Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cities around the world that are reducing car access

1424345474873

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    “Looking at” is political-speak for testing the water to see how much pushback a proposal gets.

    If the proposal is for higher purchase tax and annual motor tax on new vehicles, it might work, although you will still have people who want to drive electric SUVs roaring.

    However, if it’s for higher motor tax on existing SUVs then it’s a non-starter.

    The article doesn’t elaborate on what is envisaged.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Motor tax should be a function of tail pipe emissions and weight.

    And taxing the arse out of second hand cars (with relatively dirtier power trains) in favour of new builds (increasing demand for carbon intensive manufacturing elsewhere and sending our €€€ abroad) needs to be reviewed as a policy by the Greens. It plays to their well to do base who can afford a new build electric car, but that's not an option for the average motorist.

    I stopped behind a Ford Anglia at the lights the other day, which was behind a 212 reg X5. Families have gotten smaller and yet family cars have exploded in size. Yes, safety improved. But principally safer from other enormous cars crashing into you. There would be plenty of space for bicycle lanes if cars weren't so bloody wide.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Weight should certainly figure in tax for motor vehicles, and perhaps size.

    The €333 tax for 'commercial' SUVs should be abolished. Why should well paid workers be allowed to drive a polluting diesel SUV and only pay a derisory Motor Tax compared to he €2,000 to €3,000 that he vehicle would cost if taxed as private. Many are bogus anyway.

    If you compare BMW 3 series or 5 series over the last few decades shows 3 series has grown bigger than the original one and the 5 series is now bigger than the old 7 series.

    I know someone who traded an old Golf for a new Polo and says it is bigger then the old car.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,095 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Safety for car occupants has improved. Not so much for the pedestrians and cyclists.



  • Posts: 2,827 [Deleted User]


    active and passive safety on Cars has improved immeasurably with respect to other road users. It is designed in to modern designs by law.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,441 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Unfortunately, those laws do nothing to prevent larger and larger vehicles, with higher bumpers and built up fronts, guaranteed to smash the pelvis and cause serious damage to the body core of a pedestrian, instead of rolling them over the bonnet as would have happened with standard saloon or hatchback cars. These 'modern designs' frequently include touch screens in recent years, so the driver has to take their eyes of the road to operate volume or ventilation or similar, instead of good old fashioned knobs and buttons that didn't require eye contact.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,169 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I think they will go with voice control eventually. They are trying to be super high tech without concern as to the implication for safety.

    Why is it not legally required that all (new) cars have a simple hands-free connection for mobile phones. When you get in the car, the hands-free unit detects a phone and asks to be connected if it not already enabled - well that is how it should be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Phone calls aren't the issue. The issue is seeing someone looking at their lap as they're oncoming, veering out of their lane towards you, only to glance up from their draft text, correct their progress and avoid the collision. You then notice in your rear view mirror that they're drifting again, probably finessing the spelling.


    The issue, as with all of these things, is enforcement. Nobody (in most circles) would dare drink and drive nowadays. If similarly well resourced enforcement and punishments were doled out, you could kill this behaviour too



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭lalababa


    It maybe a chicken before the egg scenario. Slowly deincentify cars...by having a conjestion charge, inner city ban, high parking rates/fines, compleat city ban on ices followed by eventually a citywide conjestion charge so high that it is effectively a ban. You may insert a functional or perpetually improving public +taxi+hackney +car sharing/renting between any or all of the above disincentives.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,441 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Phone calls are a big part of the issue, distracting the driver even when done hands-free, entirely legally.


    A big part of improving public transport involves reducing the number of private cars on the road, to leave more space for public transport.

    It isn't possible to distinguish between a phone inside the car, and a phone nearby outside the car.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    How is talking hands free, using voice activation to dial, any different to talking to your passenger or the kids in the back seat



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,441 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    For a start, your passenger and kids can see what's going on around you, and will know when to shut up or back off depending on what's happening.

    It is absolutely a distraction.




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    'It isn't possible to distinguish between a phone inside the car, and a phone nearby outside the car.'

    Of course it is possible - the driver will know which is which. If the phone is the driver's usual phone, it will connect automatically as it does in my car. If it is an unrecognised phone, the driver will be offered to connect with it - or not - simples.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    To many people, it feels counterintuitive that hands-free conversations represent more of a danger than, say, chatting with someone in the passenger seat. They assume the only serious risk of phone use in the car is the need to hold the device. But as the research indicates, that assumption is false.


    Whether you are holding the phone, communicating with someone outside the car deflects your attention away from what’s happening right around you. Moreover, when you’re cruising through town or down the highway, your buddy in the passenger seat is probably aware of the immediate driving environment while Aunt Helen on the phone from Chicago is not. If you enter an icy or otherwise dicey intersection, your buddy should know to pipe down. Aunt Helen in Chicago will keep sharing the family gossip, oblivious to your road conditions.


    many studies show that hands-free mobile phone use does not reduce the level of risk when compared with handheld and makes little difference to the level of impairment in driving performance or crash involvement rates. This is because the mental distraction and divided attention involved in conducting a phone conversation is responsible for the increased risk. Many drivers consider that a hands-free phone call is just the same as talking to a passenger but research has shown that it is more dangerous (Charlton, 2009). Indeed, having a hands-free device in the vehicle may actually encourage drivers to use their mobile phone while driving more often (Gras et al., 2007).




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah, I’m not sure any of what’s been posted illustrates a causation. Rather some finger in the air guesses as to why there might be a correlation.

    im any case, impossibly to police absent a law to disable phones while a car is turned on.

    and if your kids are aware of what’s going on around then on the road then they are more attentive than my nieces and nephews

    probably not much point going down this rabbit hole anyway



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,169 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    many studies show that hands-free mobile phone use does not reduce the level of risk when compared with handheld

    whatever about comparing talking to a passenger with talking on a hands free, i find this claim here very hard to believe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    DCC Executives have recommended the full pedestrianisation of Chapel Street from May!




  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Has to be approved by councillors on Wednesday. Well, technically it can still go ahead but it won't if they vote against.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    How will businesses on Capel Street survive if a customer can’t store their vehicle directly outside their shop??????



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    That report is really good, every petrol lobby objection is firmly rebuffed with evidence. Mannix won't read it though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭specialbyte


    There's some great tidbits in that report. Full report here: https://janethorner.ie/img/capel-street-consultation-report-final.pdf

    the busiest time for pedestrians is between 11am and 7pm, almost two-thirds of the daily pedestrian totals occur during these hours. By not including these hours it would exclude the majority of pedestrians from benefiting from a Traffic Free environment.

    which is aimed at refuting Dublin Town's lobbying demand that pedestrianisation only be after 7:30pm.

    There's a real dismantling of each issue raised by some businesses point by point. It's worth a full read but here's some of my highlights.

    These were mainly from businesses in the Jervis Centre, fourteen from Louis Copeland staff and 24 from unknown businesses who didn’t include their business name or location. 

    LOL at 24 businesses not signing their name and Louis Copeland forcing all of their staff to sign the same templated letter.

    Dublin Town's concern:

    it is well known that the reduction of Capel Street to a single lane led to significant traffic congestion in December 2021. The current proposal will cause significant impact to retail businesses in the Henry Street/ Mary Street area, in an already challenging economic climate

    Capel Street has had a single lane forever, expect after the Luas tracks where it widens. Here's DCC pithy response:

    December 2021 saw the highest levels of footfall since 2013 on Henry St

    The threats of legal action from businesses and Dublin Town and DCC's response is worth a read:

    Dublin Town:

    “fear that the current process could have a polarising effect, resulting in objections and the pursuance of legal actions, that can be avoided, but which would make future collegiate more difficult. They may also only serve to delay the positive interventions which would enhance the city experience for all.”

    Other Businsses:

    "the current process also increases the likelihood of legal based responses which could lead to court challenges, injunctions and appeals”

    DCC Response:

    significant consultation has been held on this proposal with substantial numbers responding each time and with over 7,000 leaflets being distributed in Capel Street and surrounding areas to ensure maximum input from residents and other stakeholders. There has been great engagement and support from the public and their elected representatives and there is we believe sufficient consensus to make this a great opportunity to change this street for the benefit of the majority and it is certainly hoped that legal challenges will not arise and delay this proposal. It will be reviewed at the end of the summer with a report being presented to councillors in order to assess what worked and what had not. 



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Approved by councillors today. Capel Street will be pedestrianised up to Strand Street next month.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    I wish I could see Mannix's face now



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    Good thing about this is that it seems to be "permanent with ongoing review". For the time being though, it will just be bollards restricting access, with the current layout remaining as is. In the longer term (over the next year or so), there will hopefully be plans to fully do up the street produced.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭OEP


    Need to do South William Street next. It was so much more pleasant during the time it was pedestrianised than it is now



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    Given all the commotion over Capel Street, luckily Parliament Street hasn't been forgotten about just yet - the council will be looking into that next




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭crushproof


    Great news, it was great being able to sit out and eat on Parliament Street last summer, great vista towards City Hall.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭gjim


    That report fills me with optimism that this represents a watershed in the battle for space and priority between car traffic and everyone else in the city. It's such a pleasant surprise that a tiny minority of noisy NIMBYs - whose concerns are always amplified by the media for some reason - are not allowed to block urban improvements that will benefit so many. Capel St. is a great street already in terms of character, this will make it into to something really special, particularly when they get around to updating the public realm to reflect its new status.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,441 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    The real question is how will the businesses survive if the staff can’t store their personal vehicles outside the shop?????



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,919 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    It will become a lot easier to pedestrianise Parliament Street on an all day basis when the G Spine of BusConnects is launched in August, as that will remove the frequent 79 and 79a bus routes from the street, leaving only the hourly 69, which could be re-routed along the North Quays.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    It's official. Capel St businesses to collapse and street to become full of vagrants and drunks.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    It's destined to become an empty wasteland devoid of people just like Grafton Street and Henry Street



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I feel like there's a bit of momentum now and it would be a real shame to stop now. They need to make real progress on pedestrian schemes on the centre. Liffey Street, college green and more and more side streets.

    Can't believe there still isn't a properly designed liffey cycle route after all this time even after it's been shown there's plenty of road space for it.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The key movement has to be the continued progress to extinguish parking places and the enforcement of parking laws. Not all to be done at one but a few at a time.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Newstalk giving the jeweller airtime to spout nonsense about cycle lanes. The media agenda against active travel is bizarre.




  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Apparently Mannix hasn't announced that he is taking a legal action against the decision but that he believes one is imminent. Apparently what he said was "I'm led to believe, also, in terms of Capel Street, and the full closure of Capel Street, there will be a legal challenge in relation to that matter very shortly which is really unfortunate"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    There's no grounds for legal challenge. There's been ample consultation and the public even voted for it and those opposed to it had all their concerns addressed in great detail by the latest report.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭p_haugh




  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Capel Street will be pedestrianised at 11am.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Has the city erupted into riots, burned out shells of buildings and other end of day type scenarios yet?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,107 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I believe every business on the street has now closed and the owners emigrated to more civilised, car-friendly countries.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Except the businesses unexpectedly finding that their business has improved substantially due to the absence of cars, car fumes, and the freedom passersby have to stand and stare - and linger on their likely purchases.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭Heartbreak Hank


    The rioters couldn't get to the Capel St. rally as they couldn't find any close parking



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    The elderly and disabled have been thrown into the grinder to produce solent green by all accounts. Mind you the elderly and disabled probably preferred being able to make their way around without 4 SUVS blocking the pedestrian crossing a d mounting the pavement but we'll never know now.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Will you stop with this nonsense. Every one knows people are happier and healthier when the gentle hum of car traffic is in the air. Plus, food and drink tastes way better when accompanied with a side of diesel fumes.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Stop, I'm trying to cut back, need to lose some PM, you're making me wheezey



Advertisement