This morning.
Unidentified location, Dublin.
Lisa writes:
What a plank. Double yellow lines so parks in the bike lane….
Update: Lisa adds: “Percy Place along the [Grand] Canal at around 2pm yesterday.”
Sponsored Link
Everything. As It Happens.
Sure isn’t that what cycle lanes all over Dublin are for? From my cycle experience anyway :(
Presumably you’ve also mentioned this Tesco? And maybe a parking warden?
yeah, Tesco should DEFINITELY be made pay for this!
Tesco, Tesco, Tesco!
Won’t someone please think about the parking warden.
Yeah, Tesco because they’re fordeners.
Tesco wouldn’t care too much. It’s a SuperValu truck.
It’s a van not a truck.
Mr T, holds no truck with in correct vehicle naming.
Or punctuation!
Don’t bring your logic and facts in here, this is Broadsheet.
Nice try SuperValu
Is there a body you can text pictures of wrongly parked cars to so they’re issued a ticket?
apparently it was ticketed, so the above is thankfully not required.
He’s actually gone miles out of his way to be obnoxious there, especially considering there’s a parking space right there.
Say it to the driver or maybe send / tweet a picture to SuperValu. Sending it to BS wont stop it happening again.
The Supervalu twitter account is usually pretty active and responsive, although maybe not in such instances as these.
I’d be ringing Super Valu about that Lisa. What a ****.
Hey, leave Lisa alone. She only took a picture.
Heh.
Cloud was calling SuperValu **** – not Lisa.
Thanks for the clarification Captain Obvious.
Unidentified location is herbert place
To the twitter machine Batman.
You’ll get rise/reaction then
Real food, real people
Dublin Cycling Campaign have had a good campaign running around this for the last month.
Tweet the photo including time & location & #freethecyclelanes
for added fun tag @SuperValuIrl and @gardatraffic
You are perfectly entitled to use the vehicle lane instead. By law you do not have to use a cycle lane provided.
http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760
However the law on parking there may be vague, for instance, there is a dotted line along that section of cycle path and I don’t know if the kerbing is covered by the city regulations.
He had to cross a solid white line to get there – so even if legal to park there – illegal to get there in the first place.
He either jumped the kerb, or drove up the length of the cycle lane from the other end,
Excellent point.
I would mention though that many cycle paths have a solid line seperating then from vehicles but are only clearways at certain times, promoting vague understanding and casual or calculated disregard as above.
what about the idiot who stands on the road to take a picture…….move along…
Exactly, shut up cyclists. You have yer fancy pantcy lanes now (at our expense, might I add; me, Sean, the tax payer). Whether you can use them or not is none of our concern. Move along, SHUT UP.
The great thing about buying a bicycle is the grant of freedom from paying any tax whatsoever that comes with it.
Yeah, I’m so glad that I get that Motor Tax waiver because I also own a bike.
Or paying VAT on the purchase of bike and accessories.
At “our expense”… please, do go on about how you own the road now Ted :)
Most cyclists have cars and pay motor tax. If that’s the argument you want to pursue Wayne Carr, we pay for your roads.
People always drive up that particular stretch of cycle lane by accident. Seems a more likely scenario given that there is clearly parking on the other side of the road
There is a fairly prominent kerb in between the cycle lane and the road. It has two tiny lanes with little bicycles on it. I think you would have to be some class of idiot to mistake it for a road.
I wouldn’t disagree with you there
If you took a photo of every cyclist who uses the road instead of a cycle lane where its available and posted it to BS there wouldnt be any room of other posts……..cyclists, as Wayne says, move along and shut up………
Cycle lane use is not obligatory. Obeying road markings and clearways is.
Cyclists sometimes need to make right hand turns at a junction. They cant ramp off the bike lane at the last second, crossing 2 lanes of traffic to do so as this would result in another cycling fatality. Thus it is necessary to sometimes travel along the road and get into the righthand lane to make a turn as other road users do.
Also to counter your anecdotal begrudgery with equal and opposite begrudgery: If you took a photo of every motorist who breezes through red lights just after mashing the pedal to the floor during an orange light, you would need a Dennis O Brien’s worth of SD cards to store them all. Move along and maybe use your indicators: they wont wear out love, honest.
dismount and use the pedestrian crossing – no? or now they have some cycle crossings with lights and all for you…..
Love when morons raise their stupid heads so I can line up my logic gun and fire pure facts in the cavity that should contain a brain.
If you’re a driver you should be BEGGING to get better rules and regs for cyclists. You should be more active than any cyclist in ensuring that bike lanes are kept free and open and the roads are made more accessible and safer to those on two wheels and should be campaigning for segregated lanes and stricter rules on those who endanger cyclists lives. The why is easy – 3 reasons
1- Cyclists make urban and city space nicer for everyone. Not only are they doing the environment a favour, but they don’t make any noise
2- Cyclists reduce your taxes. They’re more likely to be healthy into old age (if they’re not smashed by a truck that is), less likely to smoke and less likely to a burden on the taxpayer.
3- Cyclists make the roads better for cars. More commuters on bikes means less cars on the road, means less traffic, means you spend less on fuel and time in getting to your destination.
The one main thing keeping people from cycling is the fact many see it as a highly dangerous extreme sport because wally car drivers don’t understand that EVERYONE is better off with more people on peddle power.
I love wally replies like this……..utter rubbish and nonsense. Facts, cant see one there. You know where you can put your logic, in your logic gun and shoot it back up your arse……idiot.
Pathetic. Such a lazy troll. Try harder next time.
nothing better to do Munkifisht than talk about yourself…..haha…go back to your crying chair……hahaaaaa
You are the idiot Corky, you absolute numpty boy!
Great comment Draxx..you must be a cyclist – the people i love to beep at for no reason……classic.
Beep and receive a swift finger. Stop to give out, we all know who will win. The fit cyclist or the overweight, ‘angry at life’ driver. Try it more often Corky. I look forward to meeting your ignorant arse out on the road.
Or you could all try not to be denises so the rest of us can get on without your drama.
Revenue are trying to pull a fast one here. There is nothing in the guidance about duration of the accomodation. The only definitions given are “qualifying residence”, ‘relevant sums’ and ‘residential premises’. No definition of duration of stay is included.
The non application of relief section refers only to child to parent or employer to employee situations. Again, no situation in respect of duration is included. The UK case probably has no bearing but its hardly relevant given the total lack of guidance from Revenue.
Either the revenue Guidance is woefully incomplete (is every taxpayer required to read volumes and volumes of tax law before submitting a return?) in which case clawback of past earnings is going to be contentious to the point of taking it to the EU or they are pulling this directly from their rectae, and given the brain drain out of Revenue over the last decade I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter is the case.
wrong post….
I’d hardly say that parking in a cycle lane constitutes as “accommodation” Peter.