New Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan

AndrewJRenko

Rows Grower wrote: »

I have news for you, if you're a cyclist you should wear a helmet to help prevent yourself from being killed in the case of an accident.

I have sad news for you. You clearly have no idea about the purpose and design specification of bike helmets.

They are designed to protect you from falls at speeds up to 20 kmph. They do not protect you from being hit by a tonne or two of metal. It's a bit of foam in a thin plastic shell.

But if you're a big fan of helmets to reduce head injuries, make sure you wear a crash helmet in the car at all times, given that vastly more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes, even with seat belts and air bags etc.

Marcusm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I have news for you If you're hit by an SUV, you are twice as likely to be killed as someone hit by a car.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4462-suvs-double-pedestrians-risk-of-death/

But’s that’s only because the SUV driver would reverse over you as well as hitting you from the front. Bastards, I say.

lawrencesummers

[PHP]i[/PHP]

Lundstram wrote: »

That list of things don't use public roads, disrupt traffic or cause accidents.

Next time, engage your brain before replying.

Pedestrians don’t cause accidents?

If anyone needs to engage their brain it’s you.
Taxing bikes is the single stupidest thing I’m going to read this year.

Bikes use footpaths as much as Prams.

Eric Cartman

Triangle wrote: »

The NCAP ratings for vehicles shows that box shaped bonnets are more dangerous than sloped ones.
The BMW x5 has a 76% rating the BMW 3 series is given 86% for pedestrian impacts.
Pre 2009 the X5 had 1 out of four stars for pedestrians/cyclists.

https://www.euroncap.com

Checked out their ratings.
the notes from my Range Rover : "Pedestrian
Just three sites out of 18 tested on the vehicle's front gave any protection. This is dire, and Land Rover needs to improve matters"

scores 30/32 for inside passenger and 2/32 for pedestrians. Insurance underwriters love it though, range rovers are surprisingly cheap to insure, probably because if it hits anyone its a funeral home not a hospital they're going to.

weldoninhio

Jizique wrote: »

So even if there was great Munich-style public transport, you would still insist on being allowed to drive as you have no interest in dealing with other people? I suggest this is typical of the SUV driver, zero respect or time for others.

But we don’t have, nor will we ever have a decent European style public transport system.

Sam Russell

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Will we have to share the car with everyone in the village now ?

There is a car sharing service where you hire the car for €9 per hour all in - petrol, insurance, motor tax, parking.

I have never used it but it sounds great. Now it would not work for commuting because I think you have to return it to where you got it. [I am not sure of that]. It would be good for the shopping trip from the village to the local town.

It is not a daft idea at all. Most of the cars in the street I live on are left parked all day, every day, except for the occasional foray out. I am sure a short term rental would suit most people living here, and it would certainly be cheaper. A car costs about €5k per year, or €14 per day (365 days per year) or 1.5 hours per day compared with GoCar, or 11 hours per week. Now I could have underestimated the cost of owning a car by 100%, but that only makes the figures better.

[Edit: Just checked and I am out - it is €10,671 per year according to the AA.]

Sounds good, I must check it out.

Rows Grower

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I have sad news for you. You clearly have no idea about the purpose and design specification of bike helmets.

They are designed to protect you from falls at speeds up to 20 kmph. They do not protect you from being hit by a tonne or two of metal. It's a bit of foam in a thin plastic shell.

But if you're a big fan of helmets to reduce head injuries, make sure you wear a crash helmet in the car at all times, given that vastly more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes, even with seat belts and air bags etc.

Here you go Andrew, stay safe...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/helmet

AndrewJRenko

Marcusm wrote: »

But’s that’s only because the SUV driver would reverse over you as well as hitting you from the front. Bastards, I say.

Just in case you think this is all a big old laugh, this is what is happening in the real world in Ireland

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/carlow-boy-dies-in-hospital-after-collision-with-jeep-while-cycling-1007551.html

Plastic foam hats are not the solution.

weldoninhio

Duckjob wrote: »

Psst, I'll let you in on a little known secret. The authorities in more enlightened European countries are not only funding cycling infrastructure on a large scale,
but they're also actually paying people (via tax breaks) to cycle to work on it. I wonder why?

Maybe just let go of your irrational dislikes and open your mind a little.

Psst, enlightened EU countries got bombed t’fcuk in WW2. They were able to rebuild much wider streets, much more room for cycling infrastructure etc.

TrailerBob

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just in case you think this is all a big old laugh, this is what is happening in the real world in Ireland

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/carlow-boy-dies-in-hospital-after-collision-with-jeep-while-cycling-1007551.html

Plastic foam hats are not the solution.

Neither is blindly assuming the blame lies in a certain place. I have some knowledge of this incident, and it appears to be a tragic accident that the driver had little or no part in causing. But go ahead and use it to demonise people. This thread is becoming a bit pointless now.

Duckjob

weldoninhio wrote: »

Psst, enlightened EU countries got bombed t’fcuk in WW2. They were able to rebuild much wider streets, much more room for cycling infrastructure etc.

Nope. Popular myth that one, but not supported by facts.

Netherlands for example like most over places, embraced the private car in the years following WW2 and in fact was still demolishing existing cycle infrastructure to make way for in its cities right up until the seventies. They didn't start to change direction and plan for active travel options until the time of the oil crisis around 1973.

kirving

Triangle wrote: »

Even the EU back then was pushing diesel over petrol as better environmentally.
Just look back at the articles and data released then.

It was never environmental in reality. Well, it was about CO2, at the determent of just about every other pollutant, but that was only because the Germans were top of the game at building diesel engines.

The Swedes long had other ideas in terms of CO2 reduction (bioethanol), but the Germans had more influence in the EU, so the Irish government removed the tax incentives, and then unfairly taxed bioethanol to prevent the public from taking that option.

German and French diesels were conciously incentivised over other alternatives to reduce our CO2 output - by FF and the Greens.

AndrewJRenko

Rows Grower wrote: »

Here you go Andrew, stay safe...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/helmet

Well, thanks, but it doesn't really add a lot to the discussion. I know what cycle helmets are made from and the design spec.

If you do want to have a discussion about keeping cyclists safe, start here.
https://twitter.com/cyclegaz/status/1178275137558372353?s=19

Shefwedfan

I could read the 5 pages but I would expect it similar to the hyperbole all over boards in regards to Ryan. What exactly do you think he can do without the agreement of FG/FF and in reality a lot of other people in the Dail?

If he tries to make sweeping changes it will be stopped. You will have Healy Rae and similar shouting and roaring in case profits go down in the shop. Similar to the shouting saying an electric car can’t go through a puddle of water

Few things, first the grid, anyone that knows about a grid will release the companies want it running the whole time at the same level. Excess electricity at night can be used to charge electric cars. The new law said NEW combustion engine would be stopped in 2030 so you could still be buying those cars in 2045 but I hate to tell you it doesn’t matter what Ireland says, we will be told by car manufacturers what we will be buying And that will be based on UK/Germany/US market. So more and more Crossover anyway whatever fuel they run on

The Greens are all public transport, finally we might see some decent investment. Dublin is the main issue and it’s traffic issues started over 30 years ago and no government has managed to fix them. Maybe, just maybe public transport and a balanced transport system might work. No idea what the fear is

For people living outside cities, again no idea what the fear is? First off FG signed up to Paris agreement not the Greens. Second diesel was always on the cards to increase to at least be at the same tax as petrol. Every party would need to do. After that I don’t expect anything dramatic unless the price of diesel goes up in market

UK imports will be hit, especially diesel but that already started.

Hopefully a better Bike2Work for electric bikes. Also finally get a scooter system into cities similar to Europe. Shut down of city centres to traffic could be pushed out more but that’s already in progress

After that, feck all, as I said even if he wanted to ban all cars in Dublin he won’t get it past the Dail so why get so concerned.

I expect more changes in Solar/housing/heating than in transport to be honest but hopefully a huge push on a proper train system is part of plan, everyone should be behind that

AndrewJRenko

TrailerBob wrote: »

Neither is blindly assuming the blame lies in a certain place. I have some knowledge of this incident, and it appears to be a tragic accident that the driver had little or no part in causing. But go ahead and use it to demonise people. This thread is becoming a bit pointless now.

There are no 'tragic accidents' on the road. 'Accident' terminology was developed in the 1930s by the PR services of the car industry to get drivers off the hook.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/11/17/crash-not-accident-better-road-safety-reporting-could-save-lives-show-researchers
When you have drivers here claiming that complying with a basic legal requirement like driving in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear as 'totally impractical', you'll forgive me for making assumptions about responsibility.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just in case you think this is all a big old laugh, this is what is happening in the real world in Ireland


Plastic foam hats are not the solution.

That is really disingenuous Andrew. You have no idea about the circumstances of the crash or mechanism of injury, yet you're using it as an example on the efficacy of helmets in general.

Agent_47

Horse and cart will be the next form of public transport. No one wants to use the buses or trains at the moment. Bit like that farce that is the liffey ferry that runs with no passengers

Marlow

PlentyOhToole wrote: »

So we have a new minister for Transport, Energy and Climate: Eamon Ryan.

Where did you get that department combination from ? All I could find is Minister for Climate Action, Communication Networks and Transport.

Either way .. he's neither suitable for Transport, nor should he be in Comms, as he already screwed that one up at least once.

/M

jrosen

I heard on the radio today exclusion zones for driving around schools to encourage parents to walk, more tolls on the road. Poor imagination imo.

Seth Brundle

TrailerBob wrote: »

I have some knowledge of this incident, and it appears to be a tragic accident that the driver had little or no part in causing.

So he didn't have bull bars fitted to his vehicle?

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When you have drivers here claiming that complying with a basic legal requirement like driving in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear as 'totally impractical', you'll forgive me for making assumptions about responsibility.

And this is just as disingenuous.

You know full well what the meaning of that law is but spout it out consistently as a means to blame car drivers 100% for every collision and further your argument.

As I said earlier, you driving in your car at any speed on any road, would not be able to stop if I chose to run in front of you, but by your own logic, you would be at fault. Correct?

Strumms

It’s pretty poor appointment on Martins behalf with all that’s going on, to be making this sort of grandstanding appointment. We need a steady hand that the public can rely on...

AndrewJRenko

Kevin Irving wrote: »

And this is just as disingenuous.

You know full well what the meaning of that law is but spout it out consistently as a means to blame car drivers 100% for every collision and further your argument.

As I said earlier, you driving in your car at any speed on any road, would not be able to stop if I chose to run in front of you, but by your own logic, you would be at fault. Correct?

Yes, I know the meaning of the law. It's not difficult to understand. It means that drivers should drive in a manner that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

If you were in a position to run out in front of me, I would have clocked you as a risk and adjusted my driving accordingly.

If you find this requirement to be 'completely impractical', I can only suggest that you take some defensive driving lessons.

Jizique

weldoninhio wrote: »

Psst, enlightened EU countries got bombed t’fcuk in WW2. They were able to rebuild much wider streets, much more room for cycling infrastructure etc.

Any pictures of the destruction of Paris?

Jizique

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is a car sharing service where you hire the car for €9 per hour all in - petrol, insurance, motor tax, parking.

I have never used it but it sounds great. Now it would not work for commuting because I think you have to return it to where you got it. [I am not sure of that]. It would be good for the shopping trip from the village to the local town.

It is not a daft idea at all. Most of the cars in the street I live on are left parked all day, every day, except for the occasional foray out. I am sure a short term rental would suit most people living here, and it would certainly be cheaper. A car costs about €5k per year, or €14 per day (365 days per year) or 1.5 hours per day compared with GoCar, or 11 hours per week. Now I could have underestimated the cost of owning a car by 100%, but that only makes the figures better.

[Edit: Just checked and I am out - it is €10,671 per year according to the AA.]

Sounds good, I must check it out.

They have one way systems in Germany - they are class; 4-5k cars dotted around a city, you check for nearest on your app, it opens by phone, you take it and drive eg to airport or to another pet of city and park it there, and the charge is typically a couple of euro; we need that rather than the Irish system where the car must be brought back to the starting spot

TrailerBob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So he didn't have bull bars fitted to his vehicle?

If it was a van//truck there would have been a similar outcome sadly.. I don't advocate the use of front bars in this country, they are by and large not necessary. It's the use of this incident as an argument that all SUVs are death traps that I took issue with. Any large vehicle travelling at a given speed will do the same thing.

As for the statement from Andrew about no such thing as an accident... If you want to be pedantic, that's fine. Call it unintended consequences or what have you, but there's a distinction between that and wrecklwss behavior by drivers.

Anyway, Eamon Ryan is not the enemy of the people, but he will try to push his agenda .. which will have unintended consequences... An accident if you will.

RandomViewer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I pay motor tax.
I also pay income tax.
I also pay many other forms of taxation.
So as a cyclist I contribute towards the running of the country including funding roads.
So, no. I won't shut up when someone pipes up with daft ideas about public taxation and spending.

If the bike costs more than €500 it should be taxed, that leaves kids bikes unaffected, more expensive bikes are just a dick measuring competition among cyclists

AndrewJRenko

RandomViewer wrote: »

If the bike costs more than €500 it should be taxed, that leaves kids bikes unaffected, more expensive bikes are just a dick measuring competition among cyclists

Are more expensive cars just a small dick measuring competition between drivers?

Bikes are already taxed, at the point of purchase btw.

But do have a look at what smarter countries are doing to encourage cycling, with vouchers for bike repairs, actually paying cyclists to cycle.

While you think extra barriers are a solution?

weldoninhio

Jizique wrote: »

Any pictures of the destruction of Paris?

Google.

AndrewJRenko

TrailerBob wrote: »

As for the statement from Andrew about no such thing as an accident... If you want to be pedantic, that's fine. Call it unintended consequences or what have you, but there's a distinction between that and wrecklwss behavior by drivers.

We have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits. We have the majority of drivers using their phones while driving. We have drivers killing 2 or 3 people each week on the roads. We have drivers telling us that basic legal requirements are 'completely impractical'.

We passed the bar for wreckless behaviour a long way back.