I said that more access could be provided when the other sections are being maintained or upgraded. Did you kiss it or something? Why does everything have to be right now? If everything was right now then nothing would get done anywhere due to cost and the hassle of dealing with NIMBY’ers. So do each section as they are getting other work done. Surely you can comprehend that because I feel like I’m on a loop repeating myself to you.
I never expressed my opinion (safe or unsafe) either way. I'm simply asking ye explain how all these disparate events and locations, relate to each other.
Failing in that, you've reverted to "feelings". So accepting that at face value, I ask how do you expand that to the rest of the route, or at the very least the neighboring sections. Failing in that, you've now switched to anecdotal ad hoc surveys of a tiny sample size.
I know there's studies on the permeability of estates and alleyways in terms of crime and anti social behavior. I can't find any on Greenways in Ireland, I can find them in the UK etc. I assume there must also be some on "riverside walks, canal banks, mountain trails" as people have brought those locations into this thread as being relevant.
I answered your questions and I identified your thinking. Have you asked the females close to you yet, or are you assuming/telling them what to think?
Just because you perceive something is safe, doesn’t mean that others feel the same.
So you've reverted fear mongering rather than answering the question asked. Enough said.
You must not read the posts when you were replying. I certainly did not say that. Read again.
i give up.
Yes, as stated. Tell women what to think, rather than letting them think for themselves. That’s exactly what you are doing.
I'm just curious why you want to treat one section different to the rest.
Its not exaggeration. The sections joining this one have no exits. The vast majority of sections have no exits. If you think otherwise maybe you list a few good examples of where its been opened up into existing estates as is proposed.
I'm not concerned. Just familiar with a good bit of this route. Most of the sections I've been on don't have exits. it was an observation.
Then someone decided to use a tragedy to push agenda. (decorum aside). I don't thing ye have through the ramifications of that mindset.
If there is no safety issue. Then you don't need the access. You'll have to make your mind up.
well it makes sense to include everyone. Including those that don't want permeability. If you are arguing inclusiveness.
If this route is "different" in terms of safety explain why.
If not and its the same (which you are also arguing suggesting) then explain why it should be treated "differently".
You should comment on your link dump.
What your proposal how for how "Thoughtful design" can make "well populated" rural recreation routes like " riverside walks, canal banks, mountain trails" safer since you've now associated all this as the same thing.
The lady herself was quoted as saying it was busy in the article I read.
My point was exits (or location) were irrelevant if was busy. If thats that the premise to bringing all these unrelated issues to the thread. Also it was a racist attack, she defended herself.
I couldn't find an article confirming that the path was busy at that time. The Irish Times one mentioned 15 in the attacking group but I won't count them. Anyhow, I mentioned the location being a decent distance from Ashtown/Ratoath Road section because you wondered whether I knew this or was overlooking this.
According to Roderic's Winter Newsletter councillors were presented with an update in a November meeting. I've emailed one councillor twice but no reply.
FWIW
you keep using the line, and it keeps missing the point. the point is that there is a decision yet to be made about this particular stretch, and about design options which may be open which could affect that decision. just because those options may not be available along *other* stretches does not mean they can be dismissed on this section, or that they don't apply.
On the other hand that exact stretch by the little park and apartments is also really badly lit at night despite being well used during the day and an access path to/from the train. The section between Ashtown and Castleknock has much better lighting and the surface there has subsided less. (Opinion of a relatively frequent late night runner. I haven't felt unsafe but it can be very quiet. Typically it'd just be me and a few dog walkers out - goodness knows what they think of me!)
That has an obvious answer, no? If you wanted to walk from say Brompton or delwood to carpenterstown, or one of the railway stations, the south bank option offers no utility. The north bank option would.
If you live in either of those two estates, the south bank option has no 'casual' benefit. You'd have to use it specifically with the intent of wanting to use it.
It’s not implying anything about how safe it is. When infrastructure is being built/upgraded, don’t you think it makes sense to consider how it will be used by both males and females, therefore considering what they perceive to be safe?
You realise this IS implying its unsafe without exits.
For example between Ashtown and the 12th lock canal on one side, railway on the other. What do you do with that.
Seeing that a some of it has access and some is even roadway, there is no need to exaggerate about 130km. What could be done is providing more access where possible to sections as they are being upgraded…eg the section you are so concerned about.
Assume they said yes we want the entire greenway 130km to have exits. What then? What's your suggestion to accommodate that.
No, I’m suggesting you ask how half the population feels about safety rather than tell them how they should feel.
Are you suggesting the 130km of the greenway, is makes people feel unsafe , due to this section 1.5k not having exits. Should it all have similar exits so.
Where would they walk "to" if they won't use a segment unless it has exits along the route.
Have you asked and listened to female family members as to what would make them feel safer?
Yes in that case the path was BUSY with lots of people. The exits were irreverent to that situation, but yet you persist.
The narrative of the residents who object. You pick an incident that adds weight to their argument, not yours.
FWIW i was saying long before now that i thought the south bank option suffered from that issue, you can see an example if you go about 20 posts back, post dated 3rd july.
and yes, many women will be conscious of a path which offers multiple entry/exit points rather than a 2km stretch before the next access point.
i know quite a few people whose access to the greenway would be trivial were there access points on the north bank option, but would have to walk 1km to get to it on the south bank, and that's before they even set foot on it. the north bank option would open up the greenway as a throughway for many people, who would otherwise face a minimum 4km walk (if they don't double back) to use it, so would use it far less on a casual basis.
Fair enough, "hyperbole" was a better term.
The woman was pushed in at a location over 1km from Ashtown. The only exits are the nearby small humpback bridge and the Navan Road Parkway station (not an official exit) though these are probably barely used for access.
What and who's narrative is being played into?
To be clear, I would prefer the north bank option. I could use it to travel safely to/from Tesco and beyond (avoiding the horrible Coolmine Road).
Trapped vs quick escape works for both sides - in an area with limited access the attacker probably has less chance of being seen by the victim until it is too late. After an attack I would expect that a victim would not be able to give chase and so it would be relatively easy for the attacker to get away, even if there is only 1 or 2 exit options.
If there are lots of escape routes, yes, an attacker could easily get away but maybe other users might be able to easily leave the route if they saw someone that concerned them.
I think its ye who are being disingenuous not me. What I'm doing is hyperbole.
Point is you're comparing completely different sections of canal. Incidents that have noting to do with it being busy, or not. The section at Ashtown/Ratoath Bridge is basically part of their park, a road runs along it and its directly attached to their shops. Nothing like the Roselawn section. Also one of the incidents that was mentioned earlier, was short distance from here as well, on the section with no exits, and it was busy with people at time. So being busy, didn't help, and having no exits wasn't the issue either. The other tragedy is out in the countryside in a rural setting. You're playing on peoples hysteria and fears.
So either ye don't know, these are disparate locations and incidents. Or ye do know and doing it deliberately. Not sure which is worse.
But forget all that. What you are doing is picking a fight with the local residents which will go on for years. What's worse is your using fear mongering to do so. Which plays into their narrative completely. Its a dumb tactic, completely counter productive.
But good luck with that.
