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.
LAST UPDATE | 6 Nov 2019
DOZENS OF CYCLISTS gathered outside the Dáil today for a ‘die in’ – the second day of protests to highlight the dangers of cycling in Dublin.
Traffic was brought to a halt for 15 minutes on Kildare Street earlier this afternoon as cyclists staged the latest demonstration in a week of protests calling on the government to fund better cycling infrastructure in Dublin.
Yesterday, nearly 100 cyclists staged a similar protest outside Dublin City Council’s offices at Wood Quay.
The action, organised by I Bike Dublin, comes following the death of a cyclist Neeraj Jain last Friday after he was struck by a lorry on the South Circular Road in Dublin. More action is planned in the coming days.
Today’s demonstration saw cyclists lie down in the middle of the road, alongside their bikes, bringing the busy intersection to a brief standstill. Cyclists in the city have long demanded government action to make them safer on Irish roads.
A spokesperson for the Department of Transport said that Shane Ross, the Minister for Transport, “deeply regrets the tragic death of Neeraj Jain and passes on his deep condolences to the cyclist’s family”.
“He is committed to reducing the number of fatalities on our roads involving cyclists. He will implement changes to make it a separate offence to dangerously overtake a pedal cyclist,” the spokesperson said.
The numbers of people cycling into Dublin city centre has almost doubled from 6,870 in 2011 to over 12,000 in 2018, according to National Transport Authority (NTA) figures.
The NTA has previously acknowledged that more needs to be done to make cycling safer.
Addressing the crowd today, Lucille Redmond said that cyclists were “here today to demand that the government and councils build safe, protected roads for people to cycle in Dublin and in Ireland”.
As traffic stopped and dozens of cyclists lay on the street in front of her, Redmond read out a list of 16 people killed cycling on Irish roads.
“These were ordinary people. Their deaths were an ordinary part of Irish life.This should not be so. The deaths have gone on and on in the years since then,” she said.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, Ciarán Ferrie, said that the last week’s death had “galvanised” the cycling community.
“During the tenure of this government there have been 40 people killed on Irish roads while cycling and the government is not taking it seriously,” he said. “Nothing has been done.”
The group is calling for 20% of the the Department of Transport’s land transport budget to go towards cycling and walking infrastructure.
“People driving buses, trucks and cars don’t want to be interacting with people cycling and we don’t want to be interacting with them either. Safe cycling infrastructure will save lives,” Ferrie said.
Neil Fox, whose sister was killed in a collision in Dublin’s north inner city in 2016, wrote in a blog post ahead of the ‘die in’ that he was in “total solidarity” with protesters. He said he was calling “on the government as ever, to wake up, to do whatever possible to curb such carnage”.
Green Party deputy leader Catherine Martin, speaking to TheJournal.ie at the protest, said that the issue has been “neglected” by the government.
“Our cyclists are dying on the streets, most recently last week, because of the consistent lack of investment in safe cycling infrastructure,” she said.
“This needs to be prioritised.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Great initiative. The more tax a worker pays in the more they get out. Moving from the ‘one size fits all’ social welfare approach is a good thing.
@Fionn Darland: good idea but it should be based on time, not money! Otherwise it just drives poverty.
There are also other factors like age (easy) and location (not so easy).
It’s a good idea but it needs to be well thought through!
@Gus McIntosh: great point on time being more of a factor. That said it does take away from the “more in, more out” type of social contract. So long as a CEO on the dole does not get 200 times the average payment it will be a step on the right direction.
@Dennis Laffey: yes, and in fairness, people from better paid jobs tend to have bigger bills so, indeed, money needs to be a factor also. It’s a tricky calculation.
@Dennis Laffey: why not, if the ceo has paid 200 times tax than the average
@Gus McIntosh: Why age? Do you think someone that is 25 won’t have the same outgoings as someone that’s 40 or 60?
@Tony Humphreys: because ppl only care about what those with big incomes recieve not what they pay. Number of ppl used to complain about Michael oleary getting child benefit being a prime example. Prob paid more in tax each morning but never mentioned just how unfair the 140 a month was!!
@Simon Carroll: Age would only come into it if time came into it. As in, an older person should not get more because they have worked more. It would have to be relative!
@Sarah Cullen: No, it’s because there is a finite pot for unemployment benefits and in a period of high unemployment, that pot is less than in normal times as tax receipts are lower.
If it is split pro rata on income tax paid per individual, you would have hard working people left without enough to live on.
Plus, a privileged upbringing is more likely to set you on a path towards high earnings. Employment contacts, expensive training (think pilot for example), university, etc are benefits not easily realised by working class people.
It’s a good idea, but it’s a complicated one.
@Fionn Darland: So, someone who has worked in a minimum wage job for 15 years would get less while someone who was earning fifty thousand a year for seven years is entitled to more – I don’t see any fairness in that.
@Gus McIntosh: I think it’s fair to say there has never been as much support available for people who wish to attend further education. Not every company charges for pilot training one can do it with an agreement to stay in the company for x amount of years. Either way I don’t agree with your sensationalist comment that hard working people would be left without enough money to live on thus inferring that everyone should be on the lowest rate without enough money to live on to be fair to everyone. How is it fair if someone pays 10k a month in income tax for 40 years and is made redundant at the end of their working life and receives the basic rate? This system has been proven to encourage people to earn as much as they possibly can thus increasing the employment rate etc versus the old system in Ireland where some people were actually better off on benefits.
@Sarah Cullen: we’re talking about someone who pays 200x the tax of another receiving 200x the benefits of another. If the top 10% of earners pay roughly 70% of income tax, this argument is suggesting that 90% of people who lose their jobs would be entitled to 30% of the pot (assuming job losses are a consistent spread across the earning spectrum). This would undoubtedly reduce the benefits for minimum wagers to a level that would not support them. I don’t see that as sensationalist.
I am agreeing it is a good idea, and I admit the sums above are a bit simple, but it needs some thought otherwise it could have some pretty negative affects.
As for people from privileged upbringings having a better chance in life to earn well, I don’t think this can be argued.
@Gus McIntosh: No, you simply get a percentage of your last salary before you became unemployed for a certain amount of time. The can work won’t work crowd gets the minimum. There’s nothing unfair about that and it should be applied to the d age contributory pension as well.
@Fionn Darland: “The more tax a worker pays in the more they get out” It’s just a pity that the people who made this rule aren’t subject to it.
I was made redundant in September after 17 years in a company. I didn’t qualify for the bonus at Christmas because I was on the payment less than four months. Someone that never bothered working did get a bonus.. that really says it all about the system!
Oh and I started a new job two weeks ago.
@Tom Kelly: best of luck in the new job Tom
@Tom Kelly: but your forgetting people on pup got it even after couple weeks there are people still on pup that had jobs to go back to but getting more on pup yet someone who worked for years and made redundant getting less then the student who works less then 12 hours a week or the part time worker
@Tom Kelly: water under the bridge enjoy the new start, dont know how people don’t want to work
@nelliekel: great students got a few quid ,they’ll look back as pensioners ,with great stories, how bad, they are meant to enjoy this time in their life
@thomas mitchell: I agree. Students deserve it. The PUP scheme finally rewarded the workers. Students parents struggling to get them through college. Also, students will pay this back when they start working too. And their education is in tatters, their social lives non existant. This is a time they should be meeting future husbands/wives. What will the phychological cost be.
Great idea
@Lorrimore: I agree. It is a great idea. A little more for people who have worked all their lives and were unfortunate to lose their job. However, should the pendulum not swing both ways? Perhaps look at something to discourage long term unemployment? Is it credible that a person is unemployed for 20 or 30 years?
@Patrick J. Keating: Totally agree – anyone on Jobseekers Payment for a number of years obviously has no intention of getting a job and should not be given any Jobseekers payment.
@Patrick J. Keating: totally agree. My father worked all of his life, mostly self employed, although not profitably and only qualifies for partial pension. Fella down the road who never worked a day in his life gets full pension!
@Patrick J. Keating: only catch I see is that it looks to be earnings based, not on longevity. Someone who has worked every day of their life on a low wage would likely not receive anything other than basic social. People should definitely be rewarded for their efforts to stay off the dole. I ended up on it once for a little over a year, and I was spoken to like I was dirt, yet others can sit on it their whole lives and it’s fine.
@Katie Wrest: good point ,working is a self respect thing I know some people who work that are not much better off than those that are on the dole but there are genuine cases where people are drawing the scratcher especially at the moment
@Patrick J. Keating: Free education to people struggling to find work. Attendance and gaining a qualification should be required to retain payment for a specific period. However employers must offer proper terms and conditions . 20 to 30 hour contracts and casual hours are driving poverty. So the working poor need to be helped aswell
@Lorrimore: when PRSI was introduced in the 70s, benefits were supposed to be pay related not just deductions. It was one of the austerity budgets of the late 70s that removed the payment aspects, I’m sure as a short term measure at the time. But like the USC, it became permanent. Any future changes would quickly be reversed as soon as we hit the next bump in the road.
@Elaine Fagan: very true. Everyone knows there are vast swathes of locations were the ambition is to get on the most benefits in the shortest amount of time. Free gaffe, med card kiddies allowance. Sorted everything they “earn” after that is in the hand.. Unreal
@Elaine Fagan: help with education and training (to a point) though. I was unemployed for just over a year a few years back and spent the whole time studying at my own expense so that I could find employment in a new industry.
More support for employers to provide work placements too. I have gotten two jobs in new areas through work placements after getting caught in the “must have X amount of experience” trap. How am I supposed to get this magical experience if nobody will give me a job?
@place pages: No such thing as “free gaffes” they pay rent based on their income whether they are employed or not, also every child has childrens allowance paid out to their parents for them, as for medical card, even employed people under a certain income get a medical card, hap has a cut off of 35k per year for single persons so they’re not all spongers as you infer
Government expects some in opposition parties to oppose this new scheme. For one they would want to be mad to oppose it and two Leo is all talk and finger pointing. Put the scheme into action first and see how the opposition parties react. I agree that your social welfare should be judged on your past contributions. And so should sick pay, €203 per week after decades of contributions is just a smack in the face of honest hard working people who happen to fall ill long term.
@IAmSCozzie: Despite the proposal being sensible, logical and fair I’m sure some of the opposition will twist it to make out that it’s oppressive.
Brilliant. Wait for the bleeding hearts on the left to claim this is discrimination.
@Bleurgh: no doubt Mary Lou will use her catchphrase, “it doesn’t go far enough”.
Good man Leo. About time the state recognised people who get up early in the morning.
I feel like this is discrimination towards Sinn Fein supporters
@Ned Gerblansky: Don’t forget People Before Profit!
@Ned Gerblansky: Mr generalisation here really doesn’t get it
About time
If a person who has been gainfully employed all their working lifes (say 40 years paying in to the system) and is laid off permanently in their early to mid 60s due to company reorganisation re corvid I think the best solution is to give them the option of taking their full pension early .
Give long term unemployed food vouchers and roof over there head why should people who don’t work hard get handed so much money every week it’s just ridiculous. These are the same people getting brand new houses from the government and never worked a day in there lifes. All for rewarding hard working people but equally something has to be done for the long term unemployed. Maybe give them jobs around there location cleaning up rubbish on the road or something along those line.
Finally something that makes sense. Next thing is removing the requirement to stay in Irelabd for those receiving unemployment benefits.
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: if you’re talking about holidays or something, sure. People should be free to use it as they deem fit. If you’re talking about claiming while not living in Ireland, absolutely not.
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: You receive payment for holidays, outside the country for longer you are not looking for work you don’t qualify.
Like child benifit for children living in a different county.
Pure scams
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: people can move within the EU while holding the unemployment payment for six months after this time the unemployment payment is transferred to the country where the person has lived the six months.
The residency status is gained in six months. Meaning that to make any claim here you need to live six months here before being entitled to, unless you hold Irish citizenship.
You only need to request the transference to another EU country to the social welfare. Once is granted you can leave and then do the paperwork in the other country social welfare
This has existed since the creation of the EU and it’s to facilitate the movement of workers seeking for work. People normally got a job in less of six months so
@Aranthos Faroth: if payments are based on insured contributions people should be free to use them how and from where they see fit. Payments are time-bound anyway and dependant on contributions, plus you can look from work from anywhere. Not that this should be a requirement. This is how it is done in many places accross Europe
This is what we used to have! It was called Pay Related Social Insurance and your benefit started at 75 percent of your previous earnings and dropped after 6 months- it was the politicians that changed it to one size fits all
@John Lyons: that sounds a very fair system, but fairness is no longer part of politics
Was there not something similar years ago. Unemployment benefit if you found yourself newly unemployed and had enough stamps, then you went on unemployment assistance, assistance was if you hadn’t enough stamps. The benefit was paid slightly higher.
@Sue OB: yes there was a benefit payment but it was the same amount as to other payment €203
A long overdue reform, many other countries operate a contribution based welfare system, offers a true safety net for those want to work and lose their jobs, whilst not encouraging welfare as a way of life.
€2 for the lazy
The blueshirts had their lackeys lined up and ready to go this morning. The spin unit is still in existence, bleeding the country. People with soft hands and big mouths who haven’t a clue what real work is.
@Jointheclubtoo: Tell us, o wise one, for what is ‘real work’?
The “left” socialist politicians will likely resist this. We know why. The government should commit to it and plough on.
@Nedwerd: Why?
There was a similar scheme in the 70′s and 80′s
All sounded great until I read “a little bit extra” typical. If they moved to the German model and pay like 60% of salary for sat 3-6 months to help someone get back on their feet it’s just lip service as usual. It’s just not right that people who paid in much more than long term unemployed get “a little bit extra”.
Ill believe it if i see it, but more like another pr spin opportunity from the master spinner. How many times is he allowed to fly this kite, that has been flown since 2017 ?
Ill be in line to congratulate the man if it ever happens, but if it doesn’t will just add it to all his other failed deliveries.
The great reset
Anyone else hot an amended tax cert today?? Mine says as we are a joint tax (married) and my wifes on pup we owe €3600 tax for the year on her €18200 payments if she was to stay on it for the year, fair enough, so they reduced our tax credits to get this money back, but they also reduced my tax band before i go into the 40% bracket by the €18200, so now im having to pay 40% tax on this pup payment even though they’ve taken tax credits off me to cover the tax……my heads pickled for last 5hrs trying to work this out,
@rolyat ecnal: I’d suggest you all check your tax credits…this is alot worse than i thought
This is a good idea and the way it works on h the continent. It’s the way it should work too as designed. Pay in, take out. PRSI pretends it’s an insurance policy.
This is risky, may be Pandora’s box. Now going forward there may be little push to increase the standard rate with inflation as many in decent employment continue to get theirs as a % of salary, driving up inequality.
@Shannon Butler: And why should the welfare system not reward those who’ve paid in for years over those who could have done the same but wouldn’t ?
Thought through in many countries, America, New Zealand, Australia. Get 80 percent of your wages for so many months. Crazy it’s not here already. Making a thousand a week and lose your job get 200 paying 500 to 600 hundred a week in tax more even. Its a well implemented system in a lot of countries in Europe aswell.
Time to introduce a universal health care system. The norm in Europe too.
A great idea absolutely no denying it but are student nurses being paid for rushing their lives yet while it’s being considered?
@Oisín Neary: risking*
One year later? People can’t pay there bills due to how the current system is working, while many many young people are gaining hugely, it’s so wrong and still has t been rectified one year on!
have your say