Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why 30 km/h speed limits are important in the context of Jake's Legacy vigil

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    jwwb
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭jwwb


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No they're not, people can still be prosecuted for careless driving, you don't have to be speeding to be careless or inattentive

    But only after the event. The event being sending a child to the morgue.


  • Options
    #33
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No they're not, people can still be prosecuted for careless driving, you don't have to be speeding to be careless or inattentive

    Careless driving is a lot harder to prove and, even if it was not, it's out of the fixed penalty system so it's a drain on police and court resources.


  • Options
    #34
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    I was talking about their driving not their social status.

    People speed in housing estates, that's my point.


  • Options
    #35
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    I'm sorry for this family's loss (and indeed anyone who's lost a loved one to the roads) but more nanny state-ism and motorist scapegoating is not the answer.

    The calls to lower limits/put in more speed ramps and such is another example of the "can't someone else do it" approach to personal responsibility that has become the norm in our "modern" society.

    Instead of parents teaching their kids to be careful around cars and on roads (as we were taught when we were kids and indeed as I'm already teaching my own little fella) and watching them as they're out playing, now the idea seems to be to shift that responsibility entirely to the passing motorist. It's a bit like how many parents nowadays plonk their kids in front of the TV/XBox and expect the schools to do the rest.

    And before the pedantry starts, no I'm not excusing people speeding through estates, but this seems like another knee-jerk reaction that won't make a blind bit of difference to the actual root cause of the problem - namely parents having kids that they aren't ready/prepared to look after properly.




    Three pages on this topic already, a lot of it the usual ill-informed stuff trotted out whenever proposals such as lower speed limits are proposed, so much as I'd like to I will not be able to respond to all the points raised.

    In terms of what makes effective policy in the area of public health and safety, education targeted at individuals comes a poor second to engineering and enforcement measures that lower population risk.

    If you want to see how hard it is to educate, just look at the ignorance displayed in numerous threads and posts on the issue of speed in the Motors forum. Most of the posters will be licensed drivers and so will have passed a test or two, yet they are still clueless about the established facts and their implications. Not only that, but many such posters are convinced that the biggest problem on Irish roads is the ignorance of other drivers.

    Yet here we are again, with (some) motorists seeing little children's supposed lack of education as being the real problem.

    This is why engineering (the setting of appropriately low speed limits and physical restraints on motor vehicle speed) and enforcement (the imposition of speed limits, fixed speed cameras, police presence, regular surveys etc) are required, because many motorists simply cannot be educated enough. In this regard wilful or innate ignorance among adult drivers matters little, because when they are physically prevented from driving too fast for the conditions (eg in a residential area where children are playing) and run the risk of Penalty Points, fines, disqualification and/or a prison sentence, the message will get through sooner or later, somehow or other.

    Traffic circumstances must be adapted to the needs of children, older people and such vulnerable road users, not the other way round. There is absolutely no justification for failing to curb the real source of the danger, which is motor vehicles.

    Unfortunately, in order to have much-needed legislation enacted AND implemented, decision-makers in national and local government will have to be educated, and if they can't or won't be educated then they must be forced to act. In the ten years since the enabling legislation was passed in 2004, local authorities have implemented a 30 km/h speed limit on a total of just 1% of the country's local and residential roads. Assuming the target is 100% of suitable roads, it will take another 900 years for them to complete the job at that pace. That's not nanny-statism or anything near it. It's incompetence and negligence on a nation-wide scale.


  • Options
    #36
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Aard wrote: »
    People speed in housing estates, that's my point.

    And they will still do it regardless of any new laws.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    How do you get that? There's always a possibility depending on where on the body the victim is hit but the likelihood of death increases dramatically with the increase in speed as shown in the stats you were quoting - which by the way are in mph not kmh.

    the possibility is zero if a child doesn't run in-between cars or play on a road.


  • Options
    #38
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    the possibility is zero if a child doesn't run in-between cars or play on a road.

    Don't you mean exist in the first place?

    The likelihood of injury rather than death are hugely increased by a reduction in speed.


  • Options
    #39
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    "Mind that child" the signs say.
    Would be nice if their parents did as the sign says also.


  • Options
    #40
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    I'd bet my bottom dollar that given the circumstance of a cyclist hitting a child or a child causing the cyclist to head butt the floor they'd be all over parental responsibility like a rash


  • Options
    #41
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    And they will still do it regardless of any new laws.

    You're right and this is a huge problem. Unfortunately it will take a lot of time, money, and persuasion for 70's housing estate typologies to be retrofitted with appropriate speeding-discouraging designs. I don't think having a sign with "30 km/h" is going to change behaviour on its. Maybe there are some other solutions that are not very expensive that could discourage speeding. Strategic, targeted changes could help -- for example reducing corner radii to make crossing the road easier at T-junctions (often an afterthought in housing estates from that era).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    was it established what speed the driver was going at the time of the collision?


  • Options
    #43
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I'd bet my bottom dollar that given the circumstance of a cyclist hitting a child or a child causing the cyclist to head butt the floor they'd be all over parental responsibility like a rash

    This is trolling as it's distracting from the topic at hand and there's already cycling mega thread if you want to randomly interject with your latest or repeated views on cycling or cyclists.

    You've been warned more than a few times on your obsessive focus on cyclists in threads which are not about cycling, as well as those which are.

    -- moderator
    the groutch wrote: »
    was it established what speed the driver was going at the time of the collision?

    We're really not getting into this as there's no info as to whether there's any legal action is being taken.

    -- moderator


  • Options
    #44
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Considering the OP is by the chairperson of Cycling Ireland I hardly think it's trolling, perhaps you should indicate to him that there is a cyclist megathread rather than using your catch all your trolling comments.

    With that I'll bid you good day in this particular thread


  • Options
    #45
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Considering the OP is by the chairperson of Cycling Ireland I hardly think it's trolling, perhaps you should indicate to him that there is a cyclist megathread rather than using your catch all your trolling comments.

    With that I'll bid you good day in this particular thread

    We're bidding Spook_ie good day and good month from not just this thread, but from Commuting and Transport.

    Note to others and Spook_ie when he gets over his ban:

    The identity of any poster does not make it a free-for-all for trolling threads with random off-topic rants.

    Some posters think this is ok with cycling to derail threads with randomness and others think it's ok with derail public transport threads with things like their grievances over free passes etc -- no such grievances make it ok to derail threads with wildly off-topic comments, which amounts to trolling.

    Spook_ie has been warned about this before but he was let off with just a warning. However, his replying to moderation on top of that warning cannot be tolerated -- he knows that such is strictly not allowed.

    -- moderation


  • Options
    #46
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,770 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    the inquest hasn't been held, we don't know what speed Jake was hit at, whether speed or lack of speed ramps were a factor. I don't really want to speculate, but then its been made into campaign issue, related to Jake Brennan but without facts. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/donohoe-accepts-20km-h-residential-limit-in-principle-1.2107587#.VOSc14TCvmk.twitter the Minister says he going to give the _option_ of 20kmph limits


  • Options
    #47
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Nekarsulm wrote: »
    Gotta be a great result for GoSafe. Park a van and pick off motorists speeding at 21 or 16 KPH. Rich pickings.......

    Your user name triggered my irony detection system. Neckarsulm is a town in south-western Germany so I googled "neckarsulm verkehrsberuhigte bereich"

    = neckarsulm traffic calming

    I got this as the top link - its a page on Shopping (and car parking) in Neckarsulm.

    http://www.neckarsulm-erleben.de/main/anfahrtparkencityapp/browse/1.html
    Bitte beachten Sie: Der innere Bereich der Innenstadt ist eine "Blaue Zone" mit Parkscheibenpflicht und eine 30 km/h-Zone bzw. zum Teil eine 7 km/h-"verkehrsberuhigte Zone"."

    Roughly translated
    Please be aware: The inner town centre is a "blue zone" with disk parking and a 30km/h speed limit. In part a traffic-calmed zone with a speed limit of 7km/h

    Yes that is speed limit of 7km/h.

    Germany likely has thousands of, mainly residential, zones where a speed limit of "Schritttempo" - literally walking speed - applies.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schritttempo

    When some Irish people complain about even the idea of 30km/h zones not to mind more stringent measures it is hard not cringe with embarrassment.

    Edit: and before anyone decides to kick off. Yes - it does apply to cyclists as well.


  • Options
    #48
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    OK, I'm going to add some fuel to the fire.

    If our housing estates were properly designed, with ADEQUATE parking on the site of the houses for vehicles, (Plural) rather than on the road outside the property, the roads would be a lot safer, as there wouldn't be cars for kids to run through the gaps between and into the path of vehicles that can't see those kids, and maybe those same kids would learn to associate roads with moving vehicles rather than them being linear car parks that also have some moving traffic.

    Another issue that is down to design is the absence of open spaces on those same estates for children to play safely on, and that does not mean a small piece of open ground surrounded on 3 sides by feeder roads that are also linear car parks.

    Another help would be if the consequences of an accident for the driver were to be significant. Most of the time, even when a serious accident occurs, the driver of the vehicle is still going to be driving, and is unlikely to be penalised for (often) their stupidity. If there was a real risk of being taken off the road for a prolonged period of time, maybe some people would actually think about the way that they drive, but there are so few disqualifications for the people that cause accidents, there is no real worry about the causing of that accident in the first place.

    For speed limits to be effective, they have to be appropriate, there are way too many places around here that have limits that have nothing to do with road safety, and everything to do with enabling yet more planning approvals for industrial unit type development on what used to be a safe road at 100 Kph. Where the problems will come will be on roads that are not residential as such, but are feeder roads for multiple estates. Do they also have 30 Kph speed limits? If they do, it's going to take for ever to get to and from the Motorways and N roads, and there's no guarantee that the N roads won't end up with low limits on them as well. The thought of trying to get across Dublin at 30 Kph will be enough to persuade me that it's not worth going there in the first place, it's bad enough now with the higher speed limits that are in place, if most of Dublin inside of the M50 has 30 Kph speed limits, which could happen given the way that councils operate these days, it won't be a pleasant place to go any more.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #49
    mrbike
    Registered Users Posts: 110 ✭✭mrbike


    Irish Steve wrote: »
    The thought of trying to get across Dublin at 30 Kph will be enough to persuade me that it's not worth going there in the first place... it won't be a pleasant place to go any more.

    It would be a lot more pleasant for the people that actually live in Dublin though.


  • Options
    #50
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    expectationlost wrote: »
    The inquest hasn't been held, we don't know what speed Jake was hit at, whether speed or lack of speed ramps were a factor.

    I don't really want to speculate, but then its been made into campaign issue, related to Jake Brennan but without facts. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/donohoe-accepts-20km-h-residential-limit-in-principle-1.2107587#.VOSc14TCvmk.twitter the Minister says he going to give the _option_ of 20kmph limits

    Probably the most troubling aspect of this for me,is the "campaign" element...something just is'nt sitting well about it.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #51
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Don't you mean exist in the first place?

    The likelihood of injury rather than death are hugely increased by a reduction in speed.

    I think you know what i said.

    The chances of not being burnt is increased if you dont put your hand in the fire .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    How is this going to be policed exactly does anybody know .
    Just more road signs to be installed or will there be a concerted effort to reduce speeds.
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #53
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    mrbike wrote: »
    It would be a lot more pleasant for the people that actually live in Dublin though.

    I wonder if the companies in Dublin that will lose my business will agree with you.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #54
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,770 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    ye wonder about these kind of headlines

    Jake's Law set to become a reality after government say they won't oppose bill
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/jakes-law-set-to-become-a-reality-after-government-say-they-wont-oppose-bill-30999490.html

    and mary lou mcdonald for introducing the bill, although she's points out not opposing doesn't mean that much

    Mary Lou McDonald @MaryLouMcDonald · Feb 17
    Proud to Introduce #JakesLaw in Dáil at 7.30PM. Glad govt won't oppose. Now they must move to positive support - there is a difference!
    https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/567714119487610881

    "In respect of setting mandatory speed limits for residential roads, the statement added that 'the difficulty lies in being able to legally define what exactly a residential road is.

    "In many instances, residential roads are also major traffic thoroughfares such as James Street on the south side of Dublin city and Church Street on the northside, and it may not be appropriate to designate these as 20 or 30km/hr zones.

    the bill doesn't conflict with this.
    “Housing estate” means an area consisting of a self-contained group of dwellings with a
    single or multiple entry points for mechanically propelled vehicles.
    “Residential road” means a road, whether public or private, within an area defined as a
    housing estate.


    perhaps the debate will highlight the slowness of the councils to implement the 30kph option already there and not taken up by mos ouncils

    the transcript from first night of debate https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-02-17a.486&s=speaker%3A42#g494



    the bill btw http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/1115/b1115d.pdf .pdf


  • Options
    #55
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,770 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/26/road-safety-authority-fails-to-act-on-its-2010-plan-for-lower-speed-limits/

    A spokesman for Cosain said: “The Department of Transport survey found that, ten years after the enabling legislation was introduced, just 1.4% of housing estates outside the capital have a 30 km/h speed limit
    Road Traffic Act 2004
    Special speed limits
    9.—    (1) A county council or a city council may make bye-laws (“special speed limit bye-laws”) specifying in respect of any specified public road or specified part of a public road or specified carriageway or lane of a public road within its administrative area the speed limit (“special speed limit”) which shall be the speed limit on that road or those roads for mechanically propelled vehicles.
    (2) The special speed limits that may be specified in bye-laws under this section are—

    (a) 30 kilometres per hour, which shall only be applied in respect of a road or roads (other than a motorway) in accordance with guidelines issued by the Minister under this section,
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/sec0009.html#sec9

    Minister Donohoe issues Local Authority circular requiring examination of speed limits in residential areas and housing estates
    Wednesday 15 October 2014
    http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2014/minister-donohoe-issues-local-authority-circular-requiring-examination-speed
    National review will determine if appropriate speed limits are in place, especially where children are at play

    there own survey shows how little it was implemented http://www.dttas.ie/roads/publications/english/dttas-speed-ramp-survey-and-30km-speed-limit-implementation-local-areas after ten years maybe a bit more legislation is needed on the implementation side


  • Options
    #56
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    I think you know what i said.

    The chances of not being burnt is increased if you dont put your hand in the fire .

    Ah yes a common argument (in Ireland). It ascribes an adult understanding of adult behaviour to small children in their home environment (eg outside their front door)

    There is another group of adults who like to explain their behaviour by ascribing adult understanding to children in their interpersonal relationships. Some of these adults, despite their reliance on such explanations, find themselves on the sex offenders register.



    Morally speaking is there really any difference in either case? In both cases we have adults who wish to behave in a particular manner for their own personal self gratification. In one case it is the gratification of a "right" to drive at a certain speed. In other cases it is a "right" to indulge other "needs". In both cases the rights of children are seen as subordinate to the "desires" of certain adults.

    Oh what a gift to gie us......


  • Options
    #57
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Ah yes a common argument (in Ireland). It ascribes an adult understanding of adult behaviour to small children in their home environment (eg outside their front door)

    There is another group of adults who like to explain their behaviour by ascribing adult understanding to children in their interpersonal relationships. Some of these adults, despite their reliance on such explanations, find themselves on the sex offenders register.

    Morally speaking is there really any difference in either case? In both cases we have adults who wish to behave in a particular manner for their own personal self gratification. In one case it is the gratification of a "right" to drive at a certain speed. In other cases it is a "right" to indulge other "needs". In both cases the rights of children are seen as subordinate to the "desires" of certain adults.

    Oh what a gift to gie us......

    Look, this is also trolling* -- it's going way to far comparing drivers to sex offenders. Even if you think you have a valid comparison, it'll just make others see red.

    Note: He's getting a warning just as Spook_ie did, if he also follows that up by replying to moderation in-thread he'll also get a ban (although likely a shorter one because unlikely the other poster he has not been warned about this a number of times before in C&T).

    -- moderator

    * at least one person expressed shock that I said Spook_ie was trolling -- as has been explained before, moderators when moderating are not bound by the not calling posts or posters trolling/trolls... often explaining why people are being sanctioned is a normal part of moderation so it's made clear to the poster and everybody else at the same time what's going on.


  • Options
    #58
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,719 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    So it seems the Government have decided to leave this at the discretion of the local authorities
    The Road Traffic amendment bill was debated in the Dáil this week.
    However, yesterday Minister Paschal Donohoe told the family that he will leave the discretion with local authorities to decide speed limits in their catchment areas.

    Some will no doubt feel this is a cop-out but it's the right decision IMO. If there's a legitimate cause to lower a limit then the authority should do so (maybe a petition by a majority of local residents or something), but a blanket reduction would never have worked or been appropriate

    Making laws as a knee-jerk response to something (no matter how sad the circumstances of that incident) is never good. Look at the still ongoing rumbles over abortion for example.


  • Options
    #59
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    Not wishing to turn this into a political debate but will sf jump on anything populist to win a few votes.? Won't somebody please think of the children type stuff. And she has some neck making a snipe about moving from non opposition to support of a bill when sf abstained from voting on Claire dalys bill just two weeks ago in fear of rocking the boat.

    Anyway, 30km/hr is totally unenforceable, sure even the current speed limits are suggestions at this stage as there are so few guards around. The gosafe vans are a bit more visible but I don't really see them setting up in housing estates to monitor people coming and going from their driveways.


  • Options
    #60
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    I think you know what i said.

    The chances of not being burnt is increased if you dont put your hand in the fire .

    Ok so lets come at this from a different direction. A fire is a thing it has no understanding. It is not over 17 and it has not passed a driving test.

    A fire cannot be expected to modify its own behaviour in response to others. So we modify the environment to control the fire. I don't know of anyone who allows unsupervised open fires in the presence of children who are too young to understand the danger. If we do allow such a situation and a child gets injured then the fault is not with the child.

    In other environments where children and adults routinely mix the adults are expected to modify their behaviour to take account. If an adult is in a supermarket they just don't barge down other peoples children with their trolleys if they get in the way. The adults conduct themselves in a manner that takes account of children.

    But if I understand your "fire" argument correctly, we are expected to understand that once an adult gets into a car those rules of conduct are turned on their head. Now it is the children who are expected to understand the adult and modify their behaviour to take account of the adult. The adding of a car means the adult is no longer has to expect child-like behaviour from children in locations like housing estates?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    In other environments where children and adults routinely mix the adults are expected to modify their behaviour to take account. ......

    The adults conduct themselves in a manner that takes account of children.


    No, lets look at it from another perspective, and this is an example also from "real life",

    If I am sitting in a coffee shop with my wife, I don't expect to have to tolerate feral kids coming up to my table and mixing salt with the sugar while the parents are sitting a few tables away and trying to ignore completely what their kids are doing. The parents should be monitoring what their offspring are doing, and ENFORCING acceptable behaviour from them.

    Let's go back to the topic again.

    There are much wider issues around the whole aspect of modern estate design. Some of the older estates, (parts of Crumlin for example) and some of the most recent tiger estates have totally inadequate parking for the number of vehicles that have to be accommodated on them, in the local area, I can think of 2 modern estates that are in that category, there's one in Balbriggan (Bremore Castle) and one in Ratoath (Steeplechase) where there is no way that even 20 Kph is safe, because the design is so darn dangerous. Then there are estates where 50 Kph is safe because there is visibility, and space. A ons size fits all blanket limit concept is just not going to work.

    There are issues with this whole concept of lower speed limits. People have been saying "ahh but you'll only have to travel a few hundred metres and you'll be out of the 30 limit".

    If only it were that simple, there are huge chunks of Dublin that are "residential", but the road is wide, and an N road, and carries significant volumes of traffic. Those roads are open and used 24 hours a day, are we going to be limited to 30, (or even worse 20) Kph at 0200 when there's next to no traffic on the road, and there should not be ANY children out playing on those roads. Are we saying that because we now have "low" speed limits on the roads, it's free game for children to play on the main N roads that serve the city, and that are carrying buses and heavy goods vehicles? If we are, then the lunatics truly are running the asylum.

    I have no issues with driving at an appropriate speed in high density residential areas, where there can be children playing, and no problem with "taking it handy" through places where (because of appallingly bad design) there are rows of parked cars nose to tail with no clear visibility of what's going on the other side of those cars, and the roads are so narrow, there's no way to leave a safety gap between my moving vehicle and the unending line of parked cars that are next to me. That's bad design, as is the idea that parking should be on the road rather than on the site of the house, as is the problem of pavements with a grass strip between them and the road, which only serves to reduce the cost to the developer of building the roads, they are narrower so don't need as much material to construct.

    We're already way over regulated with speed limits, and if we are going to get into the scenario of having to erect massive numbers of new speed limit signs, that's going to make the streetscape even more cluttered, untidy, and unpleasant, and make it even harder to concentrate on what's moving on the road in front of us.

    How about a change in the emphasis. Speed guidelines in the Rules of the Road, and a change to legislation that makes it much simpler to allocate "blame" for accidents where speed, regardless of the "limit" is a contributory factor. So, on a dry day, with no fog, 50 Kph on a reasonable feeder road may well be completely appropriate, but on a frosty morning with fog, 20 Kph may well be more in line with safety, and if an accident occurs, then being "under the limit" will not be a defence. On that basis, at 0200, 50 Kph is not an issue, but at 1510 when the school has just chucked out, 10 Kph may well be too fast, regardless of what road it is, and where, so a school on a (former) N road in the middle of nowhere could still see traffic being appropriately speed reduced at critical times.

    In passing, that concept also can then apply to the insane scenario where there are country boreens that have (in theory) an 80 Kph speed limit, but a realistic safe speed is probably nearer 40.

    Having said that, we also have to address the issues of teachers who encourage children to ignore lights at crossings, in order to keep the group together, as all that is doing is encouraging them from a very early age that "the rules don't apply to me, I'm special and can ignore them", and that's being done by a person "in authority". It's a short step then to ignoring red lights when they graduate to bikes, and then to cars, they've been encouraged to do it from an early age.

    It's a requirement now for formal lessons before taking the test, so how about we also introduce a change in the way that persistent speed offenders are dealt with, by disqualifying them from driving until they pass a test again, including the theory side of things, maybe even with some extra awareness mandatory lessons, along the lines of the alcohol awareness programs that run in the States. In the same way, the driving test concept of failing for "not making adequate progress" needs to be reassessed.

    I will never forget a trial lesson I did in Navan on an HGV (for the C test), and the instructor complained at me for "slowing down too early for a turn", to which my reply was "I didn't slow down for the turn, I slowed down for the speed limit sign I'd just passed". I didn't do any more lessons with that school!

    Driving is not an automatic right, it's a skill that has to be learnt, practised and developed, and if we have significant numbers of drivers using the roads that are unable to drive in a sensible and acceptable manner, then the system that allows those drivers on the road in the first place needs to be changed.

    Knee jerk quick fixes are not the solution, however tragic the circumstances for the call may be, the real fix is to change the culture and the attitude of the drivers so that they don't need "enforcement", they have awareness, and drive accordingly.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



Advertisement