Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Parking and traffic in Phoenix Park

Options
18082848586

Comments

  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,972 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    1. define "reasonably expect" when it comes to road safety? Surely We can do more to reduce serious injuries and fatalitites? Even yesterday, it was announced that of the 1700 people cycling who were sent to hospital (as in-patient or day cases so excluding A&E) resulting from a collision involving a driver - a third of these were children with over 10% of the total figure being under nine - can these stats not be improved. Mobile phone usage and drivers ignoring red lights has become widespread over the last decade. Can that not be improved? Can we not reduce the number of drivers driving under the influence of drugs (and other substances)? can we not improve any areas of road safety?
    2. Nobody at any point in the debate has suggested banning vehicles. However, what we have at the moment is not working for everyone. Are we to assume that we've reasched a stage in terms of road safety because following through with any more enforcement would just inconvenience drivers?

    To be fair, this is quite a stupid argument that you've put forwards!



  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    We COULD do a lot of things but we won't. We'll do things like reducing speed limits in already safe areas.

    Meanwhile outside Dublin, there will remain potholes, terrible roads, horrific junctions that cause deaths etc and nothing will be done there.


    But by all means take a safe road and make it just as safe by reducing the speed limit in the name of safety.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    So instead of whingeing to whatever local rep will listen over what you admit has safety benefits, why don't you get equally animated and contact them about all those things you highlighted?

    But we all know you won't, you're just engaging in whataboutery and your only concern is a perceived inconvenience to yourself.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Plus to this. You lose more on commute but the acts of selfish people running lights and just delaying the time to get through a light sequence for everyone else. Then there's the junction blockers.


    If everyone drove at predictable speeds and was predictable at junctions and lights, it would be a little quicker and a lot safer for all

    Post edited by Weepsie on


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    But he's been driving like that for some time prior to the accident. People are immune to **** and dangerous driving as they see it every day and just ignore it. Keep in ignoring it and bigger issues happen



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    You have to actively focus on whatever speed your driving. Sounds like you shouldn't be driving.


    What do you do when you exit the park and hit the quays as you're not hitting 30kmph an hour there in the morning between 7.30-9.30



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Its simply not necessary, its just an exercise in optics.. Why inconvenience anyone at all when its fully avoidable?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The fella asked who he should contact to support an objection to the current limits.

    Are you honestly trying to suggest that any Green rep would help him with that? Cop yourself on ffs.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,972 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Who exactly is being inconvenienced and in what way? Are you seriously trying to say that someone who is delayed in getting to a traffic jam on the quays or in Castleknock by 3 mins is being put out?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    You seem to believe that the Greens are running the country when it comes to anything motor related. Open your eyes and realise it's a much wider issue for a broad spectrum of political ideologies.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Even if it was just optics (which it isn't). Optics are important.

    It's a good compromise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    It's not an inconvenience though. If 4 mins is an inconvenience for people then they need to grow the **** up and realise there are far bigger problems that are causing them actual inconvenience.


    Hundreds of cars blocking up the quays every morning is a bigger inconvenience yet it's seemingly accepted as normal. The biggest inconvenience to drivers is other drivers, as they are what delay them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Shouldn't be news to anyone that they are. Ryan is causing consternation by interfering in road projects all over the shop that are funded and shovel ready, including ones to enable new house building and economic activity, as well as those to bypass congested and overburdened rural towns.

    In Dublin City there can be no question but that a vocal lobby of Green zealots like Chu, Pidgeon, Byrne, Horner, Cuffe et al are wagging the dog by forcing an anti-car and anti-business agenda - especially in relation to the Phoenix Park for some inexplicable reason.

    As much as I'd regret seeing Sinn Féin in power in the Dáil, part of me wishes they'd won the vote of no/confidence last week just to bring about a General Election that would detonate the Greens.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Through traffic being stopped entirely.

    If drivers won't agree to compromise then neither will the OPW. They closed the ave before when they rebuilt it. Took their good time about reopening it. Almost a year.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    You can't fix these issues by facilitating more cars. The demand will fill all the capacity you create. The solution is restrict capacity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    As I've said before many times on many threads on this Forum - start implementing genuine alternatives before restricting capacity.

    More carrot, less stick.

    Oh, and public transport in the City that isn't infested with the scum of the Earth would be good too. Thanks in advance Eamon.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,567 ✭✭✭MojoMaker


    If you want traffic to start moving at 50km/h or less then set the target speed limit to 30km/h, then you have some chance folks might actually drive at 40 or 50, instead of the 60 or 70 (or higher) they used to drive down Chesterfield Avenue at off-peak times prior to this recent change.

    The park also has deer don't forget, and yes there has been quite a few incidents over recent years involving cars and deer in the park. Traffic moving a lot slower through the park at off-peak times and at night helps reduce those incidents.

    In a nutshell, that's the Irish way.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Given the level of PT thats available as an alternative to driving through a park, I imagine no amount of additional PT would ever be enough as you would never use it anyway.

    As for your scum comment.....



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    If you're not willing to sightly reduce your speed. Theres no chance you'll embrace other means of transport unless you've no alternative.

    People will keep choosing journeys that require a car while it's still viable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    -Hi guys, let's make things a bit safer and more convenient for alternatives like cycling and buses. It'll mean taking road space from cars though.

    -**** that, Larbre34 the hypocrite will lose his ****, check under his bed and decry the greens are declaring a war on motorists.

    -But isn't that the sensible thing to be doing?

    -Yeah, but it may inconvenience him and he'll never stop whinging.

    -And aren't SF the majority party in DCC, what's he on about?

    - Not so much now, used to have the lord mayor until recently but their policy wasn't a whole lot different. It's the green scare don't you know. The commies don't have a thing on them.

    -What's his solution?

    Start implementing alternatives?

    -Erm...

    -I know, but I think he just means alternatives that don't inconvenience him in his car.

    -FFS.

    -I know.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I've no issue reducing my speed to 30 anytime. Its an appropriate speed for winding residential streets where kids are running out and at school zones. Its not an appropriate limit for Chesterfield Avenue and doesn't meet the profile of a 30 km/h warrant.

    And this is about the credibility of speed limit byelaws, nothing more, nothing less.

    Oh and, anytime I'm in the Park by car, its for leisure, I get the train into the office anytime I'm in and I have done for years!

    Why would I leave myself unable to enjoy a nice cold creamy pint if the opportunity arises....



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Well it's a park with kids, families, a zoo, a school. The OPW can set any speed they like at the end of the day.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Actually, they cannot.

    It has to have a statutory basis and it has to have the approval of the Guards as Traffic Authority of the State.

    The Guards have agreed to 30 for the trial period, but it could just as easily be the Guards that turn around in the review and say, 'this is a nonsense, we have 90+% non compliance and 50 is appropriate so change it back and leave it'



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    And yet currently you have the 30k that OPW wanted.

    The minister claims is being adhered to despite reports that it isn't.

    So good luck with that fantasy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The Minister will be given his orders locally, at the end of the trial.

    Just like when he opened the gates the day after the OPW said they were to stay closed.

    Then we'll see who's dealing in fantasy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,627 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    They got their road closures and one way though.

    I don't think "I can't drive at 30k" is going to hold much sway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Correction, its a pilot for the moment.

    And anyway, nobody has much of a problem with the closures, all gates are still usable and that's all the users and local neighbourhoods wanted. It keeps the traffic spread out and avoids any one adjoining area being unfairly inundated.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,545 ✭✭✭Former Former Former




Advertisement