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.
Have you asked and listened to female family members as to what would make them feel safer?
Where would they walk "to" if they won't use a segment unless it has exits along the route.
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.
No, I’m suggesting you ask how half the population feels about safety rather than tell them how they should feel.
Assume they said yes we want the entire greenway 130km to have exits. What then? What's your suggestion to accommodate 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.
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.
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?
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.
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!)
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.
FWIW
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Yes, as stated. Tell women what to think, rather than letting them think for themselves. That’s exactly what you are doing.
i give up.
You must not read the posts when you were replying. I certainly did not say that. Read again.
So you've reverted fear mongering rather than answering the question asked. Enough said.
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.
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 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 wouldn't bother engaging; he'll just claim you said something you didn't say.
it seems that wanting to design public space so it feels safe to use is condemning all public space as unsafe to use. and i guess that architect who wrote that article in the examiner talking about the topic in the light of recent events is also guilty of a lack of decorum.
Well it would be a bit difficult to say I said something I didn’t when I had to repeat myself a number of times!
You guys are bringing up safety as an issue. I didn't do that you guys did.
Which calls into question safety on the whole route. You can't say ignore the rest of the route, when you are using incidents, and articles from the other parts of the route (and urban and rural planning in general) to justify your proposal. You've irrevocably linked/associated them. In answer how to apply the same solution you're proposing here, to the other sections. "Give more access" is nonsensical. They are remote. Access to where?
You're also ignoring the other aspect of this, part of the objection to this section, and Greenways in general, is the fear of anti-social behavior, crime etc., You're inadvertently agreeing with that.
In order to say exits will lessen the danger. You have to have start with the premise there IS danger.
For the record I don't really care which side its one.
My preference is its not tied up in objections for the next decade or two.
