Green Party wish list.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Unless the Greens are making government pay for it, it's not happening - people can't even afford a home, and those that can are up to their ears in mortgage debt - so won't be shelling out for that.

That's the entire problem with the Greens. They won't pony up the money - so they expect every person individually to pony up - when it's only going to be the well off and upper middle class types that can do any of that - a tiny proportion of people.

Either the Greens make government pony up - or it won't happen. That goes for all home improvements needed. Hell, they aren't even going to sort the basic issue of having a home in the first place. Not a fucking Green Party at all...

There are huge amounts of people with plenty of savings to make home improvements.

(Assuming home PV solar makes sense)

Not everybody, but not tiny, either.

I spent a few hours in north Clare today, loads of fine houses, plenty of Audi / Mercedes, etc.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

There are huge amounts of people with plenty of savings to make home improvements.

(Assuming home PV solar makes sense)

Not everybody, but not tiny, either.

I spent a few hours in north Clare today, loads of fine houses, plenty of Audi / Mercedes, etc.

Two changes could help.

Firstly, if you can sell back to the grid, and/or draw down credit for what you've generated at other times, it begins to make economic sense.

Secondly, if you are not restricted by the number of solar panels that you can place on your roof, it also helps.

Neither of those changes cost any money.

riclad

I was watching a program, it showed 4 large solar panels being installed. It said they would provide 20 per cent of the power needed in an average year in the house. This is in the USA where they get sunny days for most of the year.
Most people in Ireland cannot afford to install solar panels. If you are renting or a local authority tenant you are not gonna be allowed to install solar panels.
I think there's a rule in Germany any new building over a certain size must have at least a few solar panels and there's a tax credit to help the owner
install them.
I.m not an expert but I think it costs more than 10 years to recover the cost of solar panels
from the future savings in the cost of esb bills
Look at electric cars, there's only a small amount of charging points for electric cars.
Most people don't buy them cos they are more expensive than standard cars and it takes time
to charge them vs going to a garage and buying
some petrol
One good thing the covid crisis may encourage more
people to cycle to work and reduce traffic jams and air pollution

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

There are huge amounts of people with plenty of savings to make home improvements.

(Assuming home PV solar makes sense)

Not everybody, but not tiny, either.

I spent a few hours in north Clare today, loads of fine houses, plenty of Audi / Mercedes, etc.

Why go by anecdote when there are stats available, though? Cars and houses aren't an indicator of wealth - loads of people go into debt to buy cars - it's one of the new types of private debt bubbles - and of course for houses, as well.

If you look at Net Wealth deciles, and take the average price of a home as €270,000, subtracting that from each decile (back of the envelope assumptions, I know, but I'm lowballing it still) - then more than 60% of the population won't have much in the way of excess savings, or will still be paying off a mortgage:
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hfcs/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey2018/wealth/

So it'd be expecting quite a large amount of the population to go into debt to fund home retrofitting - it costs many tens of thousands to do it right, with a very long payoff period - when Private Debt is very dangerous to encourage, and Public Debt is far safer.

So what will happen is, is that costs for using carbon are going to get hiked up for est. 60% of people (likely far more - just back of the envelope still), and only a very small percentage of people are going to be able to afford to avoid those costs - which means that it's incredibly regressive policy, to do this without government directly helping out with funding and providing labour for all the work that's needed.

Add to this, the Green's are pursuing a policy that minimizes peoples ability to save - by perpetuating a housing crisis for the whole next decade at least - and which guarantees people have huge debts if they do get a house.

It's just not sustainable in terms of personal finances. Only the top deciles will be able to afford considering it.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Two changes could help.

Firstly, if you can sell back to the grid, and/or draw down credit for what you've generated at other times, it begins to make economic sense.

Secondly, if you are not restricted by the number of solar panels that you can place on your roof, it also helps.

Neither of those changes cost any money.

That's exactly the point I am making.

It would be both a quick and cheap win for both the Green and the country.

As I understand it legislation is required though for this to happen, so let hope the Greens are switched on enough to actually put together a bill that can pass quickly.

For most people solar is not a viable option, the time for it to pay back is just too long. If however this was introduced then reduced bills in winter would make solar much more attractive.

Thelonious Monk

mgn wrote: »

the 1 million a day that's going to be spend on cycling lanes, is that whats going to make you proud.

Why do you have a problem with this? Or do you think all transport money should be spent on rural bypasses that people like me will never use? Our cities need investment in infrastructure too, cycling and walking are the cheapest ways to improve things.

markodaly

There have been numerous studies done that have shown that good cycle lanes are one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce congestion and the paybacks on the initial capital investment is absolutely astonishing.

A study done in Holland on the health benefits of cycling to the Dutch economy and society estimates it to be in the region of €19 Billion, per YEAR!
https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-dutch-love-cycling-benefitting-nation

Spending a €1 Billion on cycling and walking infrastructure in Ireland over 5 years will be paid back to us tenfold over time.
Those that disagree are parish pump cap-wearing petrol head philistines.

ExMachina1000

markodaly wrote: »

There have been numerous studies done that have shown that good cycle lanes are one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce congestion and the paybacks on the initial capital investment is absolutely astonishing.

A study done in Holland on the health benefits of cycling to the Dutch economy and society estimates it to be in the region of €19 Billion, per YEAR!
https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-dutch-love-cycling-benefitting-nation

Spending a €1 Billion on cycling and walking infrastructure in Ireland over 5 years will be paid back to us tenfold over time.
Those that disagree are parish pump cap-wearing petrol head philistines.

1.8 billion. A million a day almost.

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

There have been numerous studies done that have shown that good cycle lanes are one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce congestion and the paybacks on the initial capital investment is absolutely astonishing.

A study done in Holland on the health benefits of cycling to the Dutch economy and society estimates it to be in the region of €19 Billion, per YEAR!
https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-dutch-love-cycling-benefitting-nation

Spending a €1 Billion on cycling and walking infrastructure in Ireland over 5 years will be paid back to us tenfold over time.
Those that disagree are parish pump cap-wearing petrol head philistines.

While I agree that more needs to be done to protect cyclist on the road, for most cycling to work isnt even an option.

Where will these cycle lane be built? Its hardly likely that any of these will be built outside of the major cities, and while many would have a problem with that I do not think that's the main problem. The issue is most roads that are heavily used in the cities simply do not have the space available for these cycle lanes and the space for bus lanes that I would argue are even more important.
I would be arguing for a change to planning laws as a first priority, so that EVERY road that is newly constructed must included cycle lanes that are physically separated (low kerb, or batons) so that cyclist are separated from traffic and these lanes are not used as parking bays.

I have worries about this plan to spend such a massive amount of money for the benefit of so few people to be honest. Retrofitting cycle lanes is going to be hugely expensive, and I do not think they will have such a significant effect as the Green claim. Building a cycle lane on every road is simply not going be possible, and that being the case, I cant see cyclists making a minor detour to use them if the shortest route happens to be a route where it is not possible to build a cycle lane. If they are to build them where it is possible to build them, then I think it should also be part of the plan that cyclist should be banned on certain roads, where it is both unsafe for them and where they will inevitably hold up traffic. I have no problem with the idea of building dense networks of cycle lanes in our cities, but I think it is also an opportunity once this network is in place to remove cyclists from certain roads where cycle lanes cannot be provided so that traffic can continue to move without having to constantly follow behind a cyclist because there is insufficient room to overtake them giving them the necessary safe clearance.

There an opportunity there to actually build proper safe corridors into and out of the cities if the cyclists would use them and at the same time improve traffic flow. Expecting a cycle lane on every road is neither going to be affordable or feasible. But if they must be built where possible then lets use it as an opportunity to benefit ALL road users. Keep the cyclists on the safe protected corridors and ban them completely from the roads where a cycle lane is simply not feasible because of lack of space and all they will do is put themselves in harms way and prevent free movement of traffic.

I know there going to be a tirade of abusive posts but the roads belong to everyone, and everyone should benefit from spending such a huge amount of money. If a cyclist is too lazy to cycle to the next junction where a safe corridor to their destination has been provided then frankly a lot of this money will have been totally wasted. Money will be very short in the next 5 years and none of it should be wasted.


.

Podge_irl

It is not cyclists preventing the free movement of traffic in a city, it is the traffic.

mgn

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why do you have a problem with this? Or do you think all transport money should be spent on rural bypasses that people like me will never use? Our cities need investment in infrastructure too, cycling and walking are the cheapest ways to improve things.

Yes, i have major problem with the government spending 1 million a day for a group who pay nothing for the use of it, and don't start the pay taxes too, if cyclist want cycle lanes build then its time the pay tax and insurance and obey the rules of the road like the motorist,
And start with 6 months of the road for going through a red light.

Thelonious Monk

mgn wrote: »

Yes, i have major problem with the government spending 1 million a day for a group who pay nothing for the use of it, and don't start the pay taxes too, if cyclist want cycle lanes build then its time the pay tax and insurance and obey the rules of the road like the motorist,
And start with 6 months of the road for going through a red light.

lol, couldn't have fit more anti cycling cliches into your post if you tried.
What funds the building of roads?
Should car drivers be banned from driving for breaking a red light?

mgn

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

lol, couldn't have fit more anti cycling cliches into your post if you tried.
What funds the building of roads?
Should car drivers be banned from driving for breaking a red light?

Yes, ban car drivers for breaking a red light same for everyone.
And until cyclist obey the rules of the road like everyone else then the will not get any respect from me.

Thelonious Monk

mgn wrote: »

Yes, ban car drivers for breaking a red light same for everyone.
And until cyclist obey the rules of the road like everyone else then the will get not get any respect for me.

So you actually think motorists obey the rules of the road? You can't be that thick. Something like 98% of people speed regularly.

mgn

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you actually think motorists obey the rules of the road? You can't be that thick. Something like 98% of people speed regularly.

Yes, and speed vans hiding all over the country trying to catch them.
How many cyclist were pulled for breaking lights and cycling on footpaths last year, how much revenue was taken in from them.

Thelonious Monk

mgn wrote: »

Yes, and speed vans hiding all over the country trying to catch them.
How many cyclist were pulled for breaking lights and cycling on footpaths last year, how much revenue was taken in from them.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141

5000 in 2019 anyway.

So you think everyone caught speeding or illegally parking or breaking a red light in a car should be banned for 6 months?

Chips Lovell

mgn wrote: »

How many cyclist were pulled for breaking lights and cycling on footpaths last year, how much revenue was taken in from them.

It's not a competition.

mgn

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141

5000 in 2019 anyway.

So you think everyone caught speeding or illegally parking or breaking a red light in a car should be banned for 6 months?

Why don't you find an article that say how many actually paid the fines.

Everyone on a public road should be subject to the same rules, and that includes clowns walking across the road with headphones blaring and their head buried in a phone.
,

mgn

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It's not a competition.

No, but a bit of balance would do for starters.

Podge_irl

To be fair, banning 98% of drivers for 6 months would certainly go a long way towards helping the Green's climate goals.

Podge_irl

mgn wrote: »

No, but a bit of balance would do for starters.

Indeed, and we can start by bringing some actual balance into the allocation of public road space so that it is not severely weighted towards the transportation and storage of private vehicles.

mgn

Podge_irl wrote: »

To be fair, banning 98% of drivers for 6 months would certainly go a long way towards helping the Green's climate goals.

The Greens, you might as well start calling them the Martin's, no different that the likes of the Healy-Rays at the end of the day.
All snouts in the trough.

Any bit of credibility the had was lost when Catherine Martins brother was elected to the senate,

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

I would be arguing for a change to planning laws as a first priority, so that EVERY road that is newly constructed must included cycle lanes that are physically separated (low kerb, or batons) so that cyclist are separated from traffic and these lanes are not used as parking bays.

I would agree with this.

Building a cycle lane on every road is simply not going be possible,

Not sure that is being proposed at all.

What is needed is the political courage to push through the changes. Bus connects was an example of this.

I know there going to be a tirade of abusive posts but the roads belong to everyone, and everyone should benefit from spending such a huge amount of money. If a cyclist is too lazy to cycle to the next junction where a safe corridor to their destination has been provided then frankly a lot of this money will have been totally wasted. Money will be very short in the next 5 years and none of it should be wasted.

Well, the number of people cycling to work in Dublin as doubled over the last 10 years and that is with crappy non-existent infrastructure for the most part. Can you imagine the take up of it, if there was the proper infrastructure that created a safe space for cyclists and children to get to work and school? The take up would be immense.

London has done this to some extent and it was BoJo himself that pushed a lot of the new superhighway cycle lanes through, but the stats show that it's working to increase uses of cycling in London.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jul/03/london-records-biggest-rise-in-cycling-journeys-in-2018

efanton

Podge_irl wrote: »

Indeed, and we can start by bringing some actual balance into the allocation of public road space so that it is not severely weighted towards the transportation and storage of private vehicles.

What indeed you should do is consider had it not been for cars or the transportation of good those roads would not even exist.
So let stop this petty tit for tat nonsense. Its easy to argue over the trivial and forget the big picture.

We do need to put in safe, dedicated lanes for cyclists. Anyone who argues against that has to be mad.

What we cant do is put in a cycle lane on every single road. That's not an opinion that just a simple truth, many roads simply do not have a verge or space to build a cycle lane.

If cycle lanes are to be built then I would like to see a complete network built, not the stupidity they did in Cork city with bus lanes where a bus lane would appear and a few hundred metres down the road suddenly disappear again forcing the bus to try merge back into traffic. Money complete wasted in my opinion.

There is no doubt that many cyclists havent got a clue or care about the rules of the road in general. You can argue about whether all drivers on the road follow the rules and many dont. That doesnt negate the fact that many cyclist do break the rules regularly and persistently putting themselves at risk and often to other road users too. They dont pay insurance, but are very quick to put an insurance claim in when they are involved in an accident, often one caused by themselves.

If there are to be dedicated cycle lanes that properly connect to each other I see no reason whatsoever why a cyclist should then be using the roads if they have these dedicate and reserved routes available to them.
I also see no reason why cyclists using roads should not be required to have insurance if they do not stick to the cycle lanes.

You simply cant have you bread buttered on both sides.
If cyclists want their own dedicated cycling lanes then I agree they should be provided, But I also think it only fair that once provided they should stick to them or be considered like any other vehicle on the road, follow the rules and have insurance.

Podge_irl

efanton wrote: »

What indeed you should do is consider had it not been for cars or the transportation of good those roads would not even exist.
So let stop this petty tit for tat nonsense. Its easy to argue over the trivial and forget the big picture.

Ireland had no roads before the 1900s? News to me...

I have no particular issue with some kind of insurance for cyclists, but the reason they do not require it at the moment and cars do is because cyclists can not cause anywhere near the level of damage that a car can.

What the PfG is promising is to reverse decades of unequal spending and unequal consideration give to the private motor car. If a road is too narrow for a car and cycle lane, why is it the cycle lane that can't be built? There would probably be space for a one way traffic lane and a bi-directional cycle lane for example.

efanton wrote: »

But I also think it only fair that once provided they should stick to them or be considered like any other vehicle on the road, follow the rules and have insurance.

I would be absolutely, bloody thrilled if I was treated like any other vehicle on the road. Alas, a large part of the time I am not.

Chips Lovell

markodaly wrote: »

Well, the number of people cycling to work in Dublin as doubled over the last 10 years and that is with crappy non-existent infrastructure for the most part. Can you imagine the take up of it, if there was the proper infrastructure that created a safe space for cyclists and children to get to work and school? The take up would be immense.

We don't even need to massively spend on cycling-specific infrastructure. We already have the infrastructure and in a lot of cases, rather than build parallel infrastructure,we just need to re-prioritise use of it. The pandemic has been inadvertently eye-opening. Reduce the number of cars and all of a sudden the number of families cycling rockets.

efanton

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ireland had no roads before the 1900s? News to me...

if you had read what I actually said rather than jump to a conclusion that suits your purpose you might have got it. Were there not horse and carts transporting goods on the roads before the car?

had it not been for cars or the transportation of good(S) those roads would not even exist.

I have no particular issue with some kind of insurance for cyclists, but the reason they do not require it at the moment and cars do is because cyclists can not cause anywhere near the level of damage that a car can.

they might not do as much damage, but they have certainly caused damage and accidents. That €400 bill I got for respraying a big long scratch down the side of my car caused by a cyclist thinking he could squeeze down a gap that was not there is proof enough to me that cyclists should have insurance if not restricted to cycle lanes and paths. I had to pay that myself as the cyclist was not insured refused to pass on details and refused to pay for the damage they caused. The number of times I have seen cars having to brake hard or swerve to avoid hitting a cyclist who broke the light is numerous.

What the PfG is promising is to reverse decades of unequal spending and unequal consideration give to the private motor car. If a road is too narrow for a car and cycle lane, why is it the cycle lane that can't be built? There would probably be space for a one way traffic lane and a bi-directional cycle lane for example.

The PF is not reversing anything. Cyclist simply were not in the picture when the existing roads were built. They are now trying to use roads that were never designed with cyclists in mind. That cannot be corrected for many existing roads, but I agree the Greens would be doing very badly if they did not address this by getting planning laws changed so that every new road built had cycle lanes installed.

as for roads that have no space available to build cycle lanes or bus lanes, we are just going to have to live with what is already there. Suggesting that we turn these roads into cycle only thoroughfares is pure nonsense. All you would do is increase congestion elsewhere, and often that road might be the only viable route for a car, bus or lorry.

I would be absolutely, bloody thrilled if I was treated like any other vehicle on the road. Alas, a large part of the time I am not.

you personally might be one of the few responsible cyclists. Not all cyclists have a regard for the rules.

Unfortunately there are many cyclist that have no regard for other users of the road.
I live out in the country and we have a local cycling club in a near by town. Every Sunday you will see them cycling two and three abreast on a road barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other that has sharp bends. Numerous people have complained to that particular club about this, and it is only a matter of time when some innocent car driver comes round a blind bend and hits a cyclist who is on the wrong side of the road. If the organised clubs cant even get their members to obey the rules of the road then I cant see how you can argue that cyclists do not put themselves and other road users at risk of serious injury on a frequent and regular basis.

I am for giving cyclists a save space reserved for them to use, but its not going to be possible for cycle lanes to be put everywhere. What I am against is the government spending serious amounts of money to build lanes and then cyclists not using them or refusing to use a safer route provided because its a little bit shorter to use a road where it is not possible to have a cycle lane. If that happen then the whole idea is a complete waste of money, but sadly thats exactly what will happen.

Chips Lovell

I think you need to freshen up your knowledge of Road Traffic law there, chief.

You're not obliged to use a cycle lane if there is one there. Cycling two abreast is legal. Cycling three abreast is legal if the person on the outside is passing out the two on the inside.

efanton

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you need to freshen up your knowledge of Road Traffic law there, chief.

You're not obliged to use a cycle lane if there is one there. Cycling two abreast is legal. Cycling three abreast is legal if the person on the outside is passing out the two on the inside.

I am well aware of the exist laws, or lack of them.

that's my point, if we are going to have cycle lanes everywhere then we should also amend the laws so that cyclists must use them. Why spend hundred of millions on them if that is not the case. With regards to cycling three abreast, that is not in the law. Its the absence of law that allows that to happen, and I am sure it was never intended that cyclists cross the centre line either.

Article 47 Pedal Cyclists

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians

.
overtaking using the wrong side of the road approaching a bend is illegal not matter whether it you are driving a car or cycling. Constantly cycling three abreast is not legal but I see that most Sunday's when these lads our out.


I ride a motorcycle, and will filter in slow traffic if space allows. There is provision for that in the UK (from where our highway code is derived) and most countries, but in Ireland our road laws and rules say nothing about it. Basically it down to riding with due care and attention and if you pass that benchmark it is perfectly legal because there are no laws that prohibit it.

Chips Lovell

efanton wrote: »

if we are going to have cycle lanes everywhere then we should also amend the laws so that cyclists must use them. Why spend hundred of millions on them if that is not the case.

We spend a bunch of money too on bus lanes, but buses and taxis aren't obliged to use them. They can use the road if it's faster or more convenient.

efanton wrote: »

overtaking using the wrong side of the road approaching a bend is illegal

Yes, it is illegal. Why were you bringing legal behaviour, such as cycling two abreast into it?