30km/h Speed Limit for Dublin City Centre

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?

cyclopath2001

Peter Collins wrote:

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

Indeed, some of our junctions resemble a notorious crossroads in Sarjevo during the Bosnian war, except instead of bullets, Dubliners are dodging bullies in cars.

It's time we took fear off the streets.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The reduction is in recorded accidents as well as fatalities.

A meaningless statistic without reference to the kinds of road they imposed the limits on. I have never seen a 20mph zone in the UK on a road like our quays or Westmoreland St. Nor in any other country that makes effective use of 30km/h zones.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

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

Only if those lower speeds are not at the cost of driver concentration.

While we're all introducing facts to the discussion, why not make them relevant? How many pedestrian collisions on the streets in question can be attributed to excessive speed? It seems like the obvious justification for this new measure, but it seems suspiciously absent.

bk

mackerski wrote:

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.

That is exactly it, the sooner the M50 works are finished, the eastern bypass built and cars banned from the city center the better for all.

antoinolachtnai

A large part of the reason Westmoreland St. and the Quays are the sorts of streets they are is because the average speed is so high. If you slow them down, they'll be different sorts of streets.

Various roads in Dublin have been ruined by turning them into one-ways and increasing the speed. The most obvious example is Pearse St. which was once a thriving commercial area. The Quays were equally much more bustling than they are now.

You are looking on the streets as means to an end, i.e., solely as a means for getting from A to B. They are not just that, they are also places in their own right. Remember, from the council's point of view, the primary function of these streets is as business places. Private drivers do not pay taxes to the local authority, but cause serious expense to be incurred. It's not surprising that the local authority wants to reduce the use of private cars.

Even looking at the streets as traffic funnels, it does appear to me that more pedestrians than drivers use Westmoreland St. at peak times. Even with this limited view, it makes sense to give more priority to pedestrians in this situation.

What is this stuff about driver concentration? You are suggesting that lower speeds will make drivers concentrate less. This is totally unfounded. I cannot understand where you are getting this from.

Electric

I've regularly seen the cops on the quays especially outside DCC (they were there on Friday morning just after 9) and Diageo.

Does anyone know if this will apply to buses? I get the bus to work and if they are gonna be crawling along then I better pack my comfy shoes and start walking, it'll probably be quicker.

30kph is a ridiculous speed limit, I get what they are trying to do but it could be done in better ways like extending the green man signal, most of these are too short so people run to catch the light and end up running out in front of traffic cos the green man has finished and the light has turned green.

Plus if they wanted to look after cyclists they should do something about the cycle lanes (not that they are all angels either I've been nearly flattened by a couple of them racing along footpaths!!!). People always drive in them. And the fact that they aren't continous down the length of the quays is ridiculous! Did anyone read that article by Roisin Ingle in the Irish Times on a Saturday a couple of months back, haven't got a link to it, but basically she tried cycling down the quays. It was a very funny article but it made you think that there is no f***king way I'd cycle down the quays taking your life into your hands!

Couldn't they just impose the 30kph limit at peak times and then late at night when it is quiet put it back up to 50kph?

cyclopath2001

Electric wrote:

I've regularly seen the cops on the quays especially outside DCC (they were there on Friday morning just after 9) and Diageo.

These are checking on HGVs.

Plus if they wanted to look after cyclists they should do something about the cycle lanes ...People always drive in them.

In the 1997 regulations, it was illegal for drivers to drive on any cycleway. In 1998, the regulations were amended by the Progressive Democrats to permit driving on cycleways with broken white lines to the right (thats is, almost all cycleways).

There's also the question of enforcement of safety measures. A box junction was placed at the junction of Burgh Quay and d'Olier Street following the death of a cyclist there. The idea is to allow cyclists to move safely into the straight-on lane if they're going down the quays. Mostly, the box junction is blocked by motorists who really don't care about anyone's safety.

Unfortunately, the cycle track that was placed on O'Connell bridge following a recommendation of the coroner, does not comply with the statutory regulations for cycleways and, in any case, stops just short of the hazardous section approaching the Halpenny bridge.

_Kaiser_

Is this still in proposal form, or is there a start date yet?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (and repeated by a few others), if the whole idea is pedestrian and cyclist safety, it'd be completely contradictory if it doesn't apply to buses and (presumably) taxi's in bus lanes - both of which are a much bigger risk and closer to the pavement.

I still think this is yet another knee-jerk reaction to be seen to be doing something. Where are all these deaths occuring that warrant this, and what were the causes?

cyclopath2001

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Is this still in proposal form, or is there a start date yet?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (and repeated by a few others), if the whole idea is pedestrian and cyclist safety,

It's a proposal. There will be a consultation period.

Cyclist and pedestrian safety is not the whole concern. Vehicle speed and selfish behaviour by drivers has an adverse impact on quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists in the city, with many people having become resigned to having to give up basic rights rather than risk confrontation with drivers.

The city centre traders may have a big say on this. If they see car-driving customers as being more important than those who walk, cycle or use public transport or live in the city (for example, because drivers can carry away more goods, then, I'd expect that commercial interests will the resist changes.

Victor

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The city centre traders may have a big say on this. If they see car-driving customers as being more important than those who walk, cycle or use public transport or live in the city (for example, because drivers can carry away more goods, then, I'd expect that commercial interests will the resist changes.

Dublin Chamber of Commerce has generally supported pro-pedestrian measures - pedestrians buy things, motorists don't (the nearest drive-throughs are Baggot Street and Ushers Quay).

antoinolachtnai

Interesting map of cycling casualties which will cast light on the discussion.