Mav11 wrote: » Wouldn't agree with you on the 15% reduction, it's an actual 17.5% increase in amounts people have to pay. Would agree on the unfairness of the system, but that was imposed from central govt. despite there being better models out there. But as my main point is on the competence, democracy or arrogance of DLRCC here's a further thought: Census 2016 states that there are 78,601 private homes (houses, apts etc.) in DLR. Note 15, P20 of the unaudited 2019 financial statements, reveals a yield of €10.7m from LPT. Assuming this represents 80% of tax collected, the total LPT for DLRCC would be approx €12.8m. Unless my maths are wrong this represents an average yield of €162 per house. What's going on here? I'm in an ordinary 3 bed semi and paying 5 times that:eek:
Cyrus wrote: » So do you class pedestrians as road users ? If so you disagree with the other poster that says cyclists are the most vulnerable road users correct ?
Cyrus wrote: » Same rules are fine, given bikes are so safe insurance costs will be less, the rest is important, we shouldnt have people on the road who havent demonstrated that they understand the rules of the road.
Cyrus wrote: » Pedestrian arent road users, so its a moot point, if they walk out onto a road and cause an accident its a legal matter.
Cyrus wrote: » Yes
Cyrus wrote: » No, they arent road users.
Cyrus wrote: » And as for comparing us to other countries are you incapable of any sort of independent thinking?
Cyrus wrote: » the amount of stupidly dangerous cycling i have seen over the lockdown has reaffirmed my thinking on this.
Mav11 wrote: » I can't find any details of the dire financial position that the council claims to be in, such documents appear to be restricted and not available to the public. Neither can I find minutes of the meeting.
.anon. wrote: » Motorists also have a responsibility to weigh up the effect their parking has on other road users.
Mav11 wrote: » So is it that the finances are not great because of a lack of competence in managing them, or a surplus of arrogance in assuming that the mugs who own houses will pay for such incompetence ?
Cyrus wrote: » Thats an issue for the council to resolve then. Maybe if they werent so busy with their new pet project they could solve that issue.
ted1 wrote: » The council inherited a debt of 30 million from the harbour company. They are not collecting rates from businesses. The library was more than 36 million. Yes there finances are not great. Yes increasing cycle lanes will reduce wear and tear on roads thus saving money.
.anon. wrote: » There are plenty of places where you can legally park, whilst still causing an obstruction to public transport and potentially emergency vehicles. Both sides of Sandycove Rd, Mounttown Rd, York Rd, for example. There should be no legal parking provided on roads where it's not possible to park without obstructing public transport, cyclists, ambulances and fire engines. Which is most roads in Dún Laoghaire.
Cyrus wrote: » A road without yellow lines is a legal place to park, I’m not sure what point you are making , you don’t park in street ever ? Sickening entitlement for legally parking ?!?
Seaswimmer wrote: » I suppose playing Devils Advocate I could say that DLR have given us a 15% reduction for the last number of years when other councils didnt. They would say they are simply restoring parity. That and the fact that we are still paying on 2013 valuations. The whole LPT obviously needs to revisited but i think it was flawed in the first place as valuations are subjective.. Maybe a site tax/sq metre tax/rates or some combination. DLR is probably the hardest hit in the country on the valuation metric so no doubt there will be more complaints.
rubadub wrote: » Sweet jesus, I thought the first one was being sarcastic, trotting out the same tired old crap you always hear. Have you ever asked yourself why no other countries do this reg plate and licence stuff? does it really need explaining, AGAIN?! Ask yourself why its not done for pedestrians and you have your answer. Of course they are road users! what an utterly pathetic way to try and weasel out of it. FFS its like discussions on legalizing drugs and people putting their fingers in their ears "la la la, alcohol is not a drug, you can't bring it up". They are frequently recognised and referred to as vulnerable road users.https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Vulnerable-Road-Users/
Mav11 wrote: » Long post I know but: So, our duly elected councillors vote to increase LPT paid by households by 17.5% in 2021 “after the authority warned of a “catastrophic” impact on front line services next year”https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-rathdown-homeowners-face-15-hike-in-property-tax-due-to-covid-crisis-1.4354899 At the same time Paschal O’Donoghue undertakes not to increase LPT to households in budget 21.https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40050212.html Looking at the (unaudited) Annual Report for 2019, the council’s finances were in rude health at the end of that year, despite flaithulach spending on, among other things €36m on a library. Additionally, they decide that it is a good deal to lease properties in Dundrum for social housing for €52.5m at the end of 2019, maintain them for 25years and then hand them back to the developer at the end of the period, presumably, in pristine condition.https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/property/dundrum-housing-lease-deal-cost-17369248 I can't find any details of the dire financial position that the council claims to be in, such documents appear to be restricted and not available to the public. Neither can I find minutes of the meeting. So my question(s) is, Are they taking the Mick? Are they completely incompetent? Is there a deficit of democracy and an overwhelming sense of arrogance by the council and the executive? Are our elected councillors capable of holding the executive to account? Perhaps there are issues going on that we should be far more concerned about, other than the increase in cycle lanes????? What do boardsies think?
Cyrus wrote: » I’m all for everyone cycling As soon we get everyone wearing helmets and enforcement if not, everyone insured , everyone with a registration plate , everyone passing a test to use public roads and everyone paying road tax then let’s go for it.
Cyrus wrote: » Not really if it’s to be the dominant mode of transport in the city replacing cars as some posters advocate then why wouldn’t the same rules and structures apply ?
Cyrus wrote: » Pedestrians aren’t road users . If they were they would be the most vulnerable road users not cyclists .
The Road Safety Authority (RSA) launched its new Vulnerable Road Users campaign, Monday 9th April 2012. This new campaign is aimed at raising awareness of the vulnerability of road users such as pedestrian and cyclists and calling for all road users especially drivers to share the road safely.
ted1 wrote: » Not necessarily, you can’t park opposite a continuous white line, near a corner, blocking an a drive way and several other places
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Well, probably the same rules and structures wouldn't apply because the risks and dangers associated with 1-3 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph are in a different league to the risks and dangers associated with a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph.Same rules are fine, given bikes are so safe insurance costs will be less, the rest is important, we shouldnt have people on the road who havent demonstrated that they understand the rules of the road. If you need any more help to understand the respective risks, check out the death and serious injury stats at RSA.ie If a pedestrian steps out without looking while wearing earphones that prevent them from hearing the screaming cyclist and wipes out the cyclist, who pays? Are you advocating for all pedestrians to have insurance, because by your evidence-free logic it would silly to suggest not?Pedestrian arent road users, so its a moot point, if they walk out onto a road and cause an accident its a legal matter. Would you be agreeable for a tax proportional to the wear and tear caused on the road?Yes Thanks for keeping the lungs safe. It's unfortunate that the particles coming off your tyres and brake pads continue to pollute the environment, and the environment cost of manufacturing and disposing of your vehicle are very substantial, so no, you haven't 'gone eco'.Answered Presumably pedestrians also need registration so they can be identified if they cause collisions or break the law? Would you go for barcodes on the forehead or mandatory clothing with numbers on the back?No, they arent road users. You'll be pleased to hear that the genes are being spread widely around London on a regular basis.thanks for the context
josip wrote: » It's been 26 posts since anything that was even vaguely specific to Dun Laoghaire.
.anon. wrote: » I own a car. What is it, if not my private property? If I'm travelling somewhere that I know doesn't have secure off-street parking, I use an alternative means of transport. Or I go somewhere else - somewhere that does have parking facilities. The entitled attitude of a lot of motorists is sickening. Especially people who live in areas well-served by public transport.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You have seen pedestrians crossing the road, right? How about the other five points in my response that you seem to have ignored? Any thoughts on those?
Cyrus wrote: » You have referred to private property a few different times , it’s not like someone is leaving a yacht on the side of the road , the vast vast majority of households have at least one car so if they use them they will have to park it somewhere at their destination. It’s not the selfish act of a few.
Cyrus wrote: » Pedestrians aren’t road users . If they were they would be the most vulnerable road users not cyclists . Can’t have it every way .
Cyrus wrote: » Of course I haven’t gone eco I just liked the car but it’s funny you took the time to ‘correct ‘ me Lighten up
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Well, probably the same rules and structures wouldn't apply because the risks and dangers associated with 1-3 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph are in a different league to the risks and dangers associated with a 10-20 kg bike doing 10-30 kmph. If you need any more help to understand the respective risks, check out the death and serious injury stats at RSA.ie If a pedestrian steps out without looking while wearing earphones that prevent them from hearing the screaming cyclist and wipes out the cyclist, who pays? Are you advocating for all pedestrians to have insurance, because by your evidence-free logic it would silly to suggest not? Would you be agreeable for a tax proportional to the wear and tear caused on the road? Thanks for keeping the lungs safe. It's unfortunate that the particles coming off your tyres and brake pads continue to pollute the environment, and the environment cost of manufacturing and disposing of your vehicle are very substantial, so no, you haven't 'gone eco'. Presumably pedestrians also need registration so they can be identified if they cause collisions or break the law? Would you go for barcodes on the forehead or mandatory clothing with numbers on the back? You'll be pleased to hear that the genes are being spread widely around London on a regular basis.
dubrov wrote: » Understood. So are you proposing pedestrians should all have insurance now?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
