with anything.

Parking on footpaths, double yellow lines, junctions, pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes etc is illegal.

Driving kids relatively short distances to school and then parking as above is stupid and illegal.

Facilitating large numbers of people to drive relatively short distances to school, such as by failing to control illegal parking and by not catering for more sustainable modes of travel, is stupid and short-sighted policy-making.

If motorists are routinely parking illegally around schools (and just about everywhere else) what it shows is a culture of corrosive individualism, lack of enforcement, rampant car dependence and failure of public policy. Plain stupidity at societal level, you might say.

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

You are showing a deficiency of thinking here. .... It's just plain stupid.

Tone it down. Read the charter.

markpb

SeanW wrote: »

The biggest joke about it is that if it were proposed to retrofit a legal parents waiting area for their children, I expect the same people moaning about parents illegally parking waiting would be the first to oppose providing a legal waiting area. Because it "sends the wrong cultural signals" or some such.

In fact could someone ask IWH this because I think I'm still on his Ignore list:

"If new school, or major retrofit to an existing one, were to provide a legal waiting area for parents to wait to pick up their children, would you support or oppose this aspect of the plan?"

I'll take the liberty of answering on his behalf. It's a ludicrous idea. If a school has 100 children attending and even half of them are driven there, they're all going to arrive at roughly the same time each morning and evening. Providing parking space for 25-50 cars on school grounds would take up a lot of room, room that could be better used to build classrooms on or leave as green areas for them to stretch their legs. You assume that there is infinite space for cars and that letting people park on it is a productive use of space.

Don't attribute everything you disagree with to ideology, sometimes your ideas just aren't practical. Sometimes the extremists you read online are just that - extreme. FWIW I think you're just as extreme as as the guy you post about all the time (not IWH) - just with a completely opposing viewpoint. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

monument

ThisRegard wrote: »

so overall I don't think it's bad, relatively speaking.

Relatively speaking -- indeed, but most other areas are not being billed as a new era of planning.

Cycling's modal share stands at 1.7% for the area, compared to 2.2% in the Blanchardstown-Blakestown electoral division. I close Blanchardstown-Blakestown because it's the closest thing comparable to it.

ThisRegard wrote: »

As for being distant from a main urban centre, I don't think that's a big an issue as it once was, there's all sorts of shops up there now and has a local, although don't know how regular, bus service to Blanchardstown centre anyway. Not sure about the village, there used to be one before Dublin bus stopped the 38 route going up there and UrBus ceased doing business.

It's a large issue as the large urban centre point will attract a large number of trips -- shoppers and staff.

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you can cycle from Tyrrelstown to Blanchardstown village on a cycle lane only having to come off it to cross roads at the college, the entrance to Castlecurragh and the N3 junction itself at the centre. Once you're there the problems of poor cycling infrastructure is not a Tyrrelstown one...

It's at least a problem for Tyrrelstown.

Spook_ie

markpb wrote: »

<snipped>
Don't attribute everything you disagree with to ideology, sometimes your ideas just aren't practical. Sometimes the extremists you read online are just that - extreme. FWIW I think you're just as extreme as as the guy you post about all the time (not IWH) - just with a completely opposing viewpoint. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

You'd like to think so wouldn't you