So, what happens when you’re a cyclist, who rides their bike into work every day, and suddenly – just because you’re now the city’s Deputy Lord Mayor – the powers that be decide to bestow upon you a somewhat unnecessarily large parking space?
You just park your bike in it, don’t you?
Well, that’s exactly what Colette Finn, a Green Party councillor and the current Deputy Lord Mayor of Cork, has chosen to do, as evidenced by this rather striking image – posted on Twitter by fellow Green councillor Dan Boyle – neatly depicting the vast chasm in space routinely provided for some commuters over others.
While several cyclists praised Finn’s decision to park her bike in her designated Deputy Lord Mayor’s spot, with different variations on “Love it” peppering the replies, the image did however strike up a rather heated debate (it is social media after all) on the use of so-called ‘car’ parking spaces for bikes – and whether designated parking spaces for officials should even still be the norm if we want to encourage active travel.
“Celebrating wasted space. Hilarious,” said Aodhán, while Orchard Man also described Finn’s bike parking as a “symbol of ‘road’ space wasted by cyclists”.
“If the space isn’t needed for cars, put in a bike rack,” he continued.
“Selfish though. Bet that same person will whine about a car taking up space on a cycle path,” added Nick, as if those two examples are directly comparable.
Meanwhile, Colum wrote: “I suppose it’s political humour but it’s wasteful. She could have requested removal of the sign.”
Others, naturally, were baffled by the backlash to a cyclist parking their bike in a reserved space for an elected official in an underground car park…
“People saying it’s a waste of space but no one can park in it but her so who cares if her bike is in it. That’s fine!” said greekman.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the issue of ‘wasted space’, some cyclists noted that another culprit could perhaps be responsible for taking up too much unnecessary room.
“I know, crazy how many bikes you can fit in the space of a car, isn't it?” wrote Tim. “Crazy waste of space, five empty seats and two tonnes of metal just to move somebody around when clearly this is all most of us need.”
“This makes you think how much space a commuter actually needs if we would be more conscious,” said the Cork Cycling Campaign.
Con, however, noted that the very concept of ‘privileged’ car parking was detrimental to the cause of active travel.
“As long as we dole out privileged parking places to an entitled few, we are never gonna see progress on the use of public transport or alternative transportation like cycling,” he said.
“The few isn’t the issue, it's a wider issue with council and civil service staff too,” added Cycling in Kilkenny. “How much will an entire council staff care about public transport if they get free parking?”
Add new comment
83 comments
One of the people who are mentioned in the Grauniad story did suffer from bladder issues.
In my defence, I hadn't read the Gurandia story
You're absolutely right on the free toilet issue. I live in Australia, the land of the free public loo, but I visit the UK fairly often and if there's one thing that really annoys me to the point of incandescant rage, it's having to pay to pee. (What's even worse is the lack of consistency in prices.) There are some services that local authorities should expect to provide without charge to the user in the interests of good hygiene, if nothing else. Free potable water is also a reasonable expectation.
I think he's wrong, legally speaking anyway, wild peeing as it's called, is a criminal offence under the public order act, so it's irrelevant if its littering or not.
this is a possibility, but if the act is carried out in a discreet way I do not believe it is a public order offence.
if you start waving your bits around, then it probably will be.
However, waving your bits around, as long as it's not in a sexual manner or to cause offence (i.e. public nudity) is not illegal.
Wasn't he the other side of a tree from the road?
Perhaps it was a very heavy tree, that bent light so the voyeur-official could watch.
Waving your bits around may be punished more heavily in Scotland.
I thought that traditional wearing of Scottish kilts encouraged the waving around of bits
Keep it under your sporran!
I thought that was for storing your porridge?
Yes, but the weight can also keep your spurtle under control.
Isn't that a Pokemon?
It's just my spurtle! I'm not thinking of having a poke,mon!
It's not "irrelevant" - if you are fined for a specific offence, it is certainly relevant whether or not you have committed that offence.
As for the Public Order Act (which one?), feel free to elaborate under exactly which Section you think wild peeing would be an offence.
what am I a search engine ? its section 5 of Public Order Act 1986, falls under penalty notices for disorder.
and thats ignoring most councils will also have a byelaw against it too.
so yes its irrelevant to debate whether it falls under littering or not, because theres plenty of other stuff that does cover it
Nor am I, but if you make claims it's your responsibility to back them up.
It is my claim the section 5 would only apply if you urinate on someone or urinate with the intent of causing offence. Not if you're trying to be modest a sneak a wee behind a tree
quite,
so if you walk down a public street urinating in full view of everyone, it would be a public order offence, but peeing behind a hedge, could not possibly constitute "harrassment, alarm or distress"
And if the council are prosecuting people for "littering" for peeing in rural laybys, then are they also prosecuting dog owners when they pee on signposts or street lights, both of which can be damaged by the act.
The courts would grind to a halt.
Fair enough,then you won't mind me asking you to cite an example where that has happened then
bylaws normally applicable to parks and towncentres, not the entire countryside.
I think it's very relevant whetehr it constitutes littering if that's what the fine has been handed out for.
Depends on the council and how big a problem it is, I know around some racecourses councils have implemented them because its become a localised issue.
And I think Marsden in Yorkshire, which is just a village really, but part of Kirklees metro area which must be half a million populace, were looking to introduce it to stop some of the more badly behaved rail ale trailers who visit.
It could potentially be criminalised via a PSPO, but I don't know if that was the case here.
Hemel Hempstead PSPO bans defecating, urinating, spitting and ... cycling in town centre
https://road.cc/content/news/266092-hemel-hempstead-pspo-bans-defecating...
Regarding the Deputy Lord Mayor of Cork -
Who is (legally) going to take the space from
himher, just becausehisher car isn't in it?The space is noted as reserved specifically for the Deputy Mayor and therefore if (s)he rides his bike into office instead of driving
hisher car, (s)he can usehisher space entirely how (s)he likes. It's not a space anyone else can use so how is it wasted? If it's wasted for a bike it's wasted for a car as a reserved spot.*corrections. I did not read the article past the first line and missed the DM was female.
Exactly. She could use it for storage or her pogo stick, or an old sofa, or anything else she wants. It's a perk of the job.
A park of the job, surely?
Alternatively - if the Deputy Lord Mayor drives to work in a car appropriate to their exalted status - which then completely filled or even slightly overflowed the space - would their be outcry? Or would it be "we need to repaint the lines, the spaces aren't big enough"?
As others have said perhaps it's time we started rethinking the idea of having reserved parking spaces (or workplace provision of same) at all? Maybe our more enlightened representatives (and / or those we aspire to) could even lead from the front by setting an example! (As the Deputy Lord Mayor is apparently doing...)
Still hard to imagine much of that in the UK though where driving is the unexamined default, normal, "practical" choice. And where it still is so linked with our social status / is seen as an essential tool to access social functions / demonstrates our responsibility and ultimately social worth.
That would be a dangerous precedent considering many advocacy groups are claiming (with supported evidence) modern cars are unneccessarily getting wider and should be stopped - Making the spaces fit the cars instead of making the cars fit the spaces is the wrong way to go and would make the situation even worse.
Having reserved parking at all is a completely different debate, however abolishing them altogether is unlikely and also could be problematic (perhaps a debate for another time).
But unless you are explicitly advocating for abolishing reserved spaces as an argument this is a waste of space, the argument is moot.
Making such a seismic change requires both infrastructure and attitude changes which aren't exactly going to happen overnight. But by getting small key areas right, where high car use is most damaging, you can show what is possible, and other regions may follow suit.
Both Manchester and London have greatly improved infrastructure and they have seen lower car use and traffic volumes where the schemes are safe and convenient. I am aware that not all infra amongst those schemes is actually fit for purpose but if there is high profile awareness of success then those areas will be brought up to standard sooner rather than later.
Obviously I agree, but while I hope this happens I would raise a note of caution about the following (highlighted):
This is (ostensibly) what the UK has been doing for generations. (As David Hembrow wryly points out in this article.) Witness e.g. Cycling UK noting that a quarter century on from The National Cycling Strategy a government was launching what appeared to be a repeat of the same, asking the same questions as if they were new and appearing to set themselves up for the same fate. We had "Cycling Demonstration Towns" in 2005, extended in 2009 - and then Cycling England disappeared in 2011. Witness funding for active travel in England/Wales being cut (under cover of "we have allocated x millions ...") - the government itself acknowledges this. Scotland stalling on this despite setting a more sensible active travel funding stream (vastly greater than England and Wales). The Road Safety Investigation Branch failing to launch...
Yet we were building cycling infra separated from motor traffic in the 1930s. We've had things like modal filters, LTNs and bus stop bypasses for decades. Wander around most UK cities and you can find the relics of cycle infra of the last century.
More optimistically perhaps some local level changes in a few places will continue. As you say London and (perhaps) Manchester can show "real cities" (e.g. not like special cases - Cambridge etc.) can do this and the world doesn't end - indeed everyone benefits.
If I were her I'd be getting a ground anchor and a big chain and getting the works department to fit it, with permission of course. Peace of mind.
As a deputy Lord Major she probably only qualifies for a small chain...
Pages