Injuries on ‘optical illusion' kerb prompt Government to step in
An 'optical illusion' kerb in Belfast which had to be blocked off after pedestrians tripped over it has prompted a government intervention.
Stormont officials have commissioned consultants to rectify the paving in the city centre, after a lack of visible kerbstone edge between the pavement and a new cycle lane reportedly caused an elderly woman to misjudge her step and fall.
The cycle lane had been added to Castle Place as part of a £52,000 scheme launched by the city council and the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) in 2021.
A large 'temporary' barrier has been placed over the raised edge since January 2023, after Alice Rooney tripped over it and injured herself, knocking two teeth out in the process.
The DfI spent £11,021 on consultancy fees for the project in 2023/24, according to figures obtained by the BBC in a Freedom of Information request.
Now, Government officials are looking for a permanent solution to the trip hazard.
Roads officials said an 'optical illusion appeared to have been created when the footway was extended next to the cycle lane.'
They told BBC News Northern Ireland: 'This resulted in members of the public falling and injuring themselves.'
Local businesses have also complained of the 'eyesore' barriers that they say are impacting their trade.
As a result, the DfI has commissioned consultants to draw up more proposals to redevelop the streetscape and resolve the issues.
Cllr Gary McKeown, of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, said there had been a 'complete lack of urgency'.
'It's unbelievable that after two years and over £11,000 of public money being splashed out by the [DfI] to get some ideas about what to do, still we are stuck with big orange plastic barriers in the heart of our city centre,' he said.
'It's an absolute mess, especially when there's wind and the barriers collapse like dominoes, creating even more risk.'
He added that it was 'not acceptable that this location still looks like a building site' amid efforts to get tourists into the city.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for the DfI said: 'The department placed temporary barriers at this location in response to concerns over pedestrian and cyclist safety.
'We are currently progressing plans to enable a permanent cycle lane to be installed at this location and will be engaging with key stakeholders to discuss design proposals.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Attenborough's Ocean is the film I've been waiting my whole career for – now the world must act on its message
I have been saying this a lot recently: 'At last!' At last, a mainstream film bluntly revealing the plunder of our seas. At last, a proposed ban on bottom trawling in so-called 'marine protected areas' (MPAs). At last, some solid research on seabed carbon and the vast releases caused by the trawlers ploughing it up. But still I feel that almost everyone is missing the point. David Attenborough's Ocean film, made for National Geographic, is the one I've been waiting for all my working life. An epoch ago, when I worked in the BBC's Natural History Unit in the mid-1980s, some of us lobbied repeatedly for films like this, without success. Since then, even programmes that purport to discuss marine destruction have carefully avoided the principal cause: the fishing industry. The BBC's Blue Planet II and Blue Planet Live series exemplified the organisation's perennial failure of courage. You can see the results in public beliefs. While assessments have long shown that the primary reason for the destruction of marine life is overfishing, in a poll last year, people in the UK placed it fourth. Eating our fish dinners while shaking our heads at the state of the oceans, we have been systematically misled by those whose job is to inform us. Maybe Ocean will change that. The great public enthusiasm for the film shows, yet again, that the mantra endlessly recited by broadcasters – environmental issues turn away viewers – is false. You just have to do it, as this film does, powerfully and well. The government's announcement that trawling and scallop dredging will be banned from half of England's MPAs is welcome. But this should be seen as the very least it could do. Conservationists have been calling for years for these protected areas to be, well, protected from the major cause of destruction. While heralded as a great step forward, the new policy is actually a step back from the Tory position: the Conservatives planned 'to protect all 54 English offshore MPAs from fishing activity by the end of 2024'. It also falls far short of the call last week by the House of Commons environmental audit committee for full protection of MPAs, and the achievement of 'good environmental status' for our seas. The statutory deadline for reaching this status was 2020, but we are still nowhere near. Nor does the new policy take us anywhere close to the promise of '30x30': the protection of 30% of our land and sea by 2030. How will the government close this gap? Labour keeps slicing and dicing the problem. The new measures are intended to protect particular seabed features and particular species. But the fishing industry trashes everything. A government spokesperson told me 'a full ban across MPAs is not needed as some MPAs are designated solely for highly mobile species such as birds'. But what about mobile species such as fish? In fact, almost all marine animals, at some point in their life cycles, are highly mobile. The spokesperson said protection was needed only where particular features occurred. Why might large areas of seabed possess no valuable features? Because they have been ploughed out by trawlers. Much of the bed of the North Sea, for example, was once covered with a biotic crust of oysters and beautiful sessile animals. Now it's mostly bare mud, sand and gravel, and deemed unworthy of protection. But if boats stopped ploughing it, the crust would recover. Good environmental status requires very large areas closed to destructive fishing techniques, regardless of what currently survives there. Some of us had long speculated that trawling and dredging must release large amounts of carbon from the seabed. But data on the issue was remarkably slow in coming. Now, at last, solid research has begun, and we find that it is indeed a major problem, adding even more to the costs that the fishing industry imposes on society and the living planet. But in almost all public discussion of these issues, including Ocean, I feel the problem has been framed the wrong way round. Nearly everyone seems to agree that we should carve out some areas of sea from the fishing industry and other destructive forces. The implication is that the default state of the seas is exploitation, from which we should make exceptions. But as the marine campaigner Deborah Rowan Wright has long argued, it makes more sense to reverse this presumption. The default position should be protection, from which we might exclude some places (the least fragile) where some fishing activities (the least damaging) are permitted. Such residual fishing should be concentrated in the hands of local coastal communities, rather than captured by the huge industrial combines that, as Ocean showed, are snatching food from the people who need it most. This would cause the mother of all 'spillover effects'. Spillover is what happens when fish and shellfish are allowed to breed and grow undisturbed in protected places: in many cases, as their offspring spread into surrounding waters, total fish catches increase, even though the area in which fishing is permitted has shrunk. If killing were allowed in only a minority of places, far less fishing effort would be required to catch more and bigger fish. Even then, we should remember that fish are wildlife, not 'seafood'. They are not put on Earth for our consumption. They do not exist in 'stocks', but in populations and ecosystems. There is no such thing as 'underexploited' or 'underfished', though these terms have long featured in the lexicon of official bodies and compliant scientists. The extraordinary thing is just how tiny this industry is, yet it seems to hold the world's governments to ransom. Last month, the British government announced that it was giving £360m to the fishing industry 'to drive growth and boost the sector'. Why? The government's own figures show that fishing costs us far more than it makes: it estimates that the proposed ban on trawling in half of England's MPAs will cost UK businesses and public bodies £7.8m, while delivering 'benefits from enhanced environmental protection' of approximately £3.1bn. Why the hell should public money, withheld from public services in desperate need, be spent on fishing, the most destructive of all private industries? I've watched for 40 years as governments, protected by timid broadcasters, have wasted every opportunity to prevent ecological collapse. As they assemble in France for the UN Ocean Conference, they should pledge not to waste another day. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
Fresh ageism row for the BBC after four axed senior journalists lodge discrimination claims
FOUR senior journalists have lodged complaints with the BBC in a fresh ageism row. Their separate — but coordinated — discrimination claims come as the broadcaster merges its home and foreign newsdesks. 2 Bosses hope slashing 130 jobs will help save £700million. But the four, said to have worked in warzones and the aftermath of terror attacks, fear they have been earmarked for compulsory redundancy. Their move follows a group of BBC News presenters going to an employment tribunal over ageism allegations. Martine Croxall, Karin Giannone, Kasia Madera, and Annita McVeigh settled their three-year dispute in March, with the terms not disclosed. The latest cases involve employees aged over 50 and thought to have more than 100 years of experience between them. Sources said they believe the process of applying for the new jobs concentrates only on their work over the past two years — and so is weighted towards younger candidates. Marks were also said to be deducted if applicants failed to mention keywords such as 'digital' or 'live page'. It is reported one of the individuals is a representative of the National Union of Journalists, which has hit out at the compulsory redundancies. Last night, the BBC said: 'Restructuring in BBC News is taking place according to established BBC policies. 'We conduct all processes in a thorough and fair manner, and we are committed to supporting our staff throughout, including through comprehensive redeployment assistance.' 2
Belfast Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Martin says defamation reforms will happen ‘quickly'
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, in which he denies any involvement. Last month, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader's legal costs. At the time, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said there were 'profound' implications from the jury's decision. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could – and they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression.' Spotlight reporter Jennifer O'Leary said she had entered the witness box in the trial with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect and I want to thank them for trusting me'. The broadcaster's legal team was granted a stay in the payment of the full award as it takes time to consider an appeal. Asked if he agreed with the BBC's assessment of the case on Thursday, Taoiseach Micheal Martin said: 'I think the defamation laws need to be changed – we're going to change them.' Mr Martin said the Government would pass the legislation 'as quickly as we can' and paid tribute to Ms O'Leary. 'I think we do need to get it through to create a balanced environment for commentary and for investigative journalism.' He added: 'Jennifer O'Leary is a first-class journalist.' Among the key provisions in the Defamation Bill highlighted by government are the abolition of juries in High Court defamation actions, which is hoped to reduce delays and legal costs; and of protections against strategic lawsuits, also known as SLAPPs actions, viewed as having a chilling effect on public interest journalism and press freedom. The draft laws also include a statutory power for the Circuit Court to issue a 'Norwich Pharmacal' order, allowing a digital services provider to identify an anonymous poster of defamatory statements online. Mr Martin, who took legal action against Google at the High Court for information about who had financed fake ads which claimed he had endorsed specific cryptocurrencies, added: 'We've published heads of the bill, and (Justice Minister Jim) O'Callaghan is going to proceed, we're going to do it in this Government.'
