Smithfield Resi
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://www.mobilebillboards.ie/Gallery1.html
I’ve often seen these parked in Dublin.
So are they legal when driven, but illegal when parked?
Vodafone and JCDecaux have Christmas all wrapped up!
Possibly illegally too…
Anyone know if a tram is a vehicle subject to the roads act?
Roads Act 1993
71.—(1) ( a ) Any person who, without lawful authority or the consent of a road authority—(i) erects, places or retains a sign on a public road, or
(ii) erects, places or retains on a public road any caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing (whether on wheels or not) used for the purposes of advertising, the sale of goods, the provision of services or other similar purpose,
shall be guilty of an offence.
( b ) A consent under paragraph (a) may be given by the road authority subject to such conditions, restrictions or requirements as it thinks fit and any person who fails to comply with such conditions, restrictions or requirements shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Without prejudice to the liability of any person under subsection (1), where there is a contravention of that subsection in the case of any sign or advertisement, the person on whose behalf the sign or advertisement is exhibited shall be deemed also to have contravened that subsection.
Where does that leave buses I wonder?
Originally Posted by dermot lacy cllr
On the JC Decaux issue we agreed at the Finance Committee to send the whole financial side element of it to the newly established Audit Committee that is comprised of four external reps and three CouncillorIs that from politics.ie?
the manager knows nothing
he hasn’t read the report , that’s an extraordinary admission.
He meant he had not read the report in the Examiner that morning….
However, I look forward to reading the minutes of the finance SPC …
From The Sunday Times
August 10, 2008Dublin bike scheme wobbles over liability
Billboards are deemed unsafe, write Colin Coyle and Ruadhan MacEoinDUBLIN’S “free bike scheme” for its citizens has encountered an
unexpected obstacle.It has emerged that the city council will be liable for accidents
caused by the billboards that have been erected on the capital’s
streets as part of the scheme, even though the boards are privately
owned.The council has allowed JC Decaux, a French company, to erect 72
advertising panels in exchange for 450 bicycles in a
“bikes-for-billboards” scheme. But the panels have been criticised as
unsafe by drivers, pedestrians and the National Council for the Blind
of Ireland (NCBI).Unlike usual billboards, the advertising panels are attached to the
footpath, with edges finished in steel. Drivers claim they block
sightlines and could cause accidents.Legal advice given last year to Jim Keogan, the city planner, from
Terence O’Keeffe, a law agent, states that as the council is
responsible for all “repairs and maintenance”, it also becomes
“responsible for any public liability issues that arise in those areas
in the event of accidents etc, occurring”.The council asked O’Keeffe for legal advice before a hearing into the
bikes-for-billboards scheme last October. In Chicago, a similar scheme
is on hold because of questions over public liability.“It’s all about lawyers. That’s the only hang-up,” Chicago’s mayor,
Richard M Daley, said earlier this month.Ian Lumley of An Taisce, said: “It is bizarre that the local authority
may be carrying the can of legal responsibility for units belonging to
a private developer.”Lumley’s criticism is echoed by former Lord Mayor and Labour
councillor Dermot Lacey, who is calling for the scheme to be
“immediately suspended”. Lacey said that it would be “completely,
totally, and utterly unacceptable” for the council to be responsible
for private commercial hoardings that are “potentially dangerous” and
“visually obtrusive”.In some instances, such as at Synnott Place on Dorset Street, and at
Rathmines, billboards were quickly removed after motorists complained
they obscured sightlines.Des Kenny of the NCBI said: “JC- Decaux was offered assistance 18
months ago. We were surprised when the offer was not taken up, as it
was made free-of-charge.”He added: “If the company was already aware that it was not legally
responsible for the billboards, did it take as much care in its
attention to design and location as it would have otherwise?”The council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of
the advertising spaces, but 32 panels will carry civic information on
one side. However, there is still no sign of the promised bikes. The
council said this weekend that they are due to arrive next spring. It
has yet to disclose how much it will cost Dubliners to use them.In other cities where JCDecaux has set up schemes, users pre-register
with a credit card, paying about €30 a year on top of the charge for
using a bicycle. If someone loses a bicycle or fails to return it to a
docking station within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a
bicycle, about €150, is deducted from their credit card.The company has established schemes in 21 cities, including Paris,
Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna and Lyon.In Paris, 100,000 people use the 20,000 Velib bikes every day, but
vandalism and the cost of spare parts for the bikes cost JCDecaux
¤20.6m in the first half of the year. In the first year, a third of
the bikes were damaged or stolen.Two Velib riders have been killed and the French Cycle Touring
Federation said there have been problems with “letting loose hundreds
of people who haven’t been on a bike in years”.Dublin city council said this weekend that its legal department was
still examining the issue of public liability over the billboards.JCDecaux declined to comment.
Decaux are certainly reputable and trustworthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JCDecaux&oldid=223060998
compare to current sanitised version (wikipedia scared of legal action at the momemt – but the legal cases are true)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JCDecaux
Current trustworthyness on planning matters
April 2008
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/220867.htm
An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL 29N.220867
APPEAL by JC Decaux of 6 Sandyford Park, Burton Hall Road, Leopardstown,
Dublin against the decision made on the 20th day of November, 2006 by Dublin City
Council to refuse permission.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Installation of a 2.5 metre by four metre internally
illuminated display unit mounted onto the gable wall of 74 Dorset Street Upper,
Dublin.
DECISION
REFUSE permission for the above proposed development based on the reasons
and considerations set out below.23 July 2008
We submitted a hefty file on previous violations at the Oral Hearing.
I’m going to just make a few points as it is late…but more tomorrow…
Re the ABP decision, all of them to my knowledge have the phrase “The proposed development would, therefore, endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
DCC having read this then decided to allow the others as they were “under contract”. So they found themselves in the position of allowing to be erected something that was found to be an endangerment of public safety.
They then faced questions in the chamber after failing to produce a H&S report, the city manager then refused a unanimous motion calling for a H&S review and a halt to work.
Yep, same on the Crumlin Road, the base of the thing can’t be moe than 7′ off the ground.
i’m almost sure a tall/standing cyclist would smack their head into it going past.
They have to be 2200mm off the ground – feel free to measure 😀 – let me know if any aren’t.
In other good news, the sign at the corner of Rathmines Road and Richmond Hill has been removed. It was terrible.
Any more removals? Arrivals?
It was refered to enforcement. I have been waiting to see if a certain JK’s comments on RTE were guff (“corrections” indeed), what is shocking is they have taken NO action whatsover on other dangerous locations. I held back to see what they would do after the Dorset St fiasco. The answer is clearly nothing.
PM for details on enforcement assistance and if you wish to help.
Latest installment….
There’s a new guy in town…Patrick St/Dean St.
ABP decision on ALL of rhese we managed to get to appeal..
1. It is considered that the proposed metropole sign by reason of its excessive
scale, height and horizontal proportions would be overbearing and insensitive
to the amenities and character of the streetscape at this location. The proposed
development would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and
would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.2. Having regard to the site location on the footpath adjacent to a major
intersection of heavily trafficked and conflicting traffic movements, a
contraflowing cycle lane and a busy pedestrian environment and several
competing demands on the attention of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, it is
considered that the proposed metropole sign by reason of scale, proportions
and visual prominence would distract the attention of motorists and other road
users to an undue degree. The proposed development would, therefore,
endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and be contrary to the
proper planning and sustainable development of the area.Install Real Player (free) and each time you view a You Tube video you will be presented with an option (just above the video window) of dowloading the clip.
Then download the free FLV Player to view the clips on your own computer.
Or send me a Private Message if they are my clips as above you are after….
Go have a look on the coming soon section of JCD’s website JCDecaux dot ie
hmmm……not that I didn’t know this but the maps are depressing….
My video comments with the soundtrack of Liveline on Friday, two councillors appear to defend these and Mannix Flynn gives them a roasting;
My introduction to the situation…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDJXQKkTobkDaithi Doolon for the defence (I have added background info and corrections)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo89H_EooIMannix Flynn gets exercised…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQEbzC5tYFoFinal part (I was dropped for some reason and not allowed the final comment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVNFyf30YNAThis made me give a wry smile….
http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/development/sustainabledevelopment/
404 Not found 😀
That’s not the point I’m making, rather a question of priorities;
1. Clear and present danger
2. The 300 other things why this deal is bad for dublin…..don’t try to denigrate a valid concern over your own.
That’s why I spent nearly €300 on an appeal to make the valid concerns public.
But for now ‘clear and present danger’…
Tell all your friends to be careful this weekend while they are out in Dublin. Mail them this link, and ask them to spread the word. Warn your friends and family. This is about safety – not the advertising debate.
Newstalk have been back in touch. (and I’ve more examples to come) 🙂
MadsL = Mad as hell (and I’m not going to take it anymore) 😡
Thursday July 10 2008
OUTDOOR advertising giant JCDecaux has picked September 8 as the launch date for its controversial high-tech ad panels in Dublin City.
It’s more than a year since Dublin City Council agreed to give JCDecaux 120 billboard sites in exchange for a public bike scheme with 450 free bicycles, as well as some other public facilities.
The project has since been fraught with planning objections, and the fate of 42 of the units still rests with An Bord Pleanala, while the bike project is on hold until next 2009.
In recent weeks, however, JCDecaux has begun offering the first tranche of the digital ad panels.
The first panels will be the smaller free-standing units, similar to those on bus shelters, while the company has yet to announce a launch date for the 50 large “Metropoles” (larger free-standing units).
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/hitech–panels-finally-on-way-1430486.html
Another example of the high-quality ‘investigive’ journalism in this country.
OUTDOOR advertising giant JCDecaux has picked September 8 as the launch date for its controversial high-tech ad panels in Dublin City.
(press release was it?)
It’s more than a year since Dublin City Council agreed to give JCDecaux 120 billboard sites in exchange for a public bike scheme with 450 free bicycles, as well as some other public facilities.
And they have failed to meet their planning conditions in the timescale – HINT Story!
The first panels will be the smaller free-standing units, similar to those on bus shelters, while the company has yet to announce a launch date for the 50 large “Metropoles” (larger free-standing units).
Not Sept 8 ???? :confused:
The project has since been fraught with planning objections, and the fate of 42 of the units still rests with An Bord Pleanala, while the bike project is on hold until next 2009.
:confused::confused::confused: what? Are ABP suddenly going to change their mind. 42? Typo? 24….
In recent weeks, however, JCDecaux has begun offering the first tranche of the digital ad panels.
They’d better NOT be digital 😡 Scrolling is what they have PP for.
*Sigh* Is it too much to ask for some serious journalism….rather than recycled press releases.
There will be an item on this on the Breakfast Show on newstalk tomorrow (Thurs 10th July) at approx 8am.
Please send your comments to breakfast@newstalk.ie or text 53106
Appreciate your further support.
Fresh controversy erupted over Dublin’s “billboards for bikes” scheme after one of the new advert panels became an instant traffic hazard.
The sleek electronic “metropanel” was placed directly in front of a set of traffic lights and pedestrian crossing at a busy city junction.
Dublin City Council has ordered advertising giants JC Decaux to immediately remove the structure that outraged locals and councillors.
Calls have now been made for a halt to all work on the scheme until the newly-erected signs are safety-tested.
The 2.5-metre ad panel at the notorious junction of Dorset Street and Synott Place was one of a series of billboards being installed in a scheme backed by Dublin City Council.
The council has now requested the removal of the offending billboard and JC Decaux has undertaken to do so in the next 24 hours.
obstruction
“The sign was an obstruction to the traffic lights and as such its sitting was not in accordance with the terms of the grant of planning permission at this location”, a council spokesman said.
“Recent improvement works along Dorset Street has altered the width and alignment of the footpath at this location resulting in the approved sign, which was erected in the correct location, obstructing views for pedestrians and motorists”.
He stressed that a safety audit under the terms of the planning permissions granted is being compiled by JC Decaux and where any sign fails the audit they will be removed.
However, Councillor Emer Costello said: “I am outraged by what I have seen, especially as there has been a huge number of incidents at those particular traffic lights”.
JC Decaux proposed funding a free bicycle scheme similar to other European capitals in return for around 150 billboards, though this was later dropped to under 100.
Dublin City Council eventually agreed to 72 sites and some were appealed. In February, An Bord Pleanala overturned permission for 18 billboards, but endorsed six of the 2.5-metre high structures.
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/billboards-that-caused-traffic-chaos-1430159.html
*Sigh* journalists…well done for picking it up but the picture doesn’t exactly ‘tell the story’.
“Sleek”???
He stressed that a safety audit under the terms of the planning permissions granted is being compiled by JC Decaux and where any sign fails the audit they will be removed.
The point (and the story!) is that the safety audit is only being done AFTER construction.
erected in the correct location
No it wasn’t
Dublin City Council eventually agreed to 72 sites
No, they agreed too more – individuals paying almost €300 each in taking it to An Bord Pleanala reduced that number.
Who changed the road layout – DCC, who granted permission. DCC.
Hmmm…excuses.
