Dan Boyle - Green Party Suggestion - Reduce Speed Limits

darkman2

Let me tell you something about the Green Party - they wheel out an unelected member of their party to talk ****e and sound the ground. They have not the guts for the elected members to talk rubbish like this guy. Two faced f*cking bastards - the motorist is persecuted in this country - absolutely raped through tax and this guy thinks he can say this willy nilly without consequence. Push this type of thing and (this is to Green Party members) you will be out of office so fast the door wont have time to stop from slamming on you. I think we should make that clear. I did not elect for these lunatics to be in government - bare that in mind Fianna Fail.:mad:

Thomas_B

I would find the invective on this thread hilarious if it didn't scare me a bit.

Air resistance is directly proportional to the square of the velocity of a vehicle. So decreasing the speed limit from 120 to 100 km/h (reduction of 17%) results in a decrease of 31% in the air resistance. That's why there's so much to be gained from reducing the speed limit in terms of fuel efficiency.

Air resistance is not the only thing that varies with the square of the velocity: so does the kinetic energy. So you get the same 31% reduction in kinetic energy. To veer off into road safety for a sec, no matter how many safety gismos you have, that's why speeding kills, because you have such a large increase of kinetic energy to dissipate due to the square relationship.

I've seen two studies that puts the speeding rate of young male drivers at roughly 30% where their share of population is half that. So maybe given the demographics around here it's not surprising that a reduced speed limit is being greeted with such hyperbole on this thread.

Back to fuel efficiency -- because transport represents the fastest growing element of our national CO2 emissions, something has to be done. So, if we take it from this thread that reducing speed limits will annoy the japanese-hatchback-with-silly-big-bore-exhausts-and-the-handling-abilities-of-a-cheese-omelette-driving brigade too much -- what's our alternative? At least the greens are acknowledging we do have a problem.

Calina

Our alternative is better public transport. It is also by some distance a better long term alternative than reducing speed limits and nothing to counterbalance. The Green Party, since their arrival in power have gone for easy targets and only easy targets.

I'd also like to note that generalisations about posters who may be against this scheme on the part of the Green Party are not welcome. I am not a boy racer, will never be a boy racer as I am a) not a boy and b) not of the type to be a boy racer. But I put a value on my time and I see that drivers are being compelled to make a disproportionate sacrifice in the face of carbon emissions purely because they are an easy target. Not only that, our accident rate is particularly bad on non-highspeed roads.

Enforcement of current limits would go a long way towards sorting out the safety issue. Improved public transport would go a long way towards sorting out the emissions issue. Currently we have nothing other than a harebrained scheme whose key impact will be to dump the environmental party out of government next time round.

That doesn't constitute making a difference in my book. It constitutes a lack of touch with practical reality on a daily basis.

djpbarry

Calina wrote: »

However, regardless, this idea is starting to strongly give me the impression that the environmental movement, such as it exists in Ireland today, enjoys tunnel vision that fails to recognise how it stamples on individual rights.

That’s a little unfair; I would say elements of the “environmental movement” are somewhat blinkered.

Calina wrote: »

I'd also add that it's denial to fail to recognise that necessity is the mother of invention. Whether you like it or not an alternative energy source will be developed. It's just a question of when.

Indeed it is a question of when; months? Years? Decades? What happens in the mean time?

Calina wrote: »

There is no point in crying about how people don't have alternative fuelled cars because they are too expensive now proving how it's not going to work. There was a time a computer cost the same price as a small house.

I wasn’t attempting to prove that something doesn’t work at all. The point is that we cannot sit around and wait for technology to solve all our problems.

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

… I've had enough of this green mentality sweeping the country with people actually believing that lifestyles in Ireland could control the weather of the world…

Yes, of course; we can do whatever the hell we like without any environmental consequences whatsoever :rolleyes:.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you want me to list them out?

Yes please.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Cutting speed limits is a lame, lazy copout alternative to REAL ideas. Biofuels, electric cars, hydrogen-fuel. All of these are viable alternatives that should be researched and properly considered. Instead, however, we're stuck with a group of politicians that don't seem to have any real desire to adopt proper long-term changes when it comes to issues like this.

Oh, so it’s up to the government to make “proper long-term changes”, is it? We don’t have to do anything?

Deleted User wrote: »

Get the lead out these things CAN be done. Where is the "can do" attitude? They(all politicians) promised us everything at election time

Yep; all the governments fault.

BluntGuy wrote: »

There is no 'can-do' attitude with politicians. They just sit back and complain along with the rest of us when they should be triumphantly leading us into better times. We need politicians with a bit of vision and insight.

Everything. Everything is their fault. I am in no way responsible for anything I do; it’s ALL their fault.

Lot’s of criticism of the government flying around here, yet nobody has suggested any alternative measures other than “ah sure, it’ll be grand; somebody will invent some new-age, alternative bio-fuel-cell thingy that will sort everything.”

trap4

Just as I (kinda) predicted - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055346487

Koyasan

Are we just deciding to outright ignore the motivation behind the proposal?

Some people in this country have realised that we are currently far above the 12% increase on 1990 levels of CO2 that we signed up to under the Kyoto protocol (2007 data put it at 26.5% above).

Even if we managed to attain the modest reductions set out by the Greens in the programme for government, we would still only get to 18% above 1990 levels. The other 5% would have to be made up by purchasing increasingly expensive carbon credits.

One slight problem...:eek:

We are currently not near reaching the levels laid out in the programme for government. The less controversial (marginally so) proposals that are going ahead will result in medium to long term decreases in CO2 levels.

We desperately need short term fixes to avoid a major financial headache in 2012 as we blow our budget on tax credits.

This speed limit proposal is a desperate short term fix that would have an effect immediately and would help us reach our (yes OUR, all of us. You, me, yous, ye. First person plural. Sinn Féin. Nous. Watashi tachi) 2012 requirements. It still won't be enough, but it's good to start the debate, and better alternative to increases in taxation or cuts in public spending that would otherwise be necessary.

Reenascreena

Irish motorists are responsible for less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
What about trucks, aircraft, farting cows, ocean liners?
No too much like hard work, screw the average guy who's just trying to get buy.

While we're at it lets ban patios. They cause flooding don't they? What about shopping centres, rampant development concreting over the land? No, it's easier to screw the average guy.

Recycling, lets leave the industries that create massive waste continue doing what they always have. We'll make the average guy pay through the nose instead.

They were against one off housing but it now seems the alternative is causing floods. They were all for bio-fuels, screw the poor in the third world hey if we can have buses running on apple juice.

What a load of bo**ocks.

Private cars will always be the principle form of transport in this country if they are running on petrol, diesel or ginger beer unless there is some Pol-Pot style forced relocation of the masses to the cities.

There is virtually no public transport in this country outside of Dublin and never will be and our roads kill people on a weekly basis they are so bad and they want to keep them that way.

It's time the Greens copped on to reality. If they really want to change things they need to start at the top, not at the bottom by making life harder and more expensive for ordinary people and providing zero benefits to the environment in the process.

djpbarry

Reenascreena wrote: »

If they really want to change things they need to start at the top...

Meaning what exactly?

Reenascreena

Industry, motor companies, BIG nations like the US, China, India, Brazil. The big European states. Food packaging, Agricultural practices, power generation, airlines, shipping, mining. Provision of proper IT services so people don't have to drive as much. The primary sector.

Dropping speed limits, banning patios, plastic bag levies etc. etc. are just political stunts and many of these "green" measures just ways of raising taxes and making it look like they are doing something. In reality it's just p*ssing into a hurricane and in the process alienating ordinary people. Which in my view is the direct opposite of what a truly green party should be doing.

RedPlanet

Think Globally, Act Locally.

Is that the first time anybody here has heard that?

I don't believe all those people whom claim they've no other way to get to work other than their personal automobile.
I know quite a number of people living in the city that choose to drive rather than take the bus because they are too lazy or too snobbish for public transport.
Others, we'll they've chosen a way of life (like living in commuterville) that makes them dependent upon the car, then blame the government for not making it easy for them.
It's pathetic to read all the comments of people sooo upset for having to actually decrease their speed by a mere 20kph.

djpbarry

Reenascreena wrote: »

Industry, motor companies, BIG nations like the US, China, India, Brazil. The big European states. Food packaging, Agricultural practices, power generation, airlines, shipping, mining. Provision of proper IT services so people don't have to drive as much. The primary sector.

Ok, that’s a nice little list, but it doesn’t mean very much, does it? You want the Green Party to sort all this for you (not sure what “sorting” will involve)? You don’t expect much from your TD’s, do you?

Reenascreena wrote: »

Dropping speed limits, banning patios, plastic bag levies etc. etc. are just political stunts and many of these "green" measures just ways of raising taxes and making it look like they are doing something.

You don’t think the plastic bag levy was a good idea? And I didn’t realise that patios have been banned?

Reenascreena

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, that’s a nice little list, but it doesn’t mean very much, does it? You want the Green Party to sort all this for you (not sure what “sorting” will involve)? You don’t expect much from your TD’s, do you?
You don’t think the plastic bag levy was a good idea? And I didn’t realise that patios have been banned?

I expect TDs to legislate in the interests of the people, not as part of a continual, meaningless PR campaign.

And keep your cocky self righteous tone to yourself.

Heroditas

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's pathetic to read all the comments of people sooo upset for having to actually decrease their speed by a mere 20kph.

So you think it'll make a difference to the planet do you? How about tackling the issues of energy management on a larger scale in many of the major industrial companies in the country? How about addressing the fact that we have a great opportunity to harness the natural resources at our fingertips to genertae electricity, yet it is being left to independent electricity generators to pioneer renewables.

zuroph

everyone is aware that Dan Boyle pretty much admitted on the last word that he only said this to encourage debate, and never expected to see it implemented, or would even say that he wanted it implemented. this was a headline grabbing stunt by the greens to try get some airtime to talk about carbon emissions, while not actually doing anything.

astrofool

I hope everyone that was stupid enough to vote for the greens last time are paying attention to this.

Calina

This thread has 2 hours to live if tempers get any more fraught.

djpbarry

Reenascreena wrote: »

I expect TDs to legislate in the interests of the people, not as part of a continual, meaningless PR campaign.

As has already been pointed out on this thread, nobody is drafting legislation with regard to reducing the speed limit.

Reenascreena wrote: »

And keep your cocky self righteous tone to yourself.

So you can’t answer the difficult questions, eh? It’ll as all too easy to have a big, pointless rant about the government, but it’s not exactly constructive.

Heroditas wrote: »

How about addressing the fact that we have a great opportunity to harness the natural resources at our fingertips to genertae electricity, yet it is being left to independent electricity generators to pioneer renewables.

You think the government should take it on? Seriously?

What Vision?

Normal single carriageway should be 90 km/h
wide & with hard shoulders 100 km/h

but that can't be done as 90 km/h isn't legal.
I don't know why speed limits are limited to

30 km/h
50 km/h
60 km/h
80 km/h
100 km/h
120 km/h

In legislation all roads should have a default limit of 50 km/h and then the county council increases them to a suitable speed, so little boreens for national routes don't have 100 km/h posted on then.

Speed limits should have been any number between 30 and 120 in multiples of 10.

So we'd have the missing 70 km/h, 90 km/h, 110 km/h

70 could be used on some collector routes in urban areas that are currently 60 km/h.

Reenascreena

djpbarry wrote: »

As has already been pointed out on this thread, nobody is drafting legislation with regard to reducing the speed limit.
So you can’t answer the difficult questions, eh? It’ll as all too easy to have a big, pointless rant about the government, but it’s not exactly constructive.
You think the government should take it on? Seriously?

Apparently I've been offensive to you in asking you not to patronise those who don't hold your views and there you go again.

The serious point is that Green Party policy is all meaningless guff and does nothing to tackle the real polluters/energy wasters etc.

Banning all motorised transport in Ireland tomorrow would make absolutely no difference whatsoever so the question you have to ask yourself is why do they come out with this meaningless twaddle in the first place?

I'll probably be banned now as strong arguments seem out of place in this "forum" for debate.

Nothing personal, I simply feel that you fundamentally couldn't be more wrong and these stupid side issues like the speed limit detract from the real issues regarding climate change and in my opinion the Greens are a disgrace for behaving in such a way.

serfboard

RedPlanet wrote: »

I know quite a number of people living in the city that choose to drive rather than take the bus because they are too lazy or too snobbish for public transport.

Well, maybe that's the case for people you know (maybe you're keeping the wrong kind of company , but I don't think you can extrapolate that to explain other people's motivation. I've read numerous comments on this forum from people who, although they have public transport available to them, can make comparisons between public transport and driving, where public transport comes off worst in terms of time taken. It has to be carrot and stick - but until we deliver the carrot of world-class public transport, the stick of proposals like this will always cause resentment.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Others, we'll they've chosen a way of life (like living in commuterville) that makes them dependent upon the car, then blame the government for not making it easy for them.

It depends what you mean by chosen. A lot of people aspire to owning their own dwellings - a not inconsiderable aspiration. But, due to the fact that the price of city-centre owning has become so expensive, they were forced into moving further and further out, to places with no public transport. Why there was not more affordable city living, or why massive developments were allowed to be built without adequate public transport, surely has to be because of government policies (or lack of them).

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's pathetic to read all the comments of people sooo upset for having to actually decrease their speed by a mere 20kph.

The funny thing is, that I think that the government won't have to do anything about this - as a poster already reported, their on-board computer showed significant reductions in fuel consumption at particular (lower) speeds. The rising price of oil will cause more people to realise this and travel at fuel-efficient speeds.

djpbarry

Reenascreena wrote: »

The serious point is that Green Party policy is all meaningless guff and does nothing to tackle the real polluters/energy wasters etc.

Again I’ll ask; in your opinion, what should they do?

Reenascreena wrote: »

Banning all motorised transport in Ireland tomorrow would make absolutely no difference whatsoever…

To what? Our emissions? I think you’ll find that you are incorrect. In 2006, the transport sector was responsible for 34% of Ireland’s energy related CO2 emissions, higher than any of the other sectors, namely industry, residential and services sectors (source).

serfboard wrote: »

It has to be carrot and stick - but until we deliver the carrot of world-class public transport, the stick of proposals like this will always cause resentment.

I wouldn’t be so sure; according to the Dublin Transportation Office, 55% of car owners are unlikely to consider walking for journeys of 1 mile or less (source). The best public transport system in the world isn’t going to make any difference with attitudes like that.

serfboard wrote: »

But, due to the fact that the price of city-centre owning has become so expensive, they were forced into moving further and further out, to places with no public transport.

Who forced them?

zuroph

personally, i think we should all take less breaths per minute, to reduce carbon dioxide production.

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

A
Who forced them?

That's what i want to know too.
Somebody forced people to buy up houses in far flung commuter-hell when they knew there was no public transport?

Propellerhead

RedPlanet wrote: »

That's what i want to know too.
Somebody forced people to buy up houses in far flung commuter-hell when they knew there was no public transport?

What people can afford to buy in the real world has everything to do with it. You may have noticed the price differential between Dundrum, Clontarf and Killiney on one hand and places like Virginia Co Cavan on the other.

Not everyone in this country has enough wages to live on the DART line.

Propellerhead

RedPlanet wrote: »

Think Globally, Act Locally.

Is that the first time anybody here has heard that?

I don't believe all those people whom claim they've no other way to get to work other than their personal automobile.
I know quite a number of people living in the city that choose to drive rather than take the bus because they are too lazy or too snobbish for public transport.
Others, we'll they've chosen a way of life (like living in commuterville) that makes them dependent upon the car, then blame the government for not making it easy for them.
It's pathetic to read all the comments of people sooo upset for having to actually decrease their speed by a mere 20kph.

well, I suppose it will help the Gardai increase their arrest total without having to deal with any pesky real criminals, and allow a few people who cycle to work in Dublin 6 feel morally superior to the rest of the people of Ireland, who can't afford to live so close to their work.

serfboard

RedPlanet wrote: »

That's what i want to know too.
Somebody forced people to buy up houses in far flung commuter-hell when they knew there was no public transport?

The "morket" forced them - due to the fact that there was no housing available closer to the cities that were within their budgets. Now, if it is not the responsibility of government to provide/provide for (i.e. plan for) housing for its citizens, I don't know whose it is. But hey, Fianna Fail weren't going to "interfere" in a system that was making millions for their most loyal supporters.

Reenascreena

djpbarry wrote: »

Again I’ll ask; in your opinion, what should they do?
To what? Our emissions? I think you’ll find that you are incorrect. In 2006, the transport sector was responsible for 34% of Ireland’s energy related CO2 emissions, higher than any of the other sectors, namely industry, residential and services sectors (source).
I wouldn’t be so sure; according to the Dublin Transportation Office, 55% of car owners are unlikely to consider walking for journeys of 1 mile or less (source). The best public transport system in the world isn’t going to make any difference with attitudes like that.
Who forced them?

1. They could start by putting in place proper planning laws. Completely overhauling the health service, investing heavily in public transport, especially outside of Dublin, putting an end to tax-breaks for the wealthy such as in construction and the equine industry. Trying to tackle the fact that 5,000 people die needlessly in this country every year. (source). Ending fuel poverty, ensuring nobody sleeps on the streets. Policies to reverse our growing levels of income inequality and social exclusion.
Investing in economic infrastructure. Sorting out our terrible water supply systems and on and on.

2. Ireland is a nation of less than five million people. The global population is 6.4 billion and climbing. If we were wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow it would make NO difference.
We were 0.2 per cent of world CO2 emissions in 2004 (source) and are even less significant now with the growth of developing countries. That's ALL of our CO2, not just transport. CO2 accounts for 72 % of greenhouse gases, and globally transport accounts for 14% of the overall total (source). Global warming does not stop at national boundaries.

3. At the last census, 2006, the population of Dublin was 1,187,176 (source). The population of the entire state was 4,239,848. Therefore about 3/4 of the population do not live in Dublin. A significant proportion of these people are reliant on the car for transport. That is simply a fact of life which must be taken into account.

I suggest again that gimmicks such as the speed limit idea are a complete waste of time and they know it. The only way to affect change on global warming is to influence those who can do something about it. Penalising our own people as part of a PR exercise is a sham.

RedPlanet

serfboard wrote: »

The "morket" forced them - due to the fact that there was no housing available closer to the cities that were within their budgets. Now, if it is not the responsibility of government to provide/provide for (i.e. plan for) housing for its citizens, I don't know whose it is. But hey, Fianna Fail weren't going to "interfere" in a system that was making millions for their most loyal supporters.

So can you tell me where it says a man or woman must own a house?
What's wrong with renting?
People do it all over the world, including ireland.
Are you motorists so special that you must also own a house besides your personal automobiles to tote yourselves about the place?

RedPlanet

Propellerhead wrote: »

What people can afford to buy in the real world has everything to do with it. You may have noticed the price differential between Dundrum, Clontarf and Killiney on one hand and places like Virginia Co Cavan on the other.

Not everyone in this country has enough wages to live on the DART line.

See my post above Propellerhead.
If you choose to buy a house in commuterville then that is the choice you've made.

Propellerhead

RedPlanet wrote: »

See my post above Propellerhead.
If you choose to buy a house in commuterville then that is the choice you've made.

You've made a false presumption there.