It is now obvious why the Green Party only campaigns in a half hearted way for cycle lanes etc etc

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:07

But a lot of cyclists oppose the expansion of cycle lanes, arguing that they're a bad idea. They always give way to the bus and car lanes, so they're no help at junctions, where cyclists are particularly vulnerable.

by pat c Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:14

was involved and probably still is in dublin cycling campaign. cycle lanes need a physical barrier to protect from vehicles.

by anti-sects Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:14

the truth is that cuffe inherited the money - which is not the same as consciously investing it in bad stuff.

he should have done something about it, but it really is not a big deal

by critical masser Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:15

i've never met a cyclist who opposed more cycle lanes.

by still curious Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:34

critical masser is right to point out
"i've never met a cyclist who opposed more cycle lanes."
Of course the replies were the usual indymedia ettempt to muddy the waters or sow confusion rather than attempt to answer the question or the 3 questions in this case. I suppose there is always the preferred indymedia solution of avoiding akward questions by employing censorship as a first resort!

by Daithi Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:35

My reaction would have been the same, 'critical masser', but there actually are quite a few cyclists who argue this, and the research behind it is extremely strong - I'm keeping an open mind on it at the moment, but the case can and has been made that cycle lanes do more harm than good.

I see, though, that Ciaran Cuffe is the topic of the week, and all other articles are going to be about him. I suppose it makes a pleasant change from Israel, the SP, Kronstadt, Pat C's love life, fascist editors and the Black Bloc.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:38

A lot of cyclists would like more, _better designed_ cycle lanes, but think current cycle lanes are badly designed and implemented - they cut out at junctions making them more dangerous than no lanes at all, are too narrow, contain parked cars, and so on. So increasing the number of cycle lanes isn't as important as increasing the quality of cycle lanes.

by confusion reigns Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:40

this type of approach usually works on indymedia, if it does not try name calling or abuse or the old reliable to censor it.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:48

That's some persecution complex you've got there, Man of a Thousand Names.
If your post gets deleted, that's because indymedia are censors.
If your post isn't deleted, that's because indymedia are VERY CUNNING censors.

by Durutti Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:49

Run over cyclists. This is widely accepted as being true.MY aunties pal heard it from a member of the ASF who was told by a taxi driver whose brother knows a PSNI Inspector who also pays the SP top tout.

by Some research Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:59

Per Gårdera, Lars Ledenb and Torbjörn Thedéenc

a Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5711, U.S.A.
b Department of Traffic and Transport Planning, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden
c Department of Mathematical Statistics, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

Accepted 27 September 1993. Available online 28 June 2002.

Abstract
This paper presents a quantitative meta-analysis of studies evaluating, by means of the Bayesian method, the safety effectiveness of different bicycle facilities at road junctions. This is preceded by a discussion of background theories and an up-to-date presentation of today's knowledge of the cyclist's safety at intersections; alternative layouts in Scandinavia, and Sweden in particular, are shown. The project consists of a literature survey as well as interviews with experts and cyclists, and an attempt to weave together these different sources in estimating the effect of a particular layout. In summary, few studies from the Scandinavian countries exist that have treated this area with an acceptable methodology. Combined results, with the Bayesian technique, are therefore presented for only one layout comparison: accident risks for cyclists at signalized intersections with and without a cycle path. The results of this aggregation may be unreliable as well, due to deficiencies in the studies. New field studies should be initiated. The "experts'" prior opinion was that the introduction of the cycle path would, on average, increase the risk by about 20%, while interviewed cyclists considered that a cycle path would decrease the risk by about 20%. The conclusion that can be drawn so far from combining results shows that the most likely effect of introducing a cycle path is that the risk will increase by about 40% for a passing cyclist. The probability that the effect will be the opposite, i.e. that the risk will decrease, is very small (about 2%). These combined results are based primarily on cross-section studies, where the layouts have not been "randomly allotted". It is therefore likely that the risk increase may have been overestimated. The probability that the "real" effect is accident reduction is therefore somewhat greater than 2%. How much greater cannot be estimated from these studies.

by - Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:25

who inherited a title, (three) land, (lots) money, (plenty) red hair (in my beard), blue eyes (which smile winsomely), talent (my father's) beauty (my mother's) and much let us say six hundred at least years of guilt I can not accept the "he inherited it" excuse.

The internet and particularly anarchist sites abounds with those who inherited more than eczema/ migraine / diabetes or bipolar psychological disorders and they thought long and hard about the responsibilities such an existential state brings.

Cuffe's blatant hypocrisy ought bring shame on all his fellow party activists.

I agree with whoever has decided to name him "the slimey greenie", I am shocked that I had voted Green before and can promise that I will not again.

by R Isible Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:26

Speaking as a cyclist that has ridden daily for over 17 years I am completely opposed to most cycle lanes in most situations. The bicycle is a vehicle under law with the same rights, duties and obligations as other vehicles. There's a fair bit of research that indicates that bicyclists have a lower number of accidents when they adhere to this principle and behave as vehicles and that cycle lanes in general increase the incidence of collisions especially at intersections/junctions.

Cycle lanes impose extra restrictions on cyclists, forcing them into dangerous positions at the side of the road in unmaintained road areas, where car doors will open into them all in order to allow cars to travel at higher speeds to the next traffic jam.

It relegates bicycles to a special-vehicle status and decreases the safety and efficiency of cycling.

by cleaver Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:51

As a cyclist I think the cycle lanes in Dublin are a nightmare, check out the potholes in the new lanes in cork st for example
Also it might help if the lanes were wider than my handlebars
Poor old Ciaran Cuff, at least he used to get off his arse & attend Critical Mass cycles in the past, maybe he should buy some shares in Square wheels cycle shop.

by 1001 Wed Jun 11, 2003 17:06

he probally holds the record for censoring posts on indymedia. He admits he cannot answer 2 questions posed out of 3 and contradicts himself in the one he attempts to answer. But he succeeded in what he set out to do which was to kill the debate and he successfully deflected attention away from the 2 more important issues raised and diverted the discussion down the cul de sac of 'cycle lanes'

by Mark Wed Jun 11, 2003 17:11

I'm surprised no one else has noticed yet, but isn't it strange that this curious socialist is unaware of Henry Street and North Earl Street been pedestrianised.

Is it because this socialist is too busy sitting in internet cafes off grafton street to even pass through the other side of the city?

But apart from this I think he is dead right. Whatever about the problems with existing bycycle lanes, particularly the really tokenistic ones that were just painted onto the footpath, there is a real need for more room for pedestrians and cyclists.

Personally I think the entire city centre should only be open to cyclists, pedestrians and maybe buses and trams on some streets.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 17:15

Why should I know why the Green party has some policies and not others? I couldn't really care less. But that doesn't help your paranoia, does it?
No, for you to be really persecuted, I must be all-powerful and all-knowing. I don't answer your other questions because I REFUSE TO! The discussion has moved onto bicycle lanes because I DECREED IT! My answer to your question is 'the usual indymedia ettempt to muddy the waters' because I AM INDYMEDIA!
Maybe I should try using my powers for good some time...
Nah, its much more fun persecuting He Who Keeps Changing His Name.

by kokomero Wed Jun 11, 2003 18:36

Not for everybody but the government do give a tax break (VRT reimbursement) on the Toyota Prius which reduces the price to about that of a new Corola so there's no excuse for buying anything else.

On the subject I agree with R Isible on the danger posed to cyclists by bus/cycle lanes. I was knocked off my bike for the first time ever in my 30+ years cycling in February in the bus lane on Pearse St. by a moron in a 306 coupe who wanted to skip the traffic.

We're not talking about then end of the lane either, I was about 50m from the start of it at the TCD gates, fortunately I was able to walk away from it mainly due to the fact the road was very wet so I slid for about 6-7m on my chest, it wrote off my helmet (always wear one) though as I got the equivalent of a good stomp on the head.

The best thing to do in my experience is to ride in the middle of the traffic lane and let them overtake/honk/etc. if they want to, this is the best way to avoid being left-hooked by the inevitable eejits who accelerate past you and jam on the breaks before cutting straight in front of you to turn left ... it happens at least once a week.

One crazy idea I've had in my head ever since they announced the metro and the project cost is how much it would cost to build bike tunnels and what their throughput would be, interesting civil engineering masters/phd topic.

by Leon - No More Windfarms Wed Jun 11, 2003 18:52

Re bikes behaving like any other vehicle can you get a mirror for a bike?

by Leon - No More Windfarms Wed Jun 11, 2003 18:56

is not that he inherited shares in Texaco but that he inherited 1.3 million at all. I would rather that people worth this much money stayed out of politics. They can never have the same concerns as the rest of us, and their paternalism is unwelcome, indeed the environmentalism of the rich can be somewhat repellent like the American Sierra Club.

Not that we should ignore environmental issues (on which the left has as bad a record as anyone else- look at Russia) but it should be subordinate to the needs of ordinary people and not the super rich elite.

by Gone with the Windfarms Wed Jun 11, 2003 19:01

Based on your absolute ignorance of all environmental issues that came to light from your article on banning windfarms (the blades going round is a waste of energy - my favourite), you really can't afford to criticise, can you?

Muppet.

by 'Mr' Muppet 'Junior' Wed Jun 11, 2003 21:50

"I just got the dividends and yields off the over a million fucking euros without knowing where it came from, it's not like they ever sent me fucking invites to their shareholder meetings, oh no maybe I just fucking had the shares so I could "like" change the system from within, like you can't just go and stop Capitalism especially not if you have inherited how much was it?????? oooooooo and land and stuff and sure it all traces back to some very clean deal back in my great great great sure weren't they all so fucking great grandfathers time, so there I had the Shares in the OIL i admit it, I enjoyed the profit yes, I did so fucknig what, tomorrow I dont deal with the hassle and the hypocrisy.

by well fucking indignant immigrant who can't spell Wed Jun 11, 2003 21:54

Oil.
.
.
.
..
...now look at the Green Party anti-Iraq War propaganda.

by . Wed Jun 11, 2003 21:56

1,300,000
is an awful lot of money.
for us.
is it not?

by Road hog Wed Jun 11, 2003 23:17

Bush introduced a subsidy for electric/gas hybrid cars in the US as a way of deflecting environmental demands for greater fuel efficiency in SUVs. Ireland is overly dependant on the car, but at least they are much more fuel efficient than the American average.
Hybrid cars aren't really the answer anyway- what is needed is a cohesive, realistic transport plan that provides an alternative to wasting vast sums of money on road building. The Green Party haven't done that themselves- and if a leading member of the party isn't competent enough to know that he has 1.4m euros in dodgy investments after 3 years(giving him the benefit of honesty at least), I can't really see them being capable of much in the way of policy.

by Road Hog Wed Jun 11, 2003 23:29

Pedestrianised streets can be great, but there should be more to them than just a bunch of cobbles or an outdoor shopping centre. King Street looks lovely, but the only thing on it is the Gaiety Cafe- everything else is either underground or only has a door inside the Stephen Green's centre. It could do with a few more street cafes to make it into something more than a shortcut. Henry street is deserted after the shops close- I suppose the renovation of O'Connell Street might bring more life into it, but I don't know.

by disgusted green party member Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:30

I suspect that some of our other leading Green party public representatives are bought off on these issues as well Mr Cuffe having compromised himself by having shares in Chevron etc

by Scarlet Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:15

You sound absololoutely massive! we'll let the red hair in the beard bit go, no ones perfect, but asides from that ten out of ten and your rich and you probably have a social conscience... wow.. be still my beating heart :-)

by red not green Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:08

The people above should not be suprised that the Greens refuse to put much effort into campaigning on the 2 or 3 issues discussed above. At least we now know the reason why.

by knitting the tangents together Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:36

(i was only codding about the dosh)
muirghil ag caiseamh Shuibhne.
by on tangent again. - it is psycho-hermeneutics. ó dán na Nuala ní Dhomhnaill.
(que me mola)

"na laethanta seo
is féidir lesi uaireanta a chloig
a chaitheamh ag féachaint amach an fhuinneog.
Tagann scéinshúilí móra air
má thagann tú air go hobann,
aniar aduaidh, mar a cheapann sé.
ólann sé a chuid tae as sásar.
níl lí na léithe aige.
B'fhuirist a dh'aithint riamh air
gur í an déirc a bheadh mar dheireadh aige."

=These days/he can spend the hours/ looking out the window/his eyes wide with fright/if you come on him quick "widdershins" as he thinks./He drinks tea from a saucer,/ he hasn't a tosser/ 'twas easy knowing/he'd end up a beggar.

by former green Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:52

These parties promised much but never delivered in Germany or France much less in Ireland. The reason is possibly ineptitude as much as corruption allthough that is also a factor.

by - Thu Jun 12, 2003 19:18

those with enough money to pass their days in activism on your behalf, those whose contributions to party political machinery _"oils"_ their political career.
This is the problem with party politics.

Anarchists except no leaders.
The Green Party in Ireland began as comhaontas glás and as such was formed as an anarko-assembly, with shared and open non heirarchial decision making.

It has sadly not been so for a long time.

Many of the other parties and groupings on the "left" are more than capable of providing the Irish voting public with "green" policies, should they wish.

by Markos Fri Jun 13, 2003 09:59

If you have a pension scheme, chances are you're putting your money into oil, armaments, GM food etc.

If you have money in one of the banks, it's likely your money is being used to fund oil, armaments, GM research etc.

If you drive a car, your'e funding the oil industry.

If you buy food in the supermarket that's been imported, your'e supporting the oil industry and retail monopolies.

If you criticise a member of the only party with its head out of the sand on so many issues, why not look at your own spending choices first?

We all live with this system to a greater or lesser extent. It would be practically impossible for anyone to completely rid their lifestyle of everything that wasn't politically correct.

by Scarlett Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:27

Glad your not rich, black hair blue eyes, intrigued now, mainly due to boredom at being alienated from my labour & all that, nice distraction tho I must say.

by Markos Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:47

Capitalists think that continual economic growth is great, that resources are theoreticaly infinite and that the rewards of growth should go to the "deserving".

Communism and Socialism hold contunual economic growth as an assumption and think that the rewards of that growth should be broadly redistributed to "everyone".

Green political theory holds that an economy based on continual growth is unsustainable and damaging to society and the environment.

Green politics is neither on the left or right. Both the left and the right are in agreement on the growth economy, differing only on the minor point of redistribution.

by Oisin Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:33

Markos I agree that we need to rethink the way we judge "progress" but I am not sure if that means various ecological postions cannot be judged left or right wing. As to the arguement-well we are are implicted in exploitation and ecological damage simply by going about our daily lives-I think that is a lot of moralistic horseshit. Capitalism as a social system encourages us to see life as series of good or bad consumer choices. I don't believe this is true - I think the problems are systemic. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that you can't distinguish between somebody who lodges their wages in a bank every fortnight and someone who has a substantial share portfolio including an interest in Exxon. There has to be some reasonable standard of concious culpability. Especially if the bollocks who has the shares is a front bench spokesman for the green party. Claiming ignorance in this case is ludicrous.

by another anonymous coward Fri Jun 13, 2003 19:36

all motor vehicles should be banned completely. Anyone who rides on a bus, train, even an ambulance, private car or aeroplane is just feeding the oil companies and slave-drivers of this world. Not only that but you are destroying the air we breathe and further our water which is polluted by the polluted rain from the polluted air so that we have to buy bottled water from nestle or other corporations. You people who have ever used a motor vehicle are as bad as Mr. Cuffe so don't be dissing him - at least he's making money out of destroying the world while you just destroy the world and then moan about being poor.

by . Fri Jun 13, 2003 21:36

i am embarrassed, and ashamed, it is brown not black, and colaiste mhuire was a joke as well.
do I lose?

by simon Sun Jun 15, 2003 13:50

Ban all motorised vehicles, real clever. Have you ever seen a pedal powered ambulance - when your 75 will you still be able to cycle everywhere or should we confine old people to their homes.

Have you looked at your bike recently. Are your tires, tubes, cable coverings, brake pads not made from petroleum based products. remember all plastics are petroleum based. Do you know the material life cycle of the frame of your bike. have you seen the imapact of Bauxite open pit mining.

use your head before you use your mouth.