We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
COUNCILLORS ON A Dublin local authority have voted against providing safe walking and cycling routes for schools as part of their development plan.
Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and Renua councillors on Fingal Council joined forces to narrowly shoot down a motion which would have included, as an objective in the development plan the provision of safe walking and cycling routes for new schools.
The 2017-2023 Fingal Development Plan sets out the planning and zoning requirements for the local authority area, which is the fastest-growing in Ireland.
Councillors are continuing to hold meetings to decide broader council’s plans for the area for next five years.
The motion, a video of which is available here, proposed by the Green Party, was defeated by 19 votes to 16.
The Government schools cycling policy commits to providing safe cycling and walking routes to schools. Many schools in Fingal are some distance from the pupils’ main residential areas.
The Malahide/Portmarnock Educate Together national school, for example, is in Kinsealy – miles from main population centres like Portmarnock, Malahide or Clongriffin.
Green Party councillor David Healy proposed a motion to commit the the council to acquire and develop foot- and cycle-paths between schools and residential areas when acquiring and developing land for new schools.
At the meeting, Fingal Council Manager Matthew McAleese said they had a difficulty with the motion, especially as it might lead to compulsory purchase orders (CPO) for the creation of cycling routes for the schools. CPOs involves the acquisition of land for public purpose without requiring the consent of the owners.
Mayor Darragh Butler (Fianna Fáil) questioned whether the motion could delay schools “and potentially hold us to hostage in terms of the price we pay”.
Healy said the county’s development plan already provides for CPOs and acquisition of sites for schools on behalf of the Department of Education, and the cycling and footpath routes would be an add-on to that process.
“It’s not something new that we would be doing. The only question is, are we serious in providing safe cycling and walking routes to school, or not? Because at the moment we have a spectacular failure.”
The motion was proposed after safety concerns from Portmarnock Community Association and other community groups in Lusk and Rush.
In September, two young boys were killed while cycling in separate incidents in Louth and Offaly. All told, nine cyclists have lost their lives this year, including two in Dublin.
Twenty-one pedestrians have died so far this year, meanwhile, according to the latest Garda statistics. Yesterday, pupils from St Columba’s school on the North Strand in Dublin called on motorists – and cyclists – to obey red lights outside their school.
Galling
Cllr Natalie Treacy (Sinn Féin) told TheJournal.ie that the motion was a “no-brainer”.
“Why would anyone one vote against it? As a mother I would always put the safety needs of people and especially children to the for fore.”
“It’s a huge surprise that people could vote against something like this,” David Healy told TheJournal.ie. ”Thousands of students will be affected, basically the whole of Fingal.
People were saying it would have interfered with commerce, and people’s ability to do business. But it’s not as if you’re shutting down the entire transport network.
It’s about safety and encouraging active travel, and sustainable ways for getting around. Public transport links to existing and planned schools aren’t great.
The Government’s National Cycle Policy framework states: “We will provide safe cycling routes to all primary and secondary schools and third level colleges by 2020″.
Who voted what
In keeping with this, Healy’s proposed amendment to the development plan stated:
In tandem with identifying and procuring new school sites, plan safe walking and cycling routes to school from the residential areas to be served by the school. Where land must be acquired to provide these routes, work with landowners and relevant parties to acquire or arrange for the necessary land.
The Council’s own planning department opposed the motion, as did Fine Gael (5), Fianna Fáil (5), and two Labour councillors. Six independents and one from Renua also voted against. Sorted by ward, they are:
Sixteen councillors from the Green Party, Anti-Austerity Alliance, Sinn Féin, Social Democrats and several independents supported the motion.
Four councillors were absent: Barry Martin (Ind); Brian Dennehy (FF); Tony Murphy (Ind) and Edmond Lukusa (SF).
Councillor Butler told TheJournal.ie:
If I voted against Councillor Healy’s motion it would have been to support the management and the professional planners who in my mind would have made a better argument as to what could be realistically delivered.
“If the motion was defeated then obviously more councillors agreed with the Council management than with Councillor Healy.”
Youngest population in Ireland
Stretching across north and west county Dublin from Balbriggan, Swords, to Blanchardstown, Castleknock and Santry and Howth head, Fingal has the youngest population in Ireland.
It’s also the fastest growing local authority area in Ireland, growing 8% between the 2011 and 2016 censuses censuses.
The Government’s National Cycle Policy states:
We will provide safe cycling routes to all primary and secondary schools and third level colleges by 2020. An audit will be carried out of every school / routes leading to the school from residential areas.
It says the responsibility for this is with local authorities (ie councils) and the Department of Transport.
Fingal planning department also opposed 30kh speed limits around cycling routes. That motion for 30kph speed limits near schools was nevertheless passed.
Fingal Council management did not comment when asked by TheJournal.ie.
Last night, 27 councillors voted in favour of a separate motion tabled by Councillor Healy, providing for specific cycling routes to certain schools across Fingal.
The motions were to add cycle/pedestrians route between
The Council opposed last night’s motion.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You couldn’t make this up. So after the schools are built, they are going to go back and at greater expense, install the infrastructure that their own by laws require?
Don’t forget Fianna Fail want to bring back even more of these councils to try and give more jobs to more of their incompetent members
There’s more money to be made by doing it later. Gangsters.
Jimmy the developer won’t have to pay for it. The taxpayer will when they revisit it
Exactly Mary. It’s like when we built the motorways with no service stations. We had to go back years later and retrospectively install them at much greater expense. Again because polititians were looking after their own interests.
Exactly Mary it’s madness
Thank you for publishing the names of those councillors who are more interested in their buddies in businesses than the safety of our children
Sinn Fein, Green Party, Anti-Austerity Alliance, Social Democrats and several independents supported the plan
Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and Renua councillors councillors voted against it.
Use your vote wisely folks.
@Coles…..that says it all really. Party poltics are all that matter. Forget about childrens lives!
Duly noted Coles. This is shocking.
@Coles: Know Your Enemy.
This is utter madness. Councillors voting against the FUTURE planning for safe routes to school. Serious questions need to be asked of the “professional planners” who are not including cycle and walking safe routes to new schools. The councillors are playing politics with children’s lives. They need to look to Amsterdam for guidance and start to plan for the future.
A lot of mutual back-scratching happening in Fingal Council, it would seem. #gombeenireland
Helping Ireland get fatter
You know what would be much cheaper than this? Getting drivers to not kill people on the roads by imposing harsh penalties on motorists for their actions. There is an environment in this country of cars being the number one thing on the road. Driving is a privilege and a responsibility, no matter what other road users do, cyclists or pedestrians, drivers should be of the highest standard. Driver and vulnerable road users do not equate, so this “all cyclists break red lights” is nonsense as it tries to pit one against the other. They are not the same, driving is a privilege and a responsibility, what sort of society has to completely segregate other road users for fear of cars killing them? Makes drivers fully responsible, no breaking red lights, only parking where allowed, no driving drunk/high, and every other rule should not be broken. The only fear a driver will understand is the removal of their right to drive, they are the danger on the road and need to be treated as such.
@John Smith: and same should be applied to all road users , Peoples mind sets are vehicles are always wrong their right no matter what.
@John Smith…..a vast majority of the roads are not built for cyclists/pedestrians and motorists. They don’t even have a hard shoulder! On most of these roads cyclists are taking their lives in their hands as they are so unsafe. There’s barely enough room for two cars to pass each other – add cyclists and it’s bedlam. Every single morning from Lusk to Blakes Cross, cars are backed up for miles crawling at cycling speed because there’s a cyclists on the road and no one can pass. It leads to frustration and people taking chances. While there are a few careless drivers and cyclists out there, i believe our roads are the biggest contributing factor.
In the Netherlands, a drunk cyclist can fall off their bike and hit a car while squeezing into a space too small for them yet the driver of the car is automatically at fault. Placing automatic blame on the driver for all incidents, regardless of cause, results in outright ridiculous situations like the one I just described.
@JustMade Ireland:
You completely miss my point, all road users are not the same. How can you equate a 10 year old cycling to school to an adult that requires testing and a license to drive a car? They are not equal. The most dangerous road user needs far stricter controls. I would not let a child cycle in Dublin because I cycle and cars are incredibly dangerous. What does that say about drivers? I’m sick of the excuses, if you drive a car drive it properly, stop using bikes and pedestrians as an excuse.
@Em Ni Mhurchu
The roads are a big factor, but until they are fixed drivers need to realise how dangerous they are. If you are frustrated by cyclists in your car then you should not have a car. You are stuck in traffic because you are traffic, if you drove with more care and responsibility more people would not be afraid to cycle because of the ever present danger of a car hitting you. Most people I talk to won’t cycle because of fear of cars, buses, taxis and trucks, but more cyclists means less cars and less traffic. It’s not “us vs them”, as a driver it is your duty to take the moral high ground, when that frustration turns into you killing a pedestrian/cyclist you will have to live with that fact for the rest of your life. Not worth it to be 3 minutes faster to the lights only to be passed by the cyclist you overtook.
@Jason Culligan:
Should you not be yapping about guns and debasing innocent people shot by cops in America?
John Smith as a walker I am pure sick of cyclists. They regularly go through Ted lights when the green man is on. Would love to push them off their bloody bikes as they don’t care about me and my right to criss safely
@Mary Murphy:
You still miss my point, would you prefer a car or a bike running a red? The difference is when a car hits you the likelihood of dying is massive. Nearly all deaths on the road are caused by cars, not bikes, not pedestrians, it is people being hit by cars that kill. Talking about what cyclists/pedestrians do is a red herring that allows motorists to shift blame, what they do is irrelevant, when you are in a car you need to act the most responsible.
@Jason Culligan: Try to stay on topic. The article is dealing with the future planning needs for walking and cycling and your comment trivialises a serious situation. I see you live in the Netherlands and I would hope that you might have some constructive comments and observations on future needs.
@Em Ni Mhurchu: Its actually the other way around! our roads were built to cater for People, Horse’s etc. The Roads are older than cars.
@Dave Phelan: If you want constructive comments from Jason, you can wait until the proverbial hell freezes over
@Jason Culligan: We should probably arm drivers then so they can shoot the drunk cyclists before they cause any trouble.
The best part about Jason is how he rags on immigrants yet he is an immigrant to Holland himself. I’m not sure he understands irony.
John if a bike breaks lights and hits you and you falk and hit your head the wrong way you could be left for dead too. However it’s not children breaking red lights.
@John Smith I am not driving……I walk and I’ve as much right to be able to walk safely as a cyclist has to cycle safely and a driver has to drive safely.
@John Smith: it is so easy to blame the motorist, the amount of times I have had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting one is beyond count, I live in the country and it is not unusual to meet them 2/3 abreast on a narrow road and if woy give them a gentle beep its not unusual to get the fingers and be completely ignored, pedestrians also need to be wary of them as they have NO consideration for them either, I have seen cyclists with no hands on the handlebar and texting as they go and on the wrong side of the road as well, was walking down James st near guinness`s the foot path was at least 10 ft wide a cyclist came up behind me on the path and missed me by inches frightened the crap out of me, I have`nt mentioned their total disregard for traffic lights or general rules of the road as it would be a waste of time, cyclists should have to undergo a road test to ensure they know right from wrong which the majority apparantly dont know….
@Mary Murphy:
Up to July this year 16 pedestrians have been killed by motorised vehicles. Five cyclists have been killed by motorised vehicles in the same period.
There has been zero fatalities from people walking into each other, zero pedestrian fatalities from cyclists crashing into them In fact the only recent record of a death between a pedestrian and a cyclist was a man in the Phoenix Park who hit a pedestrian who walked into the cycle path. The cyclist died.
I agree that you have every right to walk safe, and cyclists should not break reds, or cycle on footpaths. I feel it is so lawless on the road that cyclists don’t believe in rules. I follow all the rules to the letter on my bike, but it doesn’t matter. Yesterday a bus pulled in on me with an inch to spare. When I passed a motorbike Garda stopped me to give out to me. He called me an idiot, told me rules of the road that didn’t exist and when I pointed to the car down the road that had just pulled into the cycle lane he told me that was ok because he was probably doing deliveries. Most people have zero respect for cyclists and that includes the people who enforce the law. All that is going to happen is more people are going to die and more peoples lives will be ruined, all because people think that sitting in a car gives them more rights to road use than anyone else.
@Peter donnelly:
Again, you miss my point completely, what a cyclist does is irrelevant, it’s cars that kill, and therefore it’s cars that need policing. Last year there was 166 road deaths, all from vehicles. When it comes to the stage of 166 people being killed by bicycles, (which will never happen due to physics) we can equate bikes and cars.
How do you have bike test for a child? I started at 4. Cars and bikes are not the same thing. And just so you know, probably the same amount of cars break reds, but when a car breaks a red and hits someone the result is far more serious. Just look at this one junction in Dublin.
@Jason Culligan:
If you could site a case of this actually happening it would be up for ridicule otherwise your just spouting sensationalist bollocks.
Councils are worst why the people but up to them we pay for the crap and excuses they provide, and there the very ones who chase you for the smallest thing yet do nothing for their own. We need change they waste so much of our money if managed right our towns could be great.
Government finds business more important than the lives of children…shocker!
FF, FG, LAB and ruinua(!) timed this vote to perfection resulting in this embarrassingly short-sighted decision taking place while most of the media is distracted by a non-event of a budget.
But I have to ask why did those in favour not delay, reschedule, obstruct or fight in any way for this important issue?
Just 1 of the reasons to remove all ff fg,lab,councillors in next council elections.
Bunch of right-wing idiots in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Labour are laughably still considering themselves left wing.
Shame on them. Jobs for the boys later when it becomes compulsory – and it will!!!
As usual on the Journal people jump to conclusions about matters about which they now little and rush to judgement. Chill out everyone. This was a Green Party motion; a party not exactly known for their practicality. I seriously doubt that any of the groups opposing the motion disagree with the intent. I suspect that they disagree with the mechanism and the potential consequences including cost.
So a new school is built in some locality and a “cycle path/s” is to be built. Children arrive at the new school from all directions. Is just one cycle path to be built or several? Where is the cycle path/s to be built? Is there an existing road? Must the road be widened or narrowed? Is a section of the front garden of everyone on that road to be compulsorily acquired to build the cycle track? If so be prepared to spend time in the Courts. Compulsory acquisition is necessary but it is a very draconian power.
The problem with the proposed motion is that it is too sweeping and is in fact extremely hard to implement in an urban area without ruinous expense. I have seen cycle paths retrofitted in Dublin along main roads. This involved the road being dug up and re-engineered and established trees being removed and new ones planted. It cost millions. The problem with the motion is not that it isn’t a good idea but the sweeping application of it to all new schools without any consideration of the expense involved and the consequences for other areas of council spending.
Simply disagreeing with such a motion does not make one the equivalent of Darth Vadar. The Councillors haven’t gone to the dark side. The planning Department also opposed it. Green politics are often littered with proposal which carry ruinous economic costs often without any consideration of how money might be better spent to achieve the same goals or better goals. I suspect that at the route of the voting down of the motion were very practical considerations. Putting a new school in an area is generally welcomed but if the debate switches to “where is the cycle path going to be located” then you have a very different discussion and inevitable delays.
@John R: Sounds like you’re part of the council, you wouldn’t be one the the councillors or the councils heads who rejected it would you. We all know Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Lab don’t give a toss about cyclist safety on the roads. Two children have been killed cycling this year on our roads, and you’re complaing oh it will cost too much to prevent that with proper infrastructure? That is really an abhorrent sentiment.
What about the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland? How have they managed to build segregated cycle tracks without going bankrupt?
@John R: The simplist answer to all the issues you raise is to remove motorised traffic from the equation.
With out motorised traffic, no CPO’s needed, No existing roads need to be widened, no existing trees need to be removed. Again its the cars that are the problem here…without cars the problems no longer exist.
Maybe our beloved Councillors need to look at diverting traffic from around our schools? maybe a 1k exclusion zone where all roads are Pedestrianized / cycle routes only.
p.s. Yes I know…this will NEVER happen but it is the ideal solution.
Pixie dust for goodness sake grow up. I don’t have to be part of the Council to disagree with you. As for your statement that all the elected representatives of the major political parties don’t give a toss about cyclists safety this is simply more of the same emotional nonsense denigrating everyone who has a contrary or more nuanced understanding of the issues than you. Of course they care. They simply disagree with the approach taken by the Green Party which the Journal has sensationalised.
As for your opinion that my sentiments are abhorrent because two children were killed on the roads please don’t simplify my views. You are not alone in wanting a reduction of road deaths. We are entitled to ask whether the method proposed will work. This one won’t. It hasn’t been thought through.
As for your generalised statement about the Nordic countries I can’t respond because it is generalised and offered as a “Nirvana”statement with no backing facts or evidence.
Alan with respect you must be a Green. Remove cars from the equation? How exactly? Children arrive at school from all points of the compass. How exactly are we to remove cars from the equation? People drive their kids to school. People use cars to get to work. People use cars to shop. Should we return to the idealised horse and cart? Are we to close all roads?
If you wish to make such a sweeping generalisation please elaborate and be specific so everyone knows what exactly you are recommending. Carry the though process through please – if you can. I would lay odds that you cannot.
It’s quite easy really…read my post again..I suggested a 1k restriction around schools. People can still drive their kids to school. They just park 1k away instead of parking all over the road right outside the school gate.
We in Ireland are in love with cars. We can’t imagine living without one! Yet it’s quite doable if people actually want to. But they don’t!
@John R:
The councils are staffed by lifers who want an easy time with no hard decisions and a nice pension at the end of it for being good lads and lassies and not rocking the boat. When it comes to childrens safety the boat should be shook hard. Shame on the lifers in fingal planning department who worry more about cash than kids lives. They should be named and shamed the same as the idiot councillors who listen to their conservative timid advice.
@John R: If they care about road deaths then why vote against safe cycle routes? If they care, why did they also vote against banning HGVs outside schools at opening and closing? Why did the council not want to include cycle tracks on the maps for the plan, but were more than happy to include proposed roads?
Fingal county council is all talk and no action. They like to spout a whole load of feel good buzzwords about promoting safe cycling and walking and then with the other side of their mouths, vote against practical measures to put those words into practise.
It is going to take a change in mindset, a change in actions and a change in how we get around that will reduce road deaths. A Nirvana statement? It has been shown that proper infrastructure results in an inceased modal share for cycling. It has been shown that road deaths and accidents decrease with proper infrastructure. Are you going to deny those facts?
A UK government report here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509587/value-of-cycling.pdf
It showed that cycling infrastructure provided returns of between 2:1 and 35:1. In the Netherlands, they found a 60:1 return on investment.
Those who say it costs too much are not taking into account the negative externalities of cars and congestion. Pollution, childhood obesity and inactivity, noise pollution, climate change. If you want to look at costs, then take a look at the fines we will be paying because we are on track to miss our 2020 carbon reduction targets. If we keep on the same road, we will also miss the 2030 targets, with more fines to hit us ti the tune of 5.5 billion euro.
But please, do continue with how building safe routes for children will be a bad idea to include in the plan.
Joseph, the Council are stacked by nefarious lifers you say who want the easy life is that what you suggest? This is the depth of your intellectual understanding. The problem is the staff, the workers? Useless good for nothings. You patently understand little. You put forward a lazy hackneyed stereotype which betrays no understanding of any of the issues and strips out all complexity. What a lovely black and white life you mist lead.
Pixie dust I doubt you actually understand the meaning of the word “negative externalities” which you quote or indeed how cost benefit analysis can be utilised to demonstrate savings which don’t actually equate to money saved.
You cite the Netherlands. The Netherlands is densely populated. We aren’t. It is flat. We aren’t. It has an urban planned tradition going back centuries. We don’t. We are not the Netherlands. We don’t think like the Dutch. And people don’t want roads a kilometre from their schools because they have to drop the kids off on school on the way to work. You don’t have kids. Obviously.
We can’t move forward by asking people to sure beer their cars. It won’t happen. Start from where we are. Stop fantasising about the Netherlands.
@John R: You are truly an arrogant little man. I don’t understand negative externalities – please kindly take a running jump.
Last population figures for Amsterdam – 779,808
Copenghagen – 562, 379
Dublin – 527, 612
Do the figures look all that different to you and it is a myth that Dublin is not densely populated.
Density per km squared – Amsterdam – 4908. Dublin – 4588.
You obviously know sweet FA what you are talking about. Amsterdam in particular were having problems with cars encroaching on public and road space and a high number of road fatalities. In the 70s, they had the “Stop the child murder” campaigns that fought for their cycle infrastructure.
Also I have 2 kids and I cycle with them 5km to school at least 3 times a week. We are not near the school, but we make it work. So again, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. “Sure beer their cars” Ok.
@John R:
I my learned friend fully understand the sheltered life of the council lifers and their lack of ambition and drive and need to conform. You perhaps sit at one of those comfortable desks yourself?
Fingal coco is the same shower who opposed the establishment of a proper mayor for Dublin. Looking after number one!
Would you like it if the council took half your back garden for a wider path? You probably wouldn’t.
If it’s a choice between that and seeing a 6 year old squished into the tarmac………..
If it was done by compulsary purchase, you’d get way over market value, so no I wouldn’t object to it, it’s a win win.
@Jimmyjoe Wallace: It’s a win win? Give it a rest Jimmyjoe. Those subjected to compulsory purchase (which is of course a necessary act) usually resent it bitterly. And they don’t get way over the market rate either. If you lost part of your small front garden to a cycle track I doubt you would be so sanguine. The motion here is well intentioned. It is simply too sweeping and as usual with the Green Party takes no account of cost and consequences. It is their usual idealism devoid of practicality and mundane matters such as cost and who will pay. But of course if you dress something as “it’s for the good of the children” all sense goes out the window.
@John R: No much better to support Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour who think “what’s good for my pockets, followed by what’s good for my buddies pockets”
@John R- are you saying that all other proposals in the County Development Plan are costed? It doesn’t matter who proposed it- there are huge cost implications for many items in the draft plan, for example, road objectives, lands zoned for housing or industry (with major infrastructure to be provided by the local authority), do you want them removed also on the same basis? Genuine question- I think there major perceptual differences in some areas- a presumption that roads projects will happen, but mad ideas like safe routes for children are deemed an encumbrance.
Pixie dust again grow up! Because people disagree with a position you demonise them and never examine the rationality of their position? If the Greens advocate change let them persuade. Many Green policies are ill thought out. It is isn’t an either or choice here. It’s a question of rationally examine what is being proposed. More cycle tracks? Yes. Green proposal ? No!
Dara but this isn’t in the county development plan and has gone through no analysis whatsoever. Our local authority system is irrational enough. Let’s not make it more so by making policy on the hoof.
John R- the motion was to be included in the development plan according to the above article- I didn’t check it beyond that to be fair, but it is apparently an attempt to include it in the CDP.
Have long ago given up on any notion that Fingal council will respond to the needs of ordinary citizens. I reckon that their main interest is in rate generating projects, to keep them going in the custom to which they believe is their entitlement.
Just to give one stark example of recent vintage, Malahide road resurfacing & new pathways provided along the section adjoining Abbeville, of CJH connection & recently acquired by a Hotel conglomerate. Yet the glaring need for similar improvements & drop zones at the nearby school & church’s opposite this section remain outstanding, despite the daily congestion & danger .
If it were not for the cost involved, I would recommend that they replace their avian logo with a blocked road drain shore in full bloom with weeds, since these are so prevalent throughout Fingal.
Barry Martin is no longer a member of PBP he ran for registered political party ‘Independents 4 Change’ in ge2016 https://dublincountyreturningofficer.com/index.php/2016-general-election/11-general-election-2016-detailed-articles/23-notice-of-poll-for-dublin-fingal
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say