30km/h Speed Limit for Dublin City Centre

monument

Do you have a link there?

antoinolachtnai

Sorry, link again to accidents map

http://home.connect.ie/dcc/submissions/SPC_30kmh.html

mike65

Another road deaths map it has'nt been updated in the last month but is of interest anyway

http://www.roaddeaths.ie/map.php?do=year&year=2007

It contains all types of fatality click the headstone for info on each incident.

Mike.

_Kaiser_

Interesting link Mike. Had a look there and the closest incidents to the areas affected by this proposal that I can see listed were in Drumcondra and on Wolfe Tone Quay involving trucks and a pedestrian/cyclist respectively.

Whilst every death is tragic, I can't see the justification for such wide-sweeping knee-jerk reactions on the part of DCC. Neither of the above incidents sheds any light on the cause of the accidents either but given the behaviour of cyclists/pedestrians in the city centre area, it may well have been them who were at fault.

BostonB

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Sorry, link again to accidents map

http://home.connect.ie/dcc/submissions/SPC_30kmh.html

Whats the difference between red and green stars?

I'm not seeing the quays there as the worst spots. Dame Street, Westmorland Street, Baggot Street, Georges/Camden Street etc. Problem roads seem to be (obviously) the most popular cycling routes. More so than the quays. Most cyclists I know, myself included avoid the quays as much as possible. That would seem to be reflected in that map. I was always told that the quays have more accidents than anywhere else. That map doesn't reflect that. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

galwaycyclist

Time to inject some facts into this thread


20mph As A Standard Speed Limit Why Galway Needs It. © Galway Cycling Campaign, April 1999
http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/20mph.html


Submission on National Speed Limit/Enforcement Policy:
Departmental Speed Limit Review Group Submission - Galway Cycling Campaign August 2003
http://galwaycycling.org/archive/submission/speed_limit_sub_03.html

European Federation for Transport and the Environment Fact sheet on lower urban speed limits - Pages three and four dispel the myths particularly regarding congestion.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Fact-sheets,%20responses,%20etc/2001/11-01-T30.pdf
html version (easier to cut and paste)
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Fact-sheets,%20responses,%20etc/11-00%20Lower%20%20urban%20speed%20limits.htm

Germany
Buxtehude implemented first 30kph zone in Germany in 1983 - Ireland is 24 years behind the times
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo-30-Zone

Examples from Europe
Munich: 330 30kph zones
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/kvr/strverkehr/verksicherheit/allgemein/117646/t30zonen.html

Cologne: 30kph zones cover 7,500 hectares in area
http://www.stadt-koeln.de/verkehr/verkehrsberuhigung/artikel/03065/index.html

Zurich has implemented 30kph zones in 24 districts of the city
http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/tempo30/stadtplan.htm

Vienna: https://www.wien.gv.at/umweltschutz/umweltbericht/rtf/laerm-engl-04.rtf
"As a result, the first Tempo 30 zones covering a distance of 31 kilometres were introduced as early as 1987. At the year end 2005, Tempo 30 applied to a total of 1,353.4 kilometres, which is 48 per cent of the entire municipal road network in Vienna. Each year, new Tempo 30 zones covering between 20 and 100 kilometres are added. In addition, there are 130 designated residential areas and 73 pedestrian precincts. The extent of both designated residential areas and pedestrian precincts in Vienna has increased since 2000. In 17 of Vienna's 23 districts there is already at least one pedestrian precinct!"

Graz (Austria): 30 kph zones cover 75% ofthe city's streets
http://www.eu-portal.net/unitdesign/studyvisitsites.phtml?sprache=en&site_id=6

Slower speeds initiative: 20's Plenty Campaign Rationale
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/content/view/97/46

BostonB

Why not just ban all motor vehicles between the canals. That would improve the accident rate much more?

LostinBlanch

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Interesting link Mike. Had a look there and the closest incidents to the areas affected by this proposal that I can see listed were in Drumcondra and on Wolfe Tone Quay involving trucks and a pedestrian/cyclist respectively.

Whilst every death is tragic, I can't see the justification for such wide-sweeping knee-jerk reactions on the part of DCC. Neither of the above incidents sheds any light on the cause of the accidents either but given the behaviour of cyclists/pedestrians in the city centre area, it may well have been them who were at fault.

Kaiser, this is because the City Council don't have the evidence to provide to members of the general public that there was a need for such a dramatic decrease in speed limit. If they had they surely would have trumpeted it from the rooftops to justify their case. Don't forget there is also a new bus lane on the north quays as well making less space for cars on the quays.

This is part of an ideological campaign to banish all cars from the city centre. They (the City Council) have stated that they want this to happen. Fair enough if they want to do this, that's their perogative; but they should be honest and state explicitly that this is what they want, and this is why. Then they can let the public judge the merits of their argument. Obviously they don't have faith in this so they have concentrated on the safety aspect (without proper statistics to back it up).

Well I've got something else that might just improve cyclists and pedestrians safety. All bikes should be registered and have some kind of numberplate so that they are easily identifiable. That way any bikes that break the law by going on the footpath and nearly running down pedestrians, or who jeopardise their own and others safety by running red lights can be identified and prosecuted if needs be. Encouraging them to adhere to the law would improve safety for other road users would it not? :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

LostinBlanch wrote:

Well I've got something else that might just improve cyclists and pedestrians safety. All bikes should be registered

This is hardly original. The idea has already been tried with cars and doesn't work very well. Anyhow, to be big enough to be easily read, the plates would have to stick out from both sides of the bicycles, just think of the damage to cars as they ride along in cycle lanes.

Joking apart, you're seriously missing any sense of priority. Bad behaviour by car drivers is a much more serious problem with graver consequences than law-breaking cyclists.

LostinBlanch

cyclopath2001 wrote:

This is hardly original. The idea has already been tried with cars and doesn't work very well. Anyhow, to be big enough to be easily read, the plates would have to stick out from both sides of the bicycles, just think of the damage to cars as they ride along in cycle lanes.


Cyclo, I didn't expect that cyclists would agree to being encouraged to adhere to the rules of the road, so assuming your views are representative of other cyclists your post doesn't surprise me. Saddens me, but doesn't surprise me.

But the fact is that it does work with cars, they are easily identifiable in accidents and can be prosecuted after the fact for breaking speed limits, rules of the road etc.

As for your straw man about plates sticking out so far out that they'll cause damage to other road users. It doesn't happen with motorbikes does it? :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Joking apart, you're seriously missing any sense of priority. Bad behaviour by car drivers is a much more serious problem with graver consequences than law-breaking cyclists.

Try telling that to the family of the motorcycle guard that died as a result of a cyclist breaking a red light as reported on the 30 kmph thread in the motors forum.

mackerski

galwaycyclist wrote:

Examples from Europe
Munich: 330 30kph zones
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/kvr/strverkehr/verksicherheit/allgemein/117646/t30zonen.html

I'm happy to see Munich mentioned here - I can speak with some knowledge on this, because I used to live there. It's also where I saw my first 30-zone. In my earlier posts where I claimed never to have seen a 30-zone like the quays or Westmoreland St., it was German practice that I had most particularly in mind. The document linked is a very useful insight into the considered reasoning that goes into imposing low speed limits in other countries, and it's an interesting contrast to "we've tried everything else".

Allow me to present a transcript of the document linked (emphasis, where used, will be mine):

From the multitude of measures employed by road traffic authorities in recent years for the improvement of safety for journeys to school, the imposition of 30-zones is particularly to be emphasised. In Munich there are currently circa 330 30-zones (representing circa 80-85% of the entire road network), the most comprehensive such application, at least in Germany. The most importan criterion for the Council is choosing these areas was/is
the capacity to prevent accidents on the journey to school.

Weaker road users (lit: traffic participants) often cannot accurately gauge the approach of vehicles or their speed and are therefore particularly vulnerable in daily traffic.

Please consider:

While within the allowed speed limit of 30km/h the stopping distance is about 18m. The stopping distance lengthens at 40km/h by as much as 10m to about 28m.

This lengthened stopping distance can in specific cases have terrible consequences.

Therefore we ask:

In 30-zones, also in your own interest, ease off the gas and drive at the appropriate speed. "Appropriate" only sometimes means driving at exactly the permitted speed. Even 10km/h or 20km/h less increase manyfold the chances that nothing [No accident] will happen.

The following table is to make clear, what penalties are to be reckoned with, when a private car is driven too fast in a 30-zone:

[Not reproduced, but the right-hand two columns are for points given and number of months of driving ban. Note that to receive any points at all, you'd have to exceed 50km/h]

My points:

• Munich has specifically not taken the view that 30km/h is a good general urban speed limit.
• Munich's 30-zone strategy is to make 30-zones a reason for exceptional driver concentration of a sort that a blanket limit cannot acheive.
• Any given journey within Munich that does not deliberately use rat runs can be taken mostly at 50km/h
• No high-capacity road in Munich is subject to a 30-limit except over short distances due to a specific hazard.
• To attract points for speeding in a 30-zone you must exceed 50km/h
• Any Irish speeding offence, however slight, costs more than it does to be caught at double a 30-limit in Germany - a strong indication that Irish penalties are too harsh to police such strict speed limits. In fact, by the time a German will pay a fine of Irish proportions he'll already have surrendered his licence for a month.
• Munich has stated exactly why and when they impose 30-zones. Can Dublin claim the same?

BostonB

cyclopath2001 wrote:

T....
Joking apart, you're seriously missing any sense of priority. Bad behaviour by car drivers is a much more serious problem with graver consequences than law-breaking cyclists.

I'd say many ex law-breaking cyclists would disagree with hindsight.

antoinolachtnai

LostinBlanch wrote:

This is part of an ideological campaign to banish all cars from the city centre. They (the City Council) have stated that they want this to happen. Fair enough if they want to do this, that's their perogative; but they should be honest and state explicitly that this is what they want, and this is why. Then they can let the public judge the merits of their argument. Obviously they don't have faith in this so they have concentrated on the safety aspect (without proper statistics to back it up).

You are overstating the case, but you have a point. There are a lot of other good reasons to have a 30 kmh limit besides safety. But safety is obviously a big part of a more complicated argument about who those streets are primarily for. (My own view is that these are primarily commercial, destination streets, and as such, the priority on them should be the safety and comfort of pedestrians whilst still allowing appropriate vehicular access.)

An example of a similar street to Westmoreland St/O'Connell St. would be Oxford St. in London. There is no official 30kmh limit there, instead far more stringent traffic controls hav been imposed.

It is true that what is proposed in Dublin is different from the other countries that are cited. That doesn't make it the wrong thing to do though. Doing things a bit differently should be allowed. We shouldn't have to slavishly copy our European and British cousins all the time.

NewDubliner

LostinBlanch wrote:

Cyclo, I didn't expect that cyclists would agree to being encouraged to adhere to the rules of the road, so assuming your views are representative of other cyclists your post doesn't surprise me. Saddens me, but doesn't surprise me.

I agree that cyclists and pedestrians should be encouraged to adhere to the rules of the road, even if these rules are biased in favour of motorists. In time these can be changed. But it's understandable that motorists will resist changes.

Statistics show that the most deaths and injuries are as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. In most cases, the vehicle driver was at fault.

With limited resources available, it makes sense to tackle the biggest risk.

barrett1965

They are planning to introduce the same speed limit if 30/km per hour in Galway city in 2008. Taxi drivers are critical of the move.

Electric

cyclopath2001 wrote:

These are checking on HGVs.

Nope they had pulled a guy over for speeding. And I have seen them with the speed gun out so I really don't think that it is for HGV's

cyclopath2001

LostinBlanch wrote:

Cyclo, I didn't expect that cyclists would agree to being encouraged to adhere to the rules of the road, so assuming your views are representative of other cyclists your post doesn't surprise me. Saddens me, but doesn't surprise me.

You deliberately misunderstand & misrepresent my views. Let me be clear: My view is that law-breaking cyclists should be encouraged to obey the law, but that the urgent need is to concentrate on the highest safety threat - law-breaking motorists.

But the fact is that it does work with cars, they are easily identifiable in accidents and can be prosecuted after the fact for breaking speed limits, rules of the road etc.

A cyclist cannot be prosecuted for the specific offence of breaking a speed limit. This only applies to motor vehicles. For other offences they are easily stopped and details taken.

As for your straw man about plates sticking out so far out that they'll cause damage to other road users. It doesn't happen with motorbikes does it? :rolleyes:

Straw man beats red herring.

Try telling that to the family of the motorcycle guard that died as a result of a cyclist breaking a red light as reported on the 30 kmph thread in the motors forum.

How often does that happen?

I can see you're very uncomfortable with the way that society might be changing and how behaviour that was once tolerated is being curtailed, but for example, look at how much better the air is in restaurants since the smoking ban.

Try to see the world from another perspective other than from behind a rose-tinted car windscreen.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

An example of a similar street to Westmoreland St/O'Connell St. would be Oxford St. in London. There is no official 30kmh limit there, instead far more stringent traffic controls hav been imposed.

Don't you think that Grafton Street would be a far better comparison? In terms of road breadth, levels of retail and strategic significance in moving urban traffic.

Compare them to Regent St. if you like - it won't support your argument, but it's a little more plausible.

antoinolachtnai

You keep on thinking about Westmoreland St. the way it is today. I am talking about the way it could be and should be to be an attractive destination, cope with more people and maximize the rates bill.

LostinBlanch

cyclopath2001 wrote:

You deliberately misunderstand & misrepresent my views.

I don't feel that I have. I am approaching this with a view to gaining some common ground. Perhaps you should try it?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Let me be clear: My view is that law-breaking cyclists should be encouraged to obey the law, but that the urgent need is to concentrate on the highest safety threat - law-breaking motorists.

I am glad you acknowledge the need for all road users to adhere to the law.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

A cyclist cannot be prosecuted for the specific offence of breaking a speed limit. This only applies to motor vehicles. For other offences they are easily stopped and details taken.

For all your talk of red herrings, I don't remember mentioning speed limits with regard to cyclists. I know they are exempt from this. But I think that all road users should be subject to the same laws, don't you? :rolleyes:

What I was thinking of was more the continual breaking of red lights, endangering themsleves and others; and the use of footpaths putting pedestrians at risk.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Straw man beats red herring.

Well I don't see that encouraging cyclists to obey the rules of the road to ensure their own and other road users safety is a red herring.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

How often does that happen?

Isn't once more than enough? Or do you get a free pass for your first time? If that seems facetious to you, imagine trying to explain your views to the family of the deceased. I don't think they'd agree with you.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I can see you're very uncomfortable with the way that society might be changing and how behaviour that was once tolerated is being curtailed, but for example, look at how much better the air is in restaurants since the smoking ban.

Ah now you're projecting your own views onto me. I could just as easily say that you are uncomfortable with the idea that all road users should obey the traffic laws to the same degree. But yes, I do agree with you, the air is much better in restaurants and pubs since the smoking ban came in. I was all for it, and still am. Now what was that you said earlier about deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting views?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Try to see the world from another perspective other than from behind a rose-tinted car windscreen.

I thought I was, and could just as easily say to you try and see it from behind your handlebars.

I'm not approaching this as a point scoring excercise, but believe that all road users should be subject to the law equally. No matter how inconvenient it may seem for some if behaviour that was once tolerated is curtailed.

cyclopath2001

LostinBlanch wrote:

I don't feel that I have. I am approaching this with a view to gaining some common ground. Perhaps you should try it?

OK, let's see: a safe environment and all citizens having the same rights? We can agree on that?

But I think that all road users should be subject to the same laws, don't you? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Yes, yes indeed, I agree and never said otherwise. More common ground

What I was thinking of was more the continual breaking of red lights, endangering themsleves and others; and the use of footpaths putting pedestrians at risk.

Yes indeed I don't think cyclists should do it, neither should motorists.

It's considerably more dangerous when motorists do it, agreed?

Well I don't see that encouraging cyclists to obey the rules of the road to ensure their own and other road users safety is a red herring.

You know well that I was referring to your insistence on having number plates on bicycles. This is not required by law. It would divert resources away from illegal speeding. That's why it's a red herring.

Isn't once more than enough? Or do you get a free pass for your first time? If that seems facetious to you, imagine trying to explain your views to the family of the deceased. I don't think they'd agree with you.

You really, really have a problem with forming priorities. It's a technique used in management, sometimes referred to as 'risk profiling' It identifies the most frequent and dangerous behaviour. Often this is accomplished by analysing statistics and then applying resources effectively. That's how problems are mostly solved when resources are finite. Put simply, bad driving by motorists is responsible for most injuries and fatalities on our roads. That's why our authorities are concentrating on driver behaviour.

but believe that all road users should be subject to the law equally. No matter how inconvenient it may seem for some if behaviour that was once tolerated is curtailed.

I am very glad you agree with me. You're on your way to being part of the solution.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You keep on thinking about Westmoreland St. the way it is today. I am talking about the way it could be and should be to be an attractive destination, cope with more people and maximize the rates bill.

I'll happily consider the Westmoreland St. of the future once we can work out what to do with all the cars. The current strategy for achieving the transformation has more than a touch of the underpants gnomes about it, though:

1. Reduce Speed Limit
2. ?
3. Nice pedestrian-friendly street

But why not?:

1. Reroute traffic
2. Reduce speed limit
3. Nice pedestrian-friendly street

I haven't worked out how to reroute today's traffic either, but at least I acknowledge that it's an essential ingredient.

antoinolachtnai

- Reduce the volume of car traffic in the city by increasing the number of pedestrians and cyclists and increasing the average speed of public transport. (say 15 percent reduction in car volume)

- Get a larger proportion of car drivers to use peripheral routes. (say 15 percent reduction). This is not hard to do considering that a lot of new infrastructure has gone and is going into the city. (bridges, tunnels, ring roads) Should drive a further 15 percent reduction.

- Facilitate car drivers who still need to use the city centre to use the road space in a cooperative way.

The problem with your approach (do nothing) is that it results in all the extra capacity that is being created being used up by motor cars.

BostonB

Just ban all cars from the city center. Everyone will rush to use our excellent public transport system and into town. Or go to the shopping centers in the suburbs. I dunno.

LostinBlanch

OK I'm not going to go with this much further as I feel it's going to get more into a points scoring excercise rather than a real discussion about road safety in Dublin City Centre and how to increase it.

I'm glad to see we're both in agreement that all road users should obey the rules of the road including not breaking red lights and using footpaths.

You really, really have a problem with forming priorities.

Perhaps my problem is with some people considering this to be a zero sum game, or people that attack the poster rather than the post. Put simply if you can persuade all groups to comply with the law then it'll work better than if people see one group behaving illegally without any sanction which decreases others willingness to comply with road laws.

It's in this spirit that I put up my previous posts , not as someone that's interested in red herrings. It wasn't put up as an alternative to the reduction in speed limit, surely they can work in conjunction, and I'm sure with tweaking my idea could be revenue neutral so it wouldn't tax those finite resources you mention. Of course if you disagree with it that much I'd like to hear you come up with an alternative for ensuring that cyclists don't break red lights or cycle on footpaths putting pedestrians at risk. Otherwise a cynical reader may suggest that you are perfectly happy to have others obey the law while you (or others like you) don't.

I am very glad you agree with me. You're on your way to being part of the solution.

I'd love to think we all were. But then again I never was arrogant enough to think I had all the answers about anything. Even (or especially) in the areas that I would be considered to have a high level of knowledge in. The more I know about something the more I find out that I don't know.

Anyway, I'm going to finish posting on this thread now so you can have the last word.

Safe journeys to you.

antoinolachtnai

Everyone obeying the rules exactly would be all very well if the road layouts, rules of the road and all the other aspects of road operations allowed it. If you as a cyclist stay behind the 'stop' line at signalled junctions, for example, you will eventually get hit by a motorist, for sure. You will also obstruct the junction for other road users.

The Rules of the Road area a work of fiction on this point. No one really expects or wants cyclists to stay behind the line. There is obviously an unwritten set of rules of the road as well as the written set.

I don't think you are acknowledging this, and that is unfair. You are expecting cyclists to make do with unwritten rules, while car-users have written rules.

Another example of a rule which is frequently disobeyed is pedestrian lights. I am not advocating that this rule be broken. I am saying that consideration should be given to changing it. The full rules for pedestrian lights are highly relevant for high-power motor vehicles. But are they really relevant for bicycles with very little speed, very little momentum and a lot of control? Again, it does appear that there is an unwritten rule of the road about this which most or many people accept.

There is also an argument for making the rules more favorable to cyclists and less favorable to drivers. That's what the current discussion is all about.

My view is that it would be in line with public policy to encourage cycling and walking by making them easier and safer, and to discourage profligate car use at the same time. Maybe you disagree with the public policy, or maybe you disagree with the method of implementing it.

cyclopath2001

LostinBlanch wrote:

Anyway, I'm going to finish posting on this thread now so you can have the last word.

I'm sorry that you cannot accept the businesslike concept of applying the most resources to the behaviours that cause the most damage and that you continue to insist on the inefficient idea of pursuing the much less critical problem of low-speed infractions by cyclists. I can only see this in terms of being a diversionary tactic to take away heat (or is the blame) from the principal villains in the piece...Dublin's motorists.

antoinolachtnai

Calling people villains is unlikely to advance any adult discussion.

It is unfair to call all motorists 'villains'. It is is a problem that there are too many cars, and it is a problem that some people don't drive with a lot of courtesy but that doesn't mean that motorists generally bad people.

cyclopath2001

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Calling people villains is unlikely to advance any adult discussion.

I think until we brand dangerous behaviour for what it is, there will be no change.

I am sure that every driver (or cyclist) who runs amber & red lights, stops on pedestrian crossings, obstructs cycle tracks, stops in box junctions, makes illegal turns & breaks the speed limit on the quays thinks that he or she is just another reasonable honest citizen victimised for trying to get to work.

A campaign that shows how this looks from the point of view of those affected by this unsafe behaviour might change attitudes.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The problem with your approach (do nothing) is that it results in all the extra capacity that is being created being used up by motor cars.

You didn't pay enough attention to step 1 of my approach (1 post up from yours). Though having said that, doing nothing is IMHO prefereable to doing things at random.

You suggested earlier in the thread that it shouldn't be compuslory to follow international example, and I agree. But, in the words of Larry Wall, if you insist in reinventing the wheel, at least try and invent a better one. Oh, and possibly familiarise yourself with the existing wheel designs already in existence. Somebody else has already worked out that circular works better.