monument wrote: » Note to mods: Last Stop has made legal threats twice in the thread already. I’ll save you the time by reporting this post. I would like to make it clear that I never intended to undermine your professional qualifications and that I don’t think I did so. I think you’ll have a hard time explaining it to the mods what exactly you think I said which amounts to undermining your professional qualifications.
Last Stop wrote: » If you continue to refuse to apologise for challenging my professional qualifications even though your argument was proven to be completely false then yes I will have to take it up with the mods and in turn boards.ie. I will give you the opportunity to issue an apology before that though. Do you wish to acknowledge your mistake?
Qrt wrote: » This is Mobhi Road and the like yeah? I assume they know Griffith Avenue isn’t on a CRC... (unless I’m greatly mistaken?)
LeinsterDub wrote: » BusConnects is 16 corridors which are mostly not controversial. Even if they have to leave some parts undone it will still go ahead.
LeinsterDub wrote: » BusConnects is 16 corridors which are mostly not controversial. Even if they have a leave some parts undone it will still go ahead.
alentejo wrote: » At this stage, I recon Busconnects is dead!
CatInABox wrote: » In other BusConnects news, as predicted by many here, the legal opposition to BusConnects has started. Griffith Avenue District and Residents Association have stepped up their game. They've hired solicitors, and are requesting the NTA go back to the drawing board, as they feel that the Public Consultation didn't consult people early enough, nor considered the "zero-option" of doing nothing, especially in light of the Metrolink route being essentially the same, and is thus in breach of the Aarhus Directive on public consultations. See their slightly weird website here. As you might guess from all the press releases today, they're also going after Metrolink for much the reason. I'll throw a post into the Metrolink thread too.
CatInABox wrote: » Perhaps, Last Stop, there's more than one reason? Also, I didn't say shorter green time, I said shorter distance. Two very different things. I still don't see how cyclists have priority here either? I mean, Dublin is covered with shared space between pedestrians and cyclists, so do you believe that there is cyclist priority in those areas?
Last Stop wrote: » Cyclists do have priority over pedestrians at that point as monument has in a round about way just admitted. Now you’re contradicting monument by suggesting this option offers shorter green time for pedestrians. Which is it guys
monument wrote: » You might want to look up the meaning of debunk. In most surveys, the main reasons people relate to lack of infrastructure and danger from motorists. These issues combined overshadow other things. I’ve never said or implied it’s just infrastructure but without infrastructure you cannot address the secondary issues. If you think any of my posts are defamatory, you probably should report it to boards.ie.
CatInABox wrote: » Do you think the Dutch always had a high percentage of cyclists? Still haven't answered why you thought that cyclists had priority either, and indeed, it seems that every point that is put to you is ignored or dismissed. Anyway, by using pedestrian safety islands, it decreases the distance between paths, and it's aimed at getting people across the road in one cycle of the lights.
monument wrote: » There’s not a gap, there’s an area for pedestrians between the roadway and the footpath. I find it hard to believe that you don’t know well what it is and you know it’s that way because the cycle path at that point is outside the control of the traffic lights. At this point you’re going to go back to saying this isn’t pedestrian friendly — yet when it was pointed out to you that pedestrians would likely get longer Green time and non-staggered crossings, you dismissed this out of hand. You have clearly used pedestrian priority when it suits you.
Last Stop wrote: » You don’t get it do you? As I have clearly pointed it whether you have debunked them or not, they are still the reasons/factors etc that people will use when asked why they don’t cycle.
Last Stop wrote: » You keep implying that it’s just infrastructure when it’s clearly not but you’re unwilling to admit after such a long debate in which you have thrown out some seriously defamatory comments that you’re wrong. I’m using the word implying because when I challenge you on what else is needed, you haven’t given any answers.
Last Stop wrote: » Yet again you are suggesting that by simply building the infrastructure cycling numbers will increase. There are a number of other factors which you have continually dismissed yet are the reasons why people won’t cycle.
Last Stop wrote: » Well I’m still waiting for you to explain why the gap is there so do you want to answer the question instead of taking pot shots with absolutely nothing to back it up?
monument wrote: » What “other factors” exactly are you talking about? I’ve addressed and in some cases debunked your points.
monument wrote: » Dublin has slightly higher population density than Amsterdam
monument wrote: » We can built the infrastructure. Most people in Dublin live within cycling distances from work, school, college and play, and shopping. Average time by is irrelevant given cycling is already quicker for most journeys at peak. Dublin has slightly higher population density than Amsterdam— so, it’s not true to say people live too far away to get 50% cycling to work. It might be hard to get to that point and to be clear: I think heavy investment in public transport is part of the solution.
monument wrote: » Given your views about cycling expressed in the last few pages, why would anybody take you seriously about the design of cycle paths?
Last Stop wrote: » Nope. I get the one at the corner. I’m referring to the one further back near the pedestrian crossing. There’s a gap between the road and the cycle lane which splits the pedestrian crossing into 3. From my view of it, there’s no reason why the cycle lane can’t start to curve after the pedestrian crossing.
is_that_so wrote: » We are none of those places and we're not Dutch. We genuinely don't have the public infrastructure for this to happen. Average journey times are 25m and way way above and most people do not live close enough to be able to jump on a bike. Without fixing the public transport options first, all of these thousands will remain in their cars and the pans then looks a whole like we really don't care where cars go just as long as we can ban them.
abitofacomedian wrote: » Sorry new to this discussion, and there are a lot of posts to wade through, but are you asking about the protection strip between the cycle lane and the road? The kerb and 30cm or so of pavement? If so, it is there to prevent motor vehicles from taking the corner too quickly by cutting through the cycle lane. Also prevents side swiping, makes it safer for a cyclist waiting to go straight ahead while there are turning vehicles. The junction design is a lot safer for less confident cyclists than a normal Irish junction, but would probably be slower for experienced cyclists to traverse. Personally, I'd take the additional wait time for a safer journey but accept that others would not. There is one particular left turn on my commute, where the cyclist has to wait at a red light if they want to go straight ahead, but they are to the left of a left tun lane with a green light. Motorists famously complain about cyclists breaking red lights, well in my experience they also complain about cyclists obeying red lights, if it means they have to slow down to turn left!
monument wrote: » Are you sure about that? Recent modal share (I think 2017/8) on the left with modal change over one year on the right. btm = bus, tram, metro Modal share change in Eindhoven:
