Planned speed reduction to 19 MPH in Dublin City Ctr. It may be quicker to walk.

Run_to_da_hills

Forget getting that Taxi from O’Connell St to St Stephens Green on that Saturday night. By the time you wait in line for that cab and crawl to your location at 19 MPH (30KPH) you would have walked it quicker. This is another way the government wants to justify getting these 450 bicycles that it swapped for an estimated 100 Million worth of advertising space from JC Decaux.

This is going to be a double blow for the taxi industry because it will offer "free" Bicycles to many that would have taken a cab and it will also reduce the speed for travel making it not worth while using a taxi in the city ctr. It could also encourage people cycling from A to B on these bicycles with a high alcohol level making dublin streets more treacherous.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0927/1222419966379.html

copacetic

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Forget getting that Taxi from O’Connell St to St Stephens Green on that Saturday night. By the time you wait in line for that cab and crawl to your location at 19 MPH (30KPH) you would have walked it quicker. This is another way the government wants to justify getting these 450 bicycles that it swapped for an estimated 100 Million worth of advertising space from JC Decaux.

This is going to be a double blow for the taxi industry because it will offer "free" Bicycles to many that would have taken a cab and it will also reduce the speed for travel making it not worth while using a taxi in the city ctr. It could also encourage people cycling from A to B with a high alcohol level making dublin streets treacherous.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0927/1222419966379.html

jesus yep, those drunken cyclist will kill us all! :rolleyes:

You would want to be some lazy fecker to get a taxi from o'connell street to stephens green anyway, besides if you can walk at 19mph you'd be too busy winning olympic goal medals to be out on the beer on a saturday.

This is a pretty poor rant, it doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not picturing groups of drunken woman in mini skirts hoping on a free bike rather than falling into a cab.

ok well I am picturing it now, but it isn't going to happen

mikemac

Those 450 bikes will be swiped and at the bottom of the Liffey and canals within a month.
Not many people will see much benefit from them. :mad:

Many parts of the city centre already have this lower limit so it's not a big deal to extend it.
And some day and definitly within the next few years, College green will be a car-free zone.

Who calculates in miles anyway but since it's in Post 1, walking at 19mph is not possible, sure the average is around 4mph.
Actually 19mph is a very decent speed for a bicycle on level ground

eringobragh

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

crawl to your location at 19 MPH (30KPH)

Thought that was the general taxi consensus.......when they have a fare that is.

Run_to_da_hills

micmclo wrote: »

Those 450 bikes will be swiped and at the bottom of the Liffey and canals within a month.
Not many people will see much benefit from them. :mad:

Many parts of the city centre already have this lower limit so it's not a big deal to extend it.
And some day and definitly within the next few years, College green will be a car-free zone.

Who calculates in miles anyway but since it's in Post 1, walking at 19mph is not possible, sure the average is around 4mph.
Actually 19mph is a very decent speed for a bicycle on level ground

I did say combined with waiting for a cab. Don't forget traffic lights etc on the way. And I have in the past taken cabs from A to B in Dublin "Zone 1" as one would call it.

ninty9er

Sure traffic hardly moves at more than 30km/h at the moment anyway...plus if everyone did 30 as opposed to those doing 40/35/30 in 50 zones holding everyone up, traffic will move more freely.

Run_to_da_hills

ninty9er wrote: »

Sure traffic hardly moves at more than 30km/h at the moment anyway.

Not if your on a bike Motorbike. I could possibly see it as a massive way for making revenue on speeding fines. How often do you see traffic doing 30kph in the current restricted zones?

Guy:Incognito

micmclo wrote: »

Who calculates in miles anyway

Run_to_da_hills does because its makes it more sensationalist when the number is lower.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not if your on a bike Motorbike. I could possibly see it as a massive way for making revenue on speeding fines. How often do you see traffic doing 30kph in the current restricted zones?

I vote we raise the speed limits in built up areas to kph. Run_to_da_hills for prezident.

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

I vote we raise the speed limits in built up areas to kph. Run_to_da_hills for prezident.

I suggest you go back to school

markpb

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I did say combined with waiting for a cab. Don't forget traffic lights etc on the way. And I have in the past taken cabs from A to B in Dublin "Zone 1" as one would call it.

Plenty do but it's neither the majority nor the majority of the distance covered by taxis. And since you've brought up traffic lights, it's worth pointing out that if taxis spend a lot of their time stopped at lights, lowering the speed limit of the moving part won't make much difference to the journey time.

Wishbone Ash

markpb wrote: »

if taxis spend a lot of their time stopped at lights, lowering the speed limit of the moving part won't make much difference to the journey time.

+1

copacetic

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I did say combined with waiting for a cab. Don't forget traffic lights etc on the way. And I have in the past taken cabs from A to B in Dublin "Zone 1" as one would call it.

so most of the time is spent waiting for the cab or in the queue? Then what the feck are you moaning about?

"Dublin "Zone 1" as one would call it" One wouldn't call it that, unless one was intentionaly trying to sound like a child trying to be all growed up.

Spook_ie

Can't wait for the 1st compo claim for loaning a bike but not having any helmet provided...even more so if it's a collision with an advertising pole...

or the 1st news item of some prankster cycling off to Carlow or wherever..

or the 1st drunken user to cross my bonnet ( even if I am only doing 30Kph ) it's gonna fookin hurt..

It's madness I tells yer, sheer madness...................:rolleyes:

ninty9er

You're all assuming that there will be no controls on who can rent a bike though.

Run_to_da_hills

ninty9er wrote: »

You're all assuming that there will be no controls on who can rent a bike though.

You will need a credit card to be able to hire one, In France some cities allow transit smart card use on these bicycles provided that the card is linked to your bank account for security.

It will be all computerised. Worst case scenario would be if you abused the system, i.e. not dropping them back on time, returning a damaged bike or if you were caught drunk on one the system could easily deny you access from further rentals.

It could also damage your credit rating if you were responsible for a bike that got nicked and couldn't afford to replace it and went into default on your credit card.

Mr. Presentable

So an area approximately 1km diameter centred on O'Connell Bridge will be 30kmh. That's it, I'm outta here!

RTDH - dude, you need to get out Saturday nights, man

Jumpy

Stekelly wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills for prezident.

Nah, he would be too busy worrying about himself tapping his own phone calls.

Run_to_da_hills

nipplenuts wrote: »

So an area approximately 1km diameter centred on O'Connell Bridge will be 30kmh. That's it, I'm outta here!

RTDH - dude, you need to get out Saturday nights, man

The only reason that I can see the Dublin CC wanting to lower the speed limit to 30KPH and possibly less if they had their way is that they are sh**ting themselves about the insurance liability of this bicycle project. I am sure the catchment area will be confined to a certain radius of the city ctr.

Seth Brundle

The gardai bought 8 shiny new talivans the other day. How else did you think they would pay for them?

Ciaran500

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The only reason that I can see the Dublin CC wanting to lower the speed limit to 30KPH and possibly less if they had their way is that they are sh**ting themselves about the insurance liability of this bicycle project.

What? How does that make sense?

They provide the bikes, its their own fault if they crash them and helmets are not required by law so they do not have to provide them.

Run_to_da_hills

Ciaran500 wrote: »

What? How does that make sense?

They provide the bikes, its their own fault if they crash them and helmets are not required by law so they do not have to provide them.

It was a concern a few months back with DCC over the liability.

Just this article now that JC Decaux have confirmed they have a public liability policy in place. Insurance would be necessary if an accident was caused by a badly maintained bike such as brake failure etc. Possibly one of the conditions with JC Decaux taking liability was to reduce the traffic speed limit in the inner city.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/dubliners-to-finally-see-controversial-rental-bikes-on-streets-next-year-1475764.html

Bee

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Forget getting that Taxi from O’Connell St to St Stephens Green on that Saturday night. By the time you wait in line for that cab and crawl to your location at 19 MPH (30KPH) you would have walked it quicker. This is another way the government wants to justify getting these 450 bicycles that it swapped for an estimated 100 Million worth of advertising space from JC Decaux.

This is going to be a double blow for the taxi industry because it will offer "free" Bicycles to many that would have taken a cab and it will also reduce the speed for travel making it not worth while using a taxi in the city ctr. It could also encourage people cycling from A to B on these bicycles with a high alcohol level making dublin streets more treacherous.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0927/1222419966379.html

It's part of the Green Partys influence in Dublin $hitty Coucil to force private car traffic to slow down to as slow as public transport to force tax-payers out of their cars onto unsocial Dublin Bus et-al

I hear that they also want to enforce (correctly in any medical opinion) the wearing of helmets, and high viz jackets for users of the bicycle hire scheme.

I wonder who will pick up on the insurance for the usrs of the bikes?

I have nothing against them per-se for the poor, the masochists, the lyrca wearing weirdos and other social welfare recipients who can't afford cars but it was one sleazy deal to exchange €100 million advertising signs for a paltry few bikes whilst decreasing pedestrian safety as excellently highlighted on this site and others

BostonB

They'd be better off with more cops on the road and enforcing the existing laws, then bringing in new laws which they won't enforce properly.

Neil_Sedaka

BostonB wrote: »

They'd be better off with more cops on the road and enforcing the existing laws, then bringing in new laws which they won't enforce properly.

+1

Run_to_da_hills

BostonB wrote: »

They'd be better off with more cops on the road and enforcing the existing laws, then bringing in new laws which they won't enforce properly.

They do not need any more cops on the road, They have enough CCTV as it is to enforce any law and order if they wanted to.

BostonB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They do not need any more cops on the road, They have enough CCTV as it is to enforce any law and order if they wanted to.

You must live in a different city to me because I rarely see CCTV or cops especially at the most abused junctions, roads.

Run_to_da_hills

BostonB wrote: »

You must live in a different city to me because I rarely see CCTV or cops especially at the most abused junctions, roads.

Have you been in Temple bar, O Connell St, Grafton St, Dame St, Parliament St, Talbot St and most city centre junctions. Just look up. There are two types of cameras, I.e. DCC and Garda, not to be confused, The Garda cams have their logo sticker on the side and are generally not perched up as high as the DCC traffic cams.

BostonB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Have you been in Temple bar, O Connell St, Grafton St, Dame St, Parliament St, Talbot St and most city centre junctions. Just look up. There are two types of cameras, I.e. DCC and Garda, not to be confused, The Garda cams have their logo on the side and are generally not perched up as high up as the DCC traffic cams.

I think the question is do YOU do much driving on Grafton St, Temple Bar, especially where a 19mph limit is an issue for you!!!!

Run_to_da_hills

BostonB wrote: »

I think the question is do YOU do much driving on Grafton St, Temple Bar, especially where a 19mph limit is an issue for you!!!!

I ride a motorbike in the city if I am not using public transport.

Ciaran500

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They do not need any more cops on the road, They have enough CCTV as it is to enforce any law and order if they wanted to.

And you can enforce speed limits from CCTV how?

BostonB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I ride a motorbike in the city if I am not using public transport.

?

fumpidge

I am a bike courier and these speed restrictions are a load of Bol****x I may as well pack it in as I will get nothing done in the day. I have over 20 years experience and never had claim agaist me, I don't travell excessivly fast and have yet to get a speeding ticket in the city.

ninty9er

fumpidge wrote: »

I am a bike courier and these speed restrictions are a load of Bol****x I may as well pack it in as I will get nothing done in the day. I have over 20 years experience and never had claim agaist me, I don't travell excessivly fast and have yet to get a speeding ticket in the city.

Well you've nothing to worry about then! FFS it's a speed reduction, not a red light!!

Why do bikers already assume that speed limits don't apply to them, on Motorways particularly?

MadsL

A PROPOSAL to impose a 30km/h speed limit in Dublin city centre will be debated by an influential transport committee next week.

The recommendation is contained within a motion, which also calls on Dublin City Council to extend the HGV ban to include three- and four-axle trucks.

Currently, only five-plus axle lorries are banned from entering the canal cordon without a permit from the council.

However, a Labour motion tabled for the council's transport committee on Thursday calls on the restriction to be "urgently" extended.

The council was in talks with the Department of Transport late last year with a view to introducing a 30km/h limit in the core city centre area.

This was to come in advance of the introduction of a shared bicycle scheme in Dublin.

The new limits could be fast-tracked if the motion, tabled by Dermot Lacey, is adopted on Thursday.

"What I am trying to achieve here is a package of reforms that will make life safer for cyclists in the city," Cllr Lacey told the Herald.

He also wants to see the period of operation for cycle lanes to be extended beyond 7pm.


tunnel

The HGV ban was introduced following the opening of the Dublin Port Tunnel in December, 2006.

It operates within the area bounded by the Royal and the Grand Canals.

In September last year, the National Roads Authority (NRA) said, on the face of it, a lowering of limits in the city centre area would make sense.

The bike rental scheme involves French company JC Decaux providing 450 bicycles in return for 72 on-street advertising panels throughout the city.

Much criticism has already been directed at the bike plan, with calls for the council to make public its contract with JC Decaux.

Millions of euro worth of billboard sites have been handed over by the council in return for the bicycles.

"I know there is commercial sensitivity, but I sometimes do not buy that line. I would be in favour of the information being made available to the public," Labour's Sean Kenny stated.

Stuart Fogarty, of AFA O'Meara, Ireland's largest advertising agency, also has questions about the deal. "They will be the most expensive bicycles in the world. Those advertising sites are worth at least €100m and we are swapping them for a few hundred bicycles," he said.

"There are too few bicycles to make any real impact on traffic."

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-drivers-facing-30km-speed-limit-1632055.html


At least we may not kill (broken bones instead) pedestrians stepping out from behind the fecking Decaux signs!

peasant

is that a recent article?
source?

preilly79

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They do not need any more cops on the road, They have enough CCTV as it is to enforce any law and order if they wanted to.

How can they enforce laws using evidence that isn't admissible in court?

Run_to_da_hills

preilly79 wrote: »

How can they enforce laws using evidence that isn't admissible in court?

Footage from social web sites such as Utube and Facebook are enough to hang you so no reason why footage from CCTV cams can do same.

The Uk authorities are already using the congestion charge ANPR cams for average speed detection.

Bunnyhopper

I think this is a great proposal and I hope it goes ahead.

rubadub

Bee wrote: »

I hear that they also want to enforce (correctly in any medical opinion) the wearing of helmets, and high viz jackets for users of the bicycle hire scheme.

Any? You might want to research that a bit, many do not wear helmets specifically because they believe it to be safer...

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=205323&sectioncode=26
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481926?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16019398?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

crawl to your location at 19 MPH (30KPH)

At the moment its 50 and most people ignore that, why do you think it'll be any different when the limit is 30?

Everyone will still drive about town at 60...

We no longer use MPH either, stop using just to show a lower number trying to make it seem a bigger deal than it is.

Rowley Birkin QC

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I think this is a great proposal and I hope it goes ahead.

Why?

-Chris-

I fully support this law. I think it's a great idea.

Too many people around, too many things to step out from behind etc. etc. I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect to be allowed to do 50KMPH up O'Connell Street.

I don't want any more of town pedestrianised, but I think a very low speed limit is a compromise which allows vehicular access to the centre of town, but gives the tourist who steps off the kerb looking the wrong way a fighting chance.

Bunnyhopper

bigkev49 wrote: »

Why?

Because a city centre that is more friendly to pedestrians is one that's likely to attract more pedestrians, which, until all the shops turn themselves into drive-throughs, is good for business as well as being good for pedestrians and, yes, good for cyclists. (It's no coincidence that the city centre's main shopping streets are pedestrianized.)

As for the needs of vehicular traffic, well, it's not as if they're talking about shutting down everything between the canals. It's just a small, very central area that's under discussion. People and goods will still need to get to and into that area so the demand for vehicular access (and consequently for carparks, taxis and delivery vehicles) remains.

If this were managed correctly (and that's a whole other question), then for those who need to drive in the city centre there might be a benefit in that those who don't need to drive there would take alternative routes. If you genuinely need to drive in the very centre of the city then you might more regularly find yourself actually doing 30kph there, rather than doing something that averages out at a fraction of that because of all the traffic that doesn't really need to be there.

A reduced speed limit is a reasonable compromise (as AudiChris says) between all of these competing demands on the central core of the city.

And because I sometimes like walking and cycling, and either of those modes of travelling is no more or less valid a choice than driving

Mucco

What's the average speed in the centre of Dublin? I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near 30kph.

Seth Brundle

AudiChris wrote: »

I fully support this law. I think it's a great idea.

Too many people around, too many things to step out from behind etc. etc. I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect to be allowed to do 50KMPH up O'Connell Street.

I don't want any more of town pedestrianised, but I think a very low speed limit is a compromise which allows vehicular access to the centre of town, but gives the tourist who steps off the kerb looking the wrong way a fighting chance.

I the existing speeding and 'jaywalking' laws were enforced then there possibly would be no problem.

-Chris-

Absolutely, there's no point in any law unless someone's ar$ed to have them enforced.

Otherwise we're just wasting more taxpayer's money on:
1) a consulting group to decide on the speed limit
2) architects/engineers etc. to work on how and where to put the new speed limit signs
3)the signs themselves
4)the cost of the publicity campaign that will doubtless follow

rubadub

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At the moment its 50 and most people ignore that, why do you think it'll be any different when the limit is 30?

Everyone will still drive about town at 60...

So the limit is 50 and people drive at 60, perhaps they know all this and lowering it to 30 will have them driving at 40-50...

Mucco wrote: »

What's the average speed in the centre of Dublin? I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near 30kph.

It would not be, it was never claimed to be a high average. But some people stuck for ages let rip when they get a chance, due to frustration at that "low average". If I drive at 25kph for an hour at a limit of 50kph, should I be allowed go 75kph for the next hour to make up for it? average has no real relevance.

AudiChris wrote: »

Absolutely, there's no point in any law unless someone's ar$ed to have them enforced.

A lot of laws are loosely enforced since the real action it is meant to prevent is not same action in which the law is most often techinically broken. e.g. they do not haul everybody with an ipod into the station to check if their mp3s are legal, yet a lad techincally breaking the same law, flogging them in a market will be. Same for jaywalking, a person crossing a road in a traffic jam in town is let off. A guy sprinting down the M50 causing juggernauts to jacknife is a tad different in the minds of most coppers with an ounce of cop-on.

Otherwise we're just wasting more taxpayer's money on:

I would not want my tax money wasted on a huge police force and massive prisons to catch & house every law breaker in the country. Thank christ we do not have many pedantic arsehole cops & judges imprisoning everybody for every little technicality.

biko

They should make it illegal to put the car in third gear

-Chris-

rubadub wrote: »

I would not want my tax money wasted on a huge police force and massive prisons to catch & house every law breaker in the country. Thank christ we do not have many pedantic arsehole cops & judges imprisoning everybody for every little technicality.

That's all well and good, and as you rightly state, without Garda discretion every courthouse in the country would be full to the gills.

Do you not think it's pointless to revise a speed limit (or introduce any other law) without enforcing it?
If drivers knew that once a month, every month, there would be a random speed trap on O'Connell Street, they would stick to the speed limit (or something approaching it).
Without visible enforcement every now-and-again, the law would be flouted and it wouldn't matter if the limit was 10KMPH or 100KMPH.

I'm not saying every law should be enforced, nor every minor transgression prosecuted, but there's no point in making new laws without an intention to punish people for breaking it.

rubadub

AudiChris wrote: »

Do you not think it's pointless to revise a speed limit (or introduce any other law) without enforcing it?

I cannot honestly think of any law that has not been enforced, my mates brother was done for jaywalking on the N11. The fact the law is there is enough to make most people think twice as to why it is there in the first place. Even if they do not agree with it they will think twice about breaking it.

AudiChris wrote: »

Without visible enforcement every now-and-again, the law would be flouted and it wouldn't matter if the limit was 10KMPH or 100KMPH.

If everybody started doing 100kph in a 30kph zone it would be more likely to be enforced. I remember when it was 50kph on the N11 a year or so ago with road works. I did not see a single person obey the limit, including dublin buses. They will turn a blind eye to some degree, everybody knows this. People flick ash on the ground while smoking which is technically littering. As I said before.

The limit is 50 and people drive at 60, perhaps they know all this and lowering it to 30 will have them driving at 40-50.

And many people do obey laws regardless if they are enforced or not, it does not mean they respect or agree with them.