ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Lotts wrote:
A story in todays Independent puts a lot of the discussion here in context
Scary stuff. What an amazingly low fine –
What puts this tragic case in even more context is the story contained in a few papers today about the three car passengers involved in a crash seven years ago who were awarded cumulative damages of 815,000 euros for injuries sustained.
One got 204,165 for a fractured leg, another got 165,252 for fractures, and the third got 445,632 for ‘injuries’. I don’t want to downplay these circumstances, and the parties involved were obviously badly injured, but it does highlight the point I made earlier about penalties not fitting the crime in the case of cycling. In the case cited above, he was overtaking on the inside, driving in a bus lane, doing 47 in a 30 zone and driving unaccompanied – all of which to me screams ‘very dangerous driving’ – yet his ‘genuine remorse’ seems to have resulted in a 1,500 fine and two-year ban. (And this is to ignore for the moment his explanation for his actions – that another driver was driving too slowly. What does that say about his attitude to other road users generally?)If there were an automatic lifetime ban and requirement to pay medical expenses for the rest of the natural life of the victim, I imagine incidents like these would be almost non-existent.
In short: where’s the balance?
The Garda auction tends to be for bikes that were stolen and recovered rather than bikes that were freed from their forgotten places, afaik. Any bike that would be sufficiently damaged to warrant being cut from a bike rack probably wouldn’t interest anyone except a bike shop owner who’d buy a job-lot for parts (which does happen, but infrequently).
The other day I saw some DCC workers with a large wheelbarrow full of 6 or 8 damages bikes, but I couldn’t stop to ask them where they’d come from or why they’d decided to remove them. I presume there’s a process for monitoring damaged bikes, otherwise there’d be a danger that a bike that had had its wheels kicked in over a weekend (a very common occurrence) could disappear before the owner had had chance to arrange for its repair. I do remember one case where a sign was attached to a bike rack on Dame Street saying that any bikes left there a week later would be removed. It never came to pass, possibly because someone in DCC realised (or had it pointed out to them) that it’s not unlikely a person would lock their bike in town for a week or more and go on holidays. (Not to be recommended, it’s true, but there’s no law against it.)
Just on the number plates thing: Cyclists have a hard enough time making sure their bikes aren’t damages in the normal course of events. Putting a number plate on the bike would seem to be just another thing for the local head-the-balls to try to break off. Everything that’s not welded on to a bike seems to be fair game for the little gurriers who believe that if it’s not nailed down then you mustn’t care about it. I had a conversation with a kid (certainly under 10 years old) outside the recent Bike Festival during which he was telling me quite frankly about all the stuff he nicks with his mates- lights, reflectors, bells, etc. Strangely, he didn’t see anything wrong with this.
Edit: If you want to see some tragic bike wrecks, go to http://www.seanhillen.com (I linked it in a previous post) and look for his bicykills project. He had a big wall of them – 100 or more photos – at the bike festival and it made for very sad reading.
@Lotts wrote:
Anyone know about the pointing on stack-A? It looks wrong to me, with the joints protruding from the brickwork. Is it meant to be like that?
AFAIK, pointing should never protrude from brickwork as it provides a shelf on which moisture can settle and penetrate the wall. The whole point of pointing is to keep moisture off the wall. If it’s on the internal sections of brick wall then this wouldn’t be such a problem, but it still shouldn’t be done, and given the money spent on the place to date it’s a pity they couldn’t get something as basic as this right.
Any pics?
A few pictures from last weekend’s Dublin Bicycle Festival.
Paddy Waters, a bicycle clown. Sadly I didn’t get a picture of the bit where he stands on the bike – one foot on the handlebars, one on the saddle – and goes around in circles.
Wheel building workshop with Sean O’T. Enlightening and entertaining.Thanks notjim.
Makes me think- perhaps Ikea should put one of their new town centre stores here, given their move away from the car-based edge-city types in the UK. Although maybe they have a deal with Dick Roche whereby they can’t change their mind now that he’s rewritten the rule book for them…
Quick question: what is Meadows and Byrne? I’ve been thinking of Fallon and Byrne all along, the fancy food shop that recently opened on Exchequer St, until someone corrected me.
I’m wondering, in this debate, how many of you are aware of the size, structure and features of chq? I was down there a good bit over the weekend for the Dublin Bicycle Festival and I was struck by just how huge the building is. And by all accounts the basement is a fascinating place, but comprises a warren of brick vaulted tunnels/chambers running the length of the site that are subdivided arbitrarily and that lack any daylight at all.
Maybe it should just be used as the biggest off-licence in the city? Or a bicycle parking facility?:)
Heh. I was trying to work out what the green space near the IFSC was, when I realised it was the dock. So it’s not grass after all!:eek:
Sorry to interject in your debate, lads. Just one minor thing:
@a boyle wrote:
not even in germany do they have that level of respect
They have it in The Netherlands.
I was at the Dublin Cycling Campaign annual lecture a couple of months ago and a woman in the audience asked how could cyclists make themnselves more visible. She was asking about lights, high-vis jackets etc., but it occurred to me that cyclists would be more visible if the penalties for hitting them were higher. You can almost guarantee that if a motorist were to get the death penalty for killing a cyclist, they’d make damn sure not to do it.
I know it’s an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate that motorists obviously see the existing penalties as minor relative to the crime, or have a level of confidence that little if anything will happen to them in the event of an incident.anyway, sorry to interrupt. As ye were.
@a boyle wrote:
I definetely think that the traffic corps should be running around handing out fines left right and center : not yielding , not stopping, using the right turn lane just to get in front of everyone going straight , cyclists not wearing a helmet ,etc etc.
Not wearing a helmet is not against the law.
@a boyle wrote:
But i have to disagree regarding setting aside a cycle path , surely that is a good idea. They give a perception of safety which is probably the most important thing to encourage more cyclists. If people perceive it to be safe , they will feel safe , and far more will use the cycle lanes. Then i think you will find people respecting them more, as they will be used , which currently they are not.
Removing every motorised vehicle from the roads also gives a perception of safety, to give just one (admittedly far fetched) example.
Also, the pic you posted shows yet another design flaw in bike lanes. the concrete bits are aligned in one direction only, so getting off that lane is easy mid-lane, but joining it mid-lane is impossible unless the cyclist stops and turns more than 90 degrees. hardly encouraging.
Here’s that picture anyway- now I really must go. Gotta get into my bright pink lycra bodysuit.:)
jimg-
PP is the responsibility of the OPW, not of DCC. I actually made a submission to the traffic study on many of the points you raise, such as car parking, bus routes, etc. I know, for example, that the OPW isn’t keen on letting buses through as it might set a precedent and the guard their turf very carefully.a boyle-
The Guards are the traffic enforcement body in the city, so I don’t think the expectation of enforcement is misplaced. Well, in theory anyway.
Also, I tend to think segregated lanes are an admission of failure. In other words, in an ideal world there’s be no need for lanes at all. (I have a funny picture on this that I’ll post later.)cobalt-
I heard of a case in Britain (I think) where a driver argued successfully in court that although he was parked in a cycle lane, as nobody had seen him drive onto it, nobody could prove that he had. 😡Don’t forget the Dublin City Cycle, everyone! 8pm this evening.
@Bago wrote:
My current pet hate as i cycle through phoenix park every morning and evening is the seeming complete disregard/lack of understanding/ complete ignorance to the concept of a bicycle path! In the evenings i see more people cycling on the road, it’s just not worth using the perfectly good cyclepath due to the sheer numbers of prams, children, dogs, joggers, rollerbladers, power walkers, groups of pedestrians, fat pedestrians. It’s turning me into a narky f****er i don’t want to be , shouting at everybody i cycle by.:(
Agreed, Bago. While the bike path surface in the PP has improved lately, it’s too much of a headache to use- meandering pedestrians, rollerbladers, etc., not to mention the almost total absence of light at night due to the weak street lamps. The OPW has a policy of keeping the PP as close to a rural idyll as possible, but this invariably means that the facilities are sub-standard for cyclists. I was out at a concert in Farmleigh on Monday night and cycling back towards town was a nightmare. At some of the junctions, especially at the roundabouts, markings for the bike lanes disappear totally, and it is a fact that about 80% of cycling accidents occur at junctions. Like you, Bago, I ended up using the road more than the bike lanes. It’s a pity, as the PP has the potential to be a paradise for cyclists.
I know that the OPW has commissioned a study of the PP traffic with a view to improving the general layout. Here’s hoping they prioritise cycling and pedestrian movements over private cars.@CM00 wrote:
Although until recently, there was a delightful traveller camp there.
Still there on Britain Quay, connecting the extreme east ends of Sir John Rogerson’s and Hanover Quays. I cycled right through it the other day- met some kids from the Ringsend flats across the lock who were looking to get their horses back. So not all ‘just yuppie housing’, at least not yet.:)
Thinking about the boardwalk idea some more – even just a 100m stretch at these warehouses – I think it could really work.
I love it when the bike side and the conservation side of my brain don’t fight.;)@hutton wrote:
Great cycling facilities down there, judging by Devins last photo…I am hoping that DDDA are about to mark out that new path – or the cycle festival being held down there this weekend really would be a joke 😮
Just one point of clarification- AFAIK the cycle festival is nothing to do with the DDDA. It’s an independent festival which just happens to be taking place in the docklands, timed to coincide with the Dublin City Cycle.
(Though I’m sure the DDDA is happy to have the festival in chq as it does their profile some good on the bike front, unlike most of the so-called facilities down there…)
***
I think I reluctantly agree with you, Devin, regarding the two brick warehouses. I passed them the other day again and, though I’m very fond of them as structures with a great patina (those doors are fantastic, sadly currently scarred by insensitively placed Dublin City Cycle posters), they do really sit quite awkwardly on the campshires now. For the sake of a clear run on the bike (IF they put in quality tracks) and a clear view down the quays I think on blanace they should go. But if they were just to replace them with more trees then I’d rather keep the buildings. A boardwalk on the river side of them might solve the problem of insufficient space for cyclists and pedestrians, and would also open the possibility of a new use being found for them.
(I hate it when the bike side of my brain fights with the conservation side…:( )Two quick things I spotted that might be of interest to Dublin cyclists:
The Dublin City Cycle, organised by the DTO, DCC and DDDA, is on this Wednesday. Meet in Mayor Square at 7.30pm for an 8pm start. I missed last year’s, but by all accounts it was great.
There’s a Dublin Bicycle Festival happening too, in CHQ in the Docklands, from Friday 21st to Sunday 23rd- exhibition, performances, films etc.
@phil wrote:
It seems to be about the same height as the Millenium Tower across the road. Sean Rothery refers to the waterford granery in Ireland and The New Architecture as being from 1905. It would appear to still be there, but surrounded by some later silos:
http://www.opw.ie/waterfordquays/images/site_mag/img0051_mag.jpg
Just saw this now, phil- sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for the info- I was remembering (badly) the date from memory.
Off topic, but related to this Waterford building- just read that the north quays of Waterford have finally been sold, against the wishes of the fishermen, so it seems the OPW’s plans for comprehensive redevelopment, first mooted in the late 1990s I think, might now go ahead. Though I don’t know if the OPW is the developer or if it’s been sold to a private interest. The fate of the 1905 building was anything but certain at the time, and I’m not sure how it stands now. Anyone know?Graham Hickey wrote:And thanks for picking up the hint ctesiphon – some others would be welcome ]
We’ll try, but the challenge is to get ones that’ll stump you in particular- might have to initiate a rule that you’re not allowed guess until someone else has tried first!.:) I have one in mind, but access probably requires Govt approval. Leave it with me.Morlan’s pics:
Is F the Temple Bar Gallery and Studio?
And B is on the tip of my tongue… bah!@StephenC wrote:
or mabe AutoCad was acting up the day it was designed.
Or maybe they badly sellotaped together the rubbish from Richard Meier’s shreddit bins?
(A rehashed gag, I know, but perhaps appropriate for a stylistically rehashed building?)
“The facility is available free to all serving and former members of the Oireachtas.”
I’m certain that I’ve heard of spouses of former TDs using it too. Mrs Reynolds’ shopping trips spring to mind, no? And don’t ministers have cars with drivers? So why they need all day free parking is beyond me.
They should be ashamed of themselves. Surely there’s a handful opposed to this? Higgins (J. and M.D.), Cuffe, E. Ryan? Mc Manus? Cullen?
Sure what do our opinions matter? We’re only the plebs.
@hutton wrote:
On a more serious note, does this incident show up the flaws of a necessary watchdog being volunteer-based?
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, hutton. While the head office in Dublin can make some pronouncements in strong language, they are generally aimed at deserving targets. But I get the impression that many of the regional branches, while doing stirling work, can occasionally stray offside a bit.
The other part of the article that caught my eye concerned the locals asking AnT to get involved. For an organisation usually on the end of fierce (and usually inappropriate) criticism in the rural context, this must have been an interesting development.
But calling the proposal ‘criminal’ can’t be far short of libellous. Fortunately FOT seems to be handling this in a dignified manner. There are many others out there who wouldn’t be so understanding.
