30km/h Speed Limit for Dublin City Centre

cyclopath2001

30kmh limit for city cars
Irish Independent, Friday August 03 2007

MOTORISTS will have to drive much slower in Dublin after it was decided to cut the current sped limit from 50kmh to 30kmh.

It will apply throughout Dublin city centre and along the quays.

The far slower speed limit is being introduced to help prevent the deaths of cyclists and pedestrians, sources claim.

The NRA has agreed to delist all of the roads inside the M50 as national primary routes to facilitate the new limit.

It's inevitable that motoring lobby groups will depict this as 'shooting fish in a barrel' and a 'revenue generation exercise'. But, I'm not sure that this will make the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The problems in the city centre are inappropriate overtaking, making phone calls while driving, running red lights, stopping on pedestrian crossings and breaches of the 50kph limit.

I'd be happy if they'd put in cycle tracks on the narrow sections of the city quays, gave more time for pedestrians to cross and enforced the 50kph limit.

_Kaiser_

Wonderful.. it takes long enough to get through town as it is. :rolleyes:

This will do nothing except indeed raise additional revenue in speeding fines, and cause more accidents and frustration on the roads as those who ignore this new limit (ie: almost everyone I'd predict) cut in and out of lanes to get around the few that do.

Does this apply to buses too? - kinda defeats the idea of the shiny new buslane along the quays. And how are they defining "city centre"?

Yet another knee-jerk reaction to be seen to be doing something but which will in reality cause more problems than it solves imo.

mikemac

Pedestrians have their part to play too. If you've ever tried to drive or cycle on O'Connell St past the Spire you'll know that when your lights turn green, people just keep on crossing the road and give dirty looks as you try to move.

Or even worse, some push their childs buggy in front of you forcing you to stop:eek:

_Kaiser_

micmclo wrote:

Pedestrians have their part to play too. If you've ever tried to drive or cycle on O'Connell St past the Spire you'll know that when your lights turn green, people just keep on crossing the road and give dirty looks as you try to move.

Or even worse, some push their childs buggy in front of you forcing you to stop:eek:

Yep.. It'd be interesting to see how many of the people killed in traffic accidents in the city centre area (did I miss a massive increase in the numbers incidentially?) were jay-walking.

bazzer

What a load of crap. This will only encourage more people to play more cat-and-mouse with the traffic. Red lights also apply to pedestrians, in case they didn't know. Will we see a new enforceable offence of jaywalking anytime soon?

OTK

If the intention was to slow down traffic and improve road safety, it might have been better to just increase the length of time the green man stays on at pedestrian crossings as done in London 5 years ago.

The existing 50kph limit isn't enforced. Has anyone seen a speed trap in the city centre ever?

seamus

It won't make a difference. People will continue to drive at 50km/h when they can. I know I will.

The problem is as others has pointed out - facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and enforcement of those facilities. Drive through Dublin at either rush hour or after 9pm Thurs-Sat, and the pedestrians are just wandering around, completely oblivious, on and off the road without even taking a glance.

Cyclists can easily get above 30km/h in the areas this will apply to - will the Gardai be fining them too?

mike65

Sounds like another idea not thought through and not addressing the real causes of pedestrian/cyclist fatalities (bad driving).

Mike.

Tails142

bazzer wrote:

What a load of crap. This will only encourage more people to play more cat-and-mouse with the traffic. Red lights also apply to pedestrians, in case they didn't know. Will we see a new enforceable offence of jaywalking anytime soon?

Quoted for truth - I think you will see a lot more people walking between moving traffic trying to cross roads and if anything lead to more fender benders as people will be up each others ass fuming that they have to crawl along at 30kmh.

Terrontress

There is a school of thought which states that a lower speed limit requires less stopping distance between cars therefore more cars can fit onto the same space of road.

But to be honest, at busy times, the idea of 30km/h is a luxury.

Jip

As has been already hinted at, how many pedestrians and cyclists have been killed by speeding motorists in the city centre ? From what I can remember probably all cyclists have been killed by trucks not seeing them at junctions and corners, probably same applies to pedestrians, I don't remember reading or hearing about speeding motorists being involved.

Ciaran500

seamus wrote:

Cyclists can easily get above 30km/h in the areas this will apply to - will the Gardai be fining them too?

Nope, no speed limits for bikes.

spockety

OTK wrote:

If the intention was to slow down traffic and improve road safety, it might have been better to just increase the length of time the green man stays on at pedestrian crossings as done in London 5 years ago.

The existing 50kph limit isn't enforced. Has anyone seen a speed trap in the city centre ever?

Yes, they are regularly on the south edge of St Stephens Green.

Ciaran500

Ciaran500 wrote:

Nope, no speed limits for bikes.

you sure about that? From a previous discussion, I remember being told that in irish law, a bike is seen as a car, and must follow all rules that a car must, speed limits included.

One of my friend's boyfriend has also been banned from cycling after he overtook a garda car that was doing the speed limit...

I think cyclists will have to be careful alright.

Stark

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Does this apply to buses too? - kinda defeats the idea of the shiny new buslane along the quays.

That was my thought too when I read it.

Deleted User wrote:

you sure about that? From a previous discussion, I remember being told that in irish law, a bike is seen as a car, and must follow all rules that a car must, speed limits included.

Yup. Cyclists have been pulled over at the Chapelizod bypass for breaking the speed limit.

is_that_so

Considering the average speed is only 5 kph , anything is an improvement. I can understand its use on streets heavily frequented by pedestrians or even outside schools, but surely the likes of the Quays and D'Olier St/Westmoreland St/Dame Street are facilitating the movement of traffic. Agree about bikes , some of them think they're in a race. Saw a chap bellow " Coming through" as he ploughed into pedestrians on Kildare Street and then had the gall to shout "So ****ing sue me" from the ground.

BrianD

OTK wrote:

If the intention was to slow down traffic and improve road safety, it might have been better to just increase the length of time the green man stays on at pedestrian crossings as done in London 5 years ago.

The existing 50kph limit isn't enforced. Has anyone seen a speed trap in the city centre ever?

Yes, Fitzwilliam St, St. Stephens Green South and along the north quays near Heuston.

I don't think the 30Km limit is a real problem ... you are moving at a crawl most of the time. Doesn't O'Connell St have a 30K limit already?

_Kaiser_

BrianD wrote:

Yes, Fitzwilliam St, St. Stephens Green South and along the north quays near Heuston.

I don't think the 30Km limit is a real problem ... you are moving at a crawl most of the time. Doesn't O'Connell St have a 30K limit already?

You're moving at a crawl - at rush hour.

What about off-peak hours, or at night when the place is virtually empty??

September (when the schools are back) will be a nightmare. Firstly a (now effectively redundant) bus lane along the quays, and now a stupidly low limit. :rolleyes: :mad:

Ciaran500

Stark wrote:

Yup. Cyclists have been pulled over at the Chapelizod bypass for breaking the speed limit.

Pretty sure I've read there is no speed limits for non motorised vehicles.

mackerski

is_that_so wrote:

Saw a chap bellow " Coming through" as he ploughed into pedestrians on Kildare Street and then had the gall to shout "So ****ing sue me" from the ground.

Where's an angry mob when you need one?

Sangre

From Road Traffic Act 1968

"General speed limit.

44A (1) The Minister may make regulations limit prescribing, in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, a speed limit (which shall be known as a general speed limit) for all mechanically propelled vehicles.

(2) Regulations under this section prescribing a general speed limit may except any class of vehicles from the limit and may restrict the limit to a particular period or to particular periods."

Last time I checked a bicycle isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle. There have been a few amendments to this Act since 1968 but they all use the same term. I don't see how speed limits apply to bikes under the Road Traffic Acts. Is there any other legislation that might apply to them?

seamus

What's the definition of "mechanically propelled"? While I would agree that the work(effort) is not done by a mechanical system, the vehicle depends on mechanical means to convert that work into propulsion. Remove the mechanics, and all you have is a stationary bike and some guy spinning his legs around in circeles - i.e. no propulsion.

It may seem like an inane argument, but you can see the logic.

I did find an act from 1933 (closed it though ) which classified mechanically propelled vehicles into four classes - Motorcycles, motor car, light good vehicles and heavy goods vehicles. Since a bicycle is definitely not one of these, perhaps this could be taken as a "definition".

monument

OTK wrote:

The existing 50kph limit isn't enforced. Has anyone seen a speed trap in the city centre ever?

Yes, at least twice in the last two weeks and in that time, besides working two days, I haven't been out of the house much.

Wishbone Ash

OTK wrote:

Has anyone seen a speed trap in the city centre ever?

Yes, regularly on the quays and Lower Dorset Street and occasionally on St Stephen's Green and Gardiner Street.

LFCFan

how many speed limit signs are actually in the city centre? I can't remember seeing any. I've seen 1 speed check on the Quays once. The times when it would be most dangerous for predestrians when cars are speeding around the city is the times when traffic is crawling. This is yet another knee jerk reaction that could end up with more accidents instead of cutting them. Is there ever any real thought put into the laws of this country?

lostexpectation

where could you /would you do 50km/h in the cty centre? (me not being a driver)

Stark

lostexpectation wrote:

where could you /would you do 50km/h in the cty centre? (me not being a driver)

You'd easily do 50km/hr on the quays when it's quiet. (I've seen people do a lot more, though they'd be driving wrecklessly imo).

mackerski

LFCFan wrote:

how many speed limit signs are actually in the city centre? I can't remember seeing any. I've seen 1 speed check on the Quays once. The times when it would be most dangerous for predestrians when cars are speeding around the city is the times when traffic is crawling. This is yet another knee jerk reaction that could end up with more accidents instead of cutting them. Is there ever any real thought put into the laws of this country?

They tend only to occur on the interface of 30 and 50 zones (of which there weren't any until about a year ago). This isn't a biggy, since the default urban speed limit is 50 and Everyone Knows That(tm). You can be very sure that, if they do go through with such a hare-brained scheme, there will be 30-repeater signs as far as the eye can see.

I'll say again what I said here last time there was the threat of 30 zones on roads like Westmoreland Street: the only way 30 zones can bring greater pedestrian safety is by applying them strategically, either to roads that physically require it (like William St. South or the other narrow ones in that area near Grafton St.) or to roads where, by discouraging cars from using them, you can acheive a reduction in vehicle numbers.

These two approaches can only help if there are major through routes with the characteristics that encourage their use by motor vehicles. In real terms, this means that there have to be roads through the city centre that permit reasonable speeds. 50km/h is not excessive, and, as others have pointed out, no evidence is being presented to suggest that traffic travelling at these speeds has been contributing to accidents.

I have to agree here with cyclopath2001 - something I rarely do on matters of road use - there is a safety problem on the streets, and it won't be addressed by this measure. Drivers who drive carelessly at 50 will drive even more carelessly at 30. Cyclists and pedestrians who believe that everyone else is responsible for their safety will take even more risks on a road that is supposed to be running at 30. It would be far better to tackle root cause rather than picking a strategy at random.

"Something must be done".

"This is something".

"Let's do it"

Sangre

From the Road Traffic Act 1961 (this seems to be the prinicple act on which all the subsequent amendments are based on). The 1968 Act I quoted above gets its definition of 'mechanically propelled vehicle' from this Act.

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;


I can't see a bicycle falling under that definition, in fact they seem to specifically excluded it as they separate define a bicycle:

"pedal bicycle" means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

delop

bazzer wrote:

What a load of crap. This will only encourage more people to play more cat-and-mouse with the traffic. Red lights also apply to pedestrians, in case they didn't know. Will we see a new enforceable offence of jaywalking anytime soon?

Saw a Jay-walker cross in front of a motor cycle garda on the quays on morning, the Garda lent foreward too the news paper from under the guys arm and hit him over the head with it...

Was quite funny, dont know if thats classed as enforcement though :-)

cyclopath2001

Sangre wrote:

I can't see a bicycle falling under that definition,

A speeding cyclist could be done for driving without care or consideration for others. No doubt, an observant Garda would be quick to seize any speedometer on the bike.

I ride a lightweight and it's quite easy to get up to 30kph, especially with a following wind. I usually leave it at that because, in the city, too many things can happen too quickly beyond that speed.

They'll need to change the law on cycle tracks so that motorised vehicles cannot drive in them, otherwise, cyclists will be getting a lung-full of fumes.

Travelling down the south quays between 8am and 9am once you get past Capel Street bridge, it's a free-for-all. The national deficit could be cleared up by placing a speed trap there for a few weeks.

The one positive argument I've seen in favour of the limit is the quite dramatic improval in the survival rate for victims of collisions at 30kph.

meanmachine3

i'm sick and tired of hearing about these so called soft targets. no matter where a restriction is put or a sped trap set up people will always complain that they are soft targets. each and everyone of us is to blame for whats going on. who in this country has never broken a single part of the road traffic act in their life. unfortunatley the guards are not targeting the worst offenders because they seem to be above the law and exempt form any law in this country. maybe if they clamped down on these looneys then our streets would be alot safer.

Victor

Speed limits.

http://www.dublincity.ie/living_in_the_city/getting_around/by_car/traffic_management/speed_limits.asp

Roads in the Marino Area. - the entire Marino estate and some surrounding streets.

Roads in the Ballsbridge Area. - certain residential laneways

Roads in the City Centre Area – Bounded by Parnell Street, part of Capel Street and North King Street to the north; the North Quays to the south; O’Connell Street to the east; and Church Street to the west. - Henry Street shopping area

Roads in the City Centre Area – Bounded by Parnell Street to the north; Eden Quay to the south; Gardiner Street to the east; Beresford Place to the south east; and O’Connell Street Upper and Lower to the west. Talbot Street shopping area

Roads in the City Centre Area – Bounded by the South Quays to the north; College Green, Dame Street, Lord Edward Street and Christchurch Place to the south; St Michael’s Hill and Winetavern Street to the west; and D’Olier Street to the east. - Temple Bar

Roads in the City Centre Area – Bounded by Dame Street, College Green to the north; Cuffe Street to the south; part of Grafton Street, Nassau Street, Dawson Street, part of St Stephens Green North and West to the east; and Aungier Street, South Great George’s Street to the west. Grafton Street Shopping area.

Victor

.

Dublin Cycling Campaign makes the following points:

1. DCC welcomes in principle the proposal by Dublin City to introduce inner-core special speed limit of 30 kph

2. The Netherlands, which is one of the best performing states (the 'SUN' trio) in EU on road safety and fatalities outcomes has around 30,000 km of roads/streets subject to 30 kph limit

3. But NRA has to agree to de-list N-routes coming through inner-core of city (N1, N2, N3, N11 etc) so that they can be subject to 'special max speed limit' as allowed for in recent legislation.

4. Swedish Vagverket (i.e. national roads organisation) data shows that - 10% of cyclist/pedestrians die when speed at impact is 30 kph whereas 80% die when impact speed is 50 kph. [See attached graphic]

5. If we wish children and adults to take up bike for commuting to school or work then drivers have to accept lower urban speed limits. The greener transport agenda requires this of drivers. The national obesity health problem also needs to encourage citizens to be more active by going back to a bike for commuting!

6. The level and standard of Garda checking & enforcement of speed limits must be exemplary as drivers will not voluntarily keep to 30 kph. Engineering solutions can't usefully be applied. (Measures such as speed bumps or cushions or chicanes have to be too aggressive to curb speeds to 30 kph so that buses and ambulances would be bouncing and lurching all over the place going across them – uncomfortable!).

7. Danger period for cyclists (and pedestrians) is 7pm-7am period when vehicle free-speeds are generally too high (in absence of heavy congestion drivers tend to drive faster – this is called vehicle 'free-speed') and Garda enforcement of existing speed limits in inner-core is nearly non-existent. [Who has observed a speed trap on the Quays, Pearse Street or St. Stephen's Green?]

8. HGVs are plunging through City in this period as not subject to access restriction under City's HGV-management plan.

9. Issue of cyclist-hostile multi-lane one-way streets has also to be tackled in tandem with speed reduction regime.

10. NRA vehicle free-speed data surveys shows buses, coaches and HGVs are worst speed limit offenders. It is these driver/vehicle categories that cause most damage – 80% of cyclists deaths in City due to RTA involving HGVs and buses.

cyclopath2001

Victor wrote:

....

Any chance of campaigning to reform the woeful 1997/1998 cycle track regulations? It's crazy that cars are allowed drive in cycle tracks and that most cycle tracks don't operate at night or on Sundays. We also need penalties for local authorities that ignore legally specified safety measures.

dowlingm

maybe a branch of this website could be set up for Dublin
http://toronto.mybikelane.com/

Sangre

cyclopath2001 wrote:

A speeding cyclist could be done for driving without care or consideration for others. No doubt, an observant Garda would be quick to seize any speedometer on the bike.

Any chance you've a link for that?

Afaik you can't be done for driving without due care because technically you're not driving. You have to be mechanically propelled to be a driver.

Victor

Sangre wrote:

Afaik you can't be done for driving without due care because technically you're not driving. You have to be mechanically propelled to be a driver.

Driving includes 'cognate'(?) words like controlling, directing, etc.

cyclopath2001

Sangre wrote:

Any chance you've a link for that?

Afaik you can't be done for driving without due care because technically you're not driving. You have to be mechanically propelled to be a driver.

S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997

(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle.

7. A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt within the distance which the driver can see to be clear.

Road Traffic Act 1968
50.—The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 52:

"Careless driving 52.
52 (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention.

OK, I think you've finally found a loophole, you can't get done for speeding or careless driving if you tear through the city at 100kph in a rocket-powered wheelchair.

Also, carless driving is mostly OK. ;-)

antoinolachtnai

What about driving cattle?

Anyway,there is a bigger picture to this that you are not seeing. It isn't just about reducing collision speeds, it's about allowing the road space to be efficiently and safely shared.

At a lower speed, signalling and segregation is less important. There should not be a need for as many signalled junctions. A lot of the time spent driving in the city is spent waiting for traffic lights. Travelling at a slower speed, with less traffic lights will probably get you home faster.

A guy called Monderman has done the work on this in the Netherlands. He basically argues that signalling and segregation are what make driving dangerous, because they take responsibility away from the road users. Have a look at these links.

http://www.fonvca.org/letters/2006/12jun-to/John_Fair_6jul2006.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/04/ntraffic04.xml

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=932

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=321745

http://www.newlifeformainroads.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=27

These two approaches can only help if there are major through routes with the characteristics that encourage their use by motor vehicles. In real terms, this means that there have to be roads through the city centre that permit reasonable speeds. 50km/h is not excessive, and, as others have pointed out, no evidence is being presented to suggest that traffic travelling at these speeds has been contributing to accidents.

Oh come on, there is plenty of evidence. A pedestrian is much less likely to be killed by a car at 20 mph. Also, the braking distances are much smaller. Manouverability is much greater. The chances of seeing a pedestrian and being able to take evasive action is far higher. There are plenty of statistics available about the relationship between speed limits and casualties.

Drivers who drive carelessly at 50 will drive even more carelessly at 30.

This is just not true. Driving at 30 is inherently safer than driving at 50.

Cyclists and pedestrians who believe that everyone else is responsible for their safety will take even more risks on a road that is supposed to be running at 30. It would be far better to tackle root cause rather than picking a strategy at random.

The root cause is traffic travelling too fast resulting in longer stopping distances, reduced manouverability, reduced perception and greater momentum in accidents.

Of course, changes do need to be followed through to actually make sure the traffic does slow down, and to get the benefit of the speed drop for junction operation, you need to switch off traffic lights appropriately and adjust junctions if necessary.

Capt'n Midnight

Terrontress wrote:

There is a school of thought which states that a lower speed limit requires less stopping distance between cars therefore more cars can fit onto the same space of road.

But they move through at a slower rate. If you increase speed too much then you get the other effect where the gaps become so big that less cars flow though. Optimal throughput is for about 40mph. But the purpose of traffic lights and stuff in the city centre is to break up traffic not to encourage it to free flow.

And yes removing all signs AND changing to a non-tarmac covering that doesn't look like a road would probably slow down drivers. Leaving recognisable lanes would just encourage drivers.

BostonB

I've used the quays almost daily for years. Usually you never see cops enforcing anything on them. You get the odd few weeks of speed checks every few years but that it. The road marking are lethal. Almost very road user pedestrians, cyclists, cars, trucks, buses ignore common sense never mind the rules/laws. You have people begging between the lines of traffic. Some so regular they've been there for years.

So a 30km limit ultimately will do nothing. But a €5 toll on it....

Sangre

Cheers, didn't know that. I hate S.I.s they're impossible to keep track of.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

This is just not true. Driving at 30 is inherently safer than driving at 50.

So now we have claim and counter-claim and no actual proof from either of us. This is actually fairly appropriate in a discussion of a traffic-control measure that itself seems to have been dreamt up without a solid basis. Where do we get the facts from?

Driver concentration is, among other things, a function of perceived risk. Driving along a 5-lane-wide non-pedestrian-friendly road at 30km/h, assuming light traffic conditions, does not place high demands on driver concentration and therefore leaves scope for carelessness. This is one of the reasons why percentile rules are useful. I feel sure that there will be streets in the mix on this recent batch of proposals where a 30 limit can work well. But I've never seen precedent for the kind of blanket reduction that's proposed here on roads of similar significance.

It just won't work. See if I'm wrong.

MadsL

Cop on the quays yesterday with a speed gun.
:rolleyes:

Victor

mackerski wrote:

So now we have claim and counter-claim and no actual proof from either of us. This is actually fairly appropriate in a discussion of a traffic-control measure that itself seems to have been dreamt up without a solid basis. Where do we get the facts from?

The Swedish VV. RTÉ has their graph here: http://dynimg.rte.ie/0000fae410dr.jpg

But I've never seen precedent for the kind of blanket reduction that's proposed here on roads of similar significance.

At several points, these streets handle 100,000-200,000 people per day. There is no need to travel at 50km/h through College Green or O'Connell Bridge.

Wishbone Ash

meanmachine3 wrote:

i'm sick and tired of hearing about these so called soft targets. no matter where a restriction is put or a sped trap set up people will always complain that they are soft targets

If all law breakers were dealt with equally then I don't think that we would hear the term "soft targets" but unfortunately many motorists feel that the Gardaí are only going after those motorists where they will have little hassle and be successful with a conviction. I wouldn't normally be in the "Have they nothing better to be doing" camp but I felt that way recently when I saw Gardaí conducting a speed check on Ellis Quay/Arran Quay at 2.30am on a Sunday morning (i.e. Saturday night) while the rest of the city centre experienced the normal violence and chaos caused by drunk/drug filled thugs spilling onto the streets.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

The Swedish VV. RTÉ has their graph here: http://dynimg.rte.ie/0000fae410dr.jpg

What this tells me is that the new policy is designed to reduce fatalities on impact, but without any plan as to how to reduce the impacts. It's a troubling priority and one, as I said already, that will bring back red flags if we commit to it.

Victor wrote:

At several points, these streets handle 100,000-200,000 people per day. There is no need to travel at 50km/h through College Green or O'Connell Bridge.

There's no need to do many of the things we do nowadays. The problem is that the city centre contains distributor roads for the movement of large volumes of motor traffic. This is undesirable on a number of levels. But pretending that they aren't distributor roads by detrunking them and slapping on a low speed limit won't make them any safer for other city users, it just makes them worse distributor roads.

Annoying motorists is only useful if it provides gain elsewhere, and I don't see that with this proposal.

Red Alert

This idea of 'idiot protection' is going too far in this country - people need to cop on that walking in front of cars is stupid, and not making it easier for eejits who do that. All this needs to be combined with an effort on everyone's part to start obeying traffic rules.

Take Prague for instance - you don't walk out in front of a tram because it will be going fast, and will not stop for you. Of course if the 'LUAS' is doing walking pace on some of the red line areas then idiots will walk in front of it.

Some of the light sequences in this country are ridiculous too. In Paris there's little if no 'guard time' between the two phases - but people know that and drive properly.

Another gripe - cyclists - are they above the law or what? I only ever saw a guard once dealing with cyclists who break the red lights. Some of them looked actually shocked that a guard was pulling them up for that. Oh wait, what about the poor motorist who they'd have sued if he ran over them when the idiot breaks the lights?

Peter Collins

bazzer wrote:

What a load of crap. This will only encourage more people to play more cat-and-mouse with the traffic.

I agree completely with this - there are too many people running across roads in the city centre at the moment, this will increase it.

antoinolachtnai

mackerski wrote:

What this tells me is that the new policy is designed to reduce fatalities on impact, but without any plan as to how to reduce the impacts. It's a troubling priority and one, as I said already, that will bring back red flags if we commit to it.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070227/debtext/70227-0004.htm wrote:

The first three 20 mph zones in the UK were implemented in January 1991. Five years later, the Transport Research Laboratory reviewed the results from 250 zones in England, Wales and Scotland. The average speed in these areas was reduced by 9 mph. The total number of crashes fell by 60 per cent., and the number of accidents involving children fell by 67 per cent. The number of crashes involving cyclists also fell, by 27 per cent.

The reduction is in recorded accidents as well as fatalities.

There's no need to do many of the things we do nowadays. The problem is that the city centre contains distributor roads for the movement of large volumes of motor traffic. This is undesirable on a number of levels. But pretending that they aren't distributor roads by detrunking them and slapping on a low speed limit won't make them any safer for other city users, it just makes them worse distributor roads.

Annoying motorists is only useful if it provides gain elsewhere, and I don't see that with this proposal.

In fact, it would make other road users safer. At lower speeds, fewer people get hit, and fewer people get killed.

Well, if it meant you could take out all the pedestrian traffic signals, surely that would be a big benefit from motorists, since it would increase the average speed?