Reduced Speed Limit in Dublin City Centre

DeepBlue

I searched for a thread here as I'm sure this must have been discussed already but couldn't find one.
Mods, please merge if one exists.

There was a discussion on this yesterday on Pat Kenny's radio show - link (20 minutes) with Conor Faughnan (AA Roadwatch) and Andrew Montague (Dublin City Councillor).
It was pretty clear that Kenny and Faughnan's attitude was this this was another "fcuk the motorist" initiative and they were dismissive of the possiblity that it might make cycling safer in the city centre and especially on the quays.

The irony is that if it did make cyclist feel safer in the city centre then far more would take to the bike and free up the jams that clog up the city centre every day.

it's mick

i think it's a load of rubbish. they don't enforce the current speed limit in the city anyway (and at most times of the day cars don't get anywhere near 30km), what they really need to do is sort out all the ridiculous cycle paths they've put in. it's good that they're making some sort of effort but they really need to get some cyclists to design cycling features in the city.

Lumen

It was discussed a while back in a couple of the infrastructure threads.

Personally I think it's a bad idea. Down with slowness. Up with real engineering solutions that allow both safety and speed.

When the traffic is heavy the limits are irrelevant, when the traffic is light people should be granted a respite from the teeth-grindingly frustrating slowness.

When cycling my bike I value the sense of freedom, and I don't see why other road users should be abitrarily denied the same.

seamus

The first one of us stopped for breaking the limit on pedals has to post here.

BigDuffman

ridiculous...I cant see this being enforced whole-heartedly.

blorg

seamus wrote: »

The first one of us stopped for breaking the limit on pedals has to post here.

Speed limits don't apply to bikes. You could possible be done for some sort of dangerous cycling or recklessness if cycling at an inappropriate speed near pedestrians or something but the speed limits themselves only apply to motorised vehicles.

seamus

blorg wrote: »

Speed limits don't apply to bikes.

I doubt all Gardai are aware of that though

Jawgap

blorg wrote: »

Speed limits don't apply to bikes. You could possible be done for some sort of dangerous cycling or recklessness if cycling at an inappropriate speed near pedestrians or something but the speed limits themselves only apply to motorised vehicles.

Pity! I was looking forward to getting chased by the "Larda" MTB squad!!

ten speed racer

I think it is a positive development, and I think the AA's objections are probably due to them not knowing what's good for them.

If cars travel at 30 Km/h, they should get a green wave of traffic lights. So rather than constant accelaration and braking, traffic should flow much better and the average traffic speed should move the current 10-15 Km/h.

And removing the faster moving traffic should increase cyclist and pedestrian safety.

It should be a win-win.

Lumen

ten speed racer wrote: »

And removing the faster moving traffic should increase cyclist and pedestrian safety.

Why not just ban all vehicles from the city centre altogether? Then there would be no ped-car collisions at all, and kids could play football along the south quays rather than being forced to use the totally inadequate 1,760 acres of the Phoenix Park just up the road.

Will someone not think of the children?

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

When cycling my bike I value the sense of freedom, and I don't see why other road users should be abitrarily denied the same.

Because in case of a collision with a pedestrian in a densely populated urban area the car is far more likely to kill said pedestrian if travelling at over 30km/h?

DirkVoodoo

Hmmm....So what's to stop speeders simply drafting behind slow moving cars to get the light change, then quickly speeding up to the next slow moving car approaching the next green light.

These kind of measures seem to make matters worse. Slow people drive slower, mostly in the outside lane, which in turn angers the people who would speed anyway, making them take more risks, overtake dangerously, break lights and speed more.

I mean people barely obey the speed limits in the city centre as things stand and I'm sure they will find a way around this traffic light system by racing orange lights or just breaking red ones.

But sure give it a chance I guess.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Because in case of a collision with a pedestrian in a densely populated urban area the car is far more likely to kill said pedestrian if travelling at over 30km/h?

Then the dozy peds should look where they're going.

Jawgap

I think the main danger to cyclists is HGVs and driver behaviour rather than speed per se.

monument

Hmm...

Call for speed limit reduction
DAVID LABANYI

A SENIOR public health doctor has called on local authorities to consider introducing 30km/h speed limit zones in towns and villages in a bid to reduce deaths and injuries from crashes.


Dr Declan Bedford, acting director of public health with the HSE and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said research from London showed the rationale for lower limits in built up areas was compelling.


The Grundy study, published in the British Medical Journal last week, found a reduction to a 20mph (32km/h) limit led to a 40 per cent fall in casualties and collisions over a 20-year period to 2006.


It also found no evidence of crashes being displaced to other routes with a higher speed limit...


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2009/1216/1224260753526.html

Jawgap

aaaaah, the perfect Friday afternoon thread.........cake anyone?

ten speed racer

Lumen wrote: »

Why not just ban all vehicles from the city centre altogether? QUOTE]

Now there's an idea...

But, honestly, you're just being daft. Why not increase the speed limit to 100 Km/h in residential areas? Will someone not think of the drivers?

Lumen

ten speed racer wrote: »

But, honestly, you're just being daft. Why not increase the speed limit to 100 Km/h in residential areas? Will someone not think of the drivers?

I don't believe in speed limits. Each road user should continuously self-select an appropriate speed for the conditions. That's an education and training problem, which government is too bone idle to address. So it just treats drivers like stupid children, imposes arbitrary speeds limits, does feck all to improve standards of road engineering, and the casualties continue to mount up.

SSDD, until we're crawling along at walking pace behind a man with a red flag.

FWIW, I don't see it as a driver vs cyclist vs pedestrian issue.

edit: it's this sort of thinking that gets us to compulsory helmet use

mmclo

Lumen wrote: »

Why not just ban all vehicles from the city centre altogether?

Think it has been suggested, and it probably will actually happen some day...seriously. I'm sure other cities have done it to some degree, mainly for pedestrianisation. The interim step would be congestion charging which would be justified when the rail interconnector is done thus doubling rail capacity.

seamus

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Hmmm....So what's to stop speeders simply drafting behind slow moving cars to get the light change, then quickly speeding up to the next slow moving car approaching the next green light.

I don't entirely understand what you're saying here.

There won't be sensors on the lights or anything like that. The timing will simply set in such a way that if you stick to 30kph you'll never get caught at a red light.

To illustrate:
Car A blasts onto the north quays at 80kph, overtaking Car B who is travelling at 30kph. They both get through the first set of lights, Car A is now hundred of metres ahead of Car B, and the next set of lights goes red. Car A has to stop, Car B is still travelling, gaining ground. By the time Car B reaches Car A, the lights go green and Car B doesn't have to stop.

That's the theory, and the key is that the roads are clear or mostly clear. In normal traffic I can see it being very different because the lights have to go red at some point. In certain circumstances, a car travelling at 30kph could always hit red lights, whereas if they were travelling faster, they would make a green light and then could slow to 30kph.

DeepBlue

Jawgap wrote: »

aaaaah, the perfect Friday afternoon thread.........cake anyone?

Glad to help .

ten speed racer

Lumen wrote: »

I don't believe in speed limits. Each road user should continuously self-select an appropriate speed for the conditions. That's an education and training problem, which government is too bone idle to address.

That's a hugely optimistic view of people. I'm sure many people moderate there speed only because they fear being got speeding. While improved education and road engineering are certainly required, speed limit are still needed in improve the safety of all road users.

Lumen wrote: »

edit: it's this sort of thinking that gets us to compulsory helmet use

No it's not. The arguments for speed limits are quite different than the arguments for compulsory helmet use.

There is clear evidence that lower speed limits improve safety; the evidence for helmet use is unclear at best.

Lower speed limits primarly benefits people other than the person directly affected by the speed limits; compulsory helmet use supposedly primarily benefits the helmet wearer.

monument

Lumen wrote: »

I don't believe in speed limits. ...

Very few people would agree with you, even if they disagree with the 30kph approach.

Lumen

monument wrote: »

Very few people would agree with you, even if they disagree with the 30kph approach.

I am entirely unbothered. I have no plans to enter politics.

ten speed racer

@Seamus I think you are mostly correct, but I think it unlikely that a car would constantly hit red lights. If you are at the front of a cue stopped at a traffic light, you should be certain to make it through the next light.

The green wave works better in a city with a block system like New York. And if you've been to New York, you've probably seen how even though it's very busy, the traffic along the avenues flows very well. However, the cross town traffic is very slow moving.

Jip

seamus wrote: »

There won't be sensors on the lights or anything like that. The timing will simply set in such a way that if you stick to 30kph you'll never get caught at a red light.

As you say, it's just a theory. You might get a handful of cars being able to get through a few sets of light unhindered but the traffic lights have to turn red sometime so there will be stop/starting.

blorg

ten speed racer wrote: »

That's a hugely optimistic view of people. I'm sure many people moderate there speed only because they fear being got speeding. While improved education and road engineering are certainly required, speed limit are still needed in improve the safety of all road users.

I think this is key. Lumen's view on speed limits is based on his perception of his own personal capacities. Leaving aside the idea that one's own view of oneself can be coloured, it does not address less competent or responsible drivers. The studies that have been done fairly universally show a reduction in accidents and accident severity where speed limits have been reduced. Reaction times and simple physics. No-one is suggesting speed limits drop to 30km/h on motorways, indeed they could probably be raised there.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

I think this is key. Lumen's view on speed limits is based on his perception of his own personal capacities. Leaving aside the idea that one's own view of oneself can be coloured, it does not address less competent or responsible drivers.

Yes and no. My view is entirely based on my negative perception of my own personal capacities. I've crashed cars more times than you've crashed bikes. All of my crashes (apart from the one where I was in a deep sleep and have no recollection of the speed) have been under the posted speed limit.

chakattack

I think it's great as it allows for vehicular cycling down the quays at a comfy 30 kph rather than having to negotiate sketchy cycle lanes and run the risk of cars who turn left without indicating or pedestrians not watching where they're going.

Hopefully they will engineer the "green wave" properly.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

Yes and no. My view is entirely based on my negative perception of my own personal capacities. I've crashed cars more times than you've crashed bikes. All of my crashes (apart from the one where I was in a deep sleep and have no recollection of the speed) have been under the posted speed limit.

I'm presuming that no-one was killed in these low speed crashes. So looking at it not just from your anecdotal experience of yourself what is your take on the studies that show a reduction in accidents and accident severity wherever this has been done? What about people who are not as careful as you to go at a slow speed when out to crash their car?

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

I'm presuming that no-one was killed in these low speed crashes. So looking at it not just from your anecdotal experience of yourself what is your take on the studies that show a reduction in accidents and accident severity wherever this has been done? What about people who are not as careful as you to go at a slow speed when out to crash their car?

I've only ever hurt myself.

Almost all accidents are completely avoidable. Properly trained drivers can drive at all sorts of speeds, both above and below the current arbitrary limits, without ever having an accident.

Therefore, if we trained all drivers properly there would be almost no accidents. We could then all drive around freely at whatever speed we chose to be safe.

I have no take on those studies you mention. I expect that the proposed approach is unacceptably draconian to me, and has been proven largely ineffective in practice, so I am not particularly interested in the results.

Coming from a country which has almost as many surveillance cameras as people, and still substantial numbers of serious road accidents, I have no interest in seeing the same half-arsed ideas copied here.

Chips Lovell

Face it Lumen, we're not going to stop until you're obliged to drive around with big inflatable pads strapped to the front of your car.

ten speed racer

Lumen wrote: »

Coming from a country which has almost as many surveillance cameras as people, and still substantial numbers of serious road accidents, I have no interest in seeing the same half-arsed ideas copied here.

But the U.K. has actually got a low rate of traffic deaths. Substantially lower than Ireland.

According to wikipedia, the U.K. has 5.4 Road fatalities
per 100,000
inhabitants, compared to 8.5 for Ireland.

Or by Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km, the U.K. has 6.3 and Ireland has 10.9.

Of course, there are many factors that make the roads safer in the U.K. compared to here.

Lumen

ten speed racer wrote: »

But the U.K. has actually got a low rate of traffic deaths...Substantially lower than Ireland...Of course, there are many factors that make the roads safer in the U.K. compared to here.

Indeed. Principally high quality road engineering/mature infrastructure and cultural factors (I am not a great ambassador for this, obviously).

It has nothing to do with speeds or speed surveillance cameras, in my opinion. People generally drive much faster in the UK - I have to recalibrate every time I fly back. And yet the roads are safer.

FWIW, I have absolutely no problem with red light enforcement cameras.

Regardless, 30kph is often far below the safe speed, even in central Dublin, which is why I have a problem with that limit.

monument

What roads just added to the list do you have a problem with? Is it just the quays or other roads too -- if so, which roads?

Even if you don't agree with speed limits in general, what speed do you think is suitable to which of these new 30kph roads?

Lumen

monument wrote: »

What roads just added to the list do you have a problem with? Is it just the quays or other roads too -- if so, which roads?

Even if you don't agree with speed limits in general, what speed do you think is suitable to which of these new 30kph roads?

The quays were the ones that jumped out at me. I'd need to drive around the others watching the speedo, but I think 50kph is generally reasonable in a built up area. It's a limit, not a target.

Where I grew up the speed limit on narrow residential streets with parked cars both sides was 30mph. This was deemed perfectly reasonabe, since (again) the limit is not a target.

Now after 30 years of improvements to vehicle design it makes sense to have a <19mph limit on a major thoroughfare? How is that logical?

Raam

Lumen, there is definitely something wrong with you today. An Italian beauty in another thread only brought scorn and derision. The prospect of lug work on a non-traditional geometry frame was met with little more than a sneer. A tripped out, fully matching, colour coordinated finishing kit did not even seem to cause the smallest amount of goosebumps on your puny cyclist arms.

And now, here you are stubbornly refusing too see this speed limit reduction as a good thing.

I request, nay, I DEMAND that you relinquish your avatar* to something more appropriate.


* Bet yis thought I was gonna say moderatorship

Lumen

Fair enough.

projectmayhem

Lumen wrote: »

It was discussed a while back in a couple of the infrastructure threads.

Personally I think it's a bad idea. Down with slowness. Up with real engineering solutions that allow both safety and speed.

When the traffic is heavy the limits are irrelevant, when the traffic is light people should be granted a respite from the teeth-grindingly frustrating slowness.

When cycling my bike I value the sense of freedom, and I don't see why other road users should be abitrarily denied the same.

While I absolutely agree, this countries various city/town planners are not capable of real change and new thinking, so the best solution is to slow down the cars in the city to encourage cyclists to get out there. This with the "gate" on college green plus Dublin bikes may not be the best solution to increasing cycle traffic in the city, but it's certainly the start, and a decent step in the right direction.

Dublin, in terms of size, population and money is absolutely able to challenge the likes of Amsterdam & Copenhagan in terms of the mix between pedestrian, cycle and car traffic on our roads. That's where we should be aiming ourselves.

monument

Lumen wrote: »

The quays were the ones that jumped out at me. I'd need to drive around the others watching the speedo, but I think 50kph is generally reasonable in a built up area. It's a limit, not a target.

Where I grew up the speed limit on narrow residential streets with parked cars both sides was 30mph. This was deemed perfectly reasonabe, since (again) the limit is not a target.

Now after 30 years of improvements to vehicle design it makes sense to have a <19mph limit on a major thoroughfare? How is that logical?

I'm guessing the logic comes from research which shows where speed goes up the chance of injury also does. As posted above, and on the commuting and transport thread: Here.

On the wider question of logic and speed limits and how the 30kph will be out of sink with even other areas within DCC's remit, that's a bit of a problem. However, this is how these things are rolled out for fear of larger backlash, as well as having other issues such as cost and time for designing the new systems etc. But you'll now have small residential and other streets in the city with higher limits than the quays which will be totally out of sink logically. Residential areas in the city maybe should be looked at sooner than later.

I'd be between you and the new limit for the quays, and go for 40kph, maybe slower just around heavily used pedestrian crossings.

As for improvements to vehicle design, how much does that help cyclists? Maybe it does a bit on some cars but overall on large cars and vans too? And while it's nice and all to say the limit is not a target, it seems most motorists treat it as such.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

I am entirely unbothered. I have no plans to enter politics.

Monty_Python wrote:

I believe that we should attack the poor, first bombing their homes and then, when they flee, screaming, into the street, mowing them down with machine guns. I know these views aren't popular, but I have never courted popularity.

...

Victor

Lumen wrote: »

edit: it's this sort of thinking that gets us to compulsory helmet use

Wrong.

http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/contentPages/EducationAndTraining/HazardManagement/Machinery/TheAnswers/machAnswerHierarchy.htm

Eliminate the hazard
.
.
.
Use personal protective equipment

Slowing traffic is about removing the worst of the hazard. Helmets are PPE.

Lumen wrote: »

Almost all accidents are completely avoidable. Properly trained drivers can drive at all sorts of speeds, both above and below the current arbitrary limits, without ever having an accident.

This is naive - what if a child or an animal runs across the road? What if a driver is angry or in a hurry? What if the driver gets a leg cramp or sneezes?

Lumen wrote: »

Where I grew up the speed limit on narrow residential streets with parked cars both sides was 30mph. This was deemed perfectly reasonabe, since (again) the limit is not a target.

Do you mean in the 1970s (or thereabouts), when road deaths were 3 times the current level?

Lumen

Victor wrote: »

This is naive - what if a child or an animal runs across the road? What if a driver is angry or in a hurry? What if the driver gets a leg cramp or sneezes?

That's all covered by proper training. Read Roadcraft if you're interested.

"Drive at a speed such that you can stop on your side of the road in the space you can see to be clear and is likely to remain so".

A driver "in a hurry" (i.e. who is deliberately driving unsafely in order to get to his destination faster) will also ignore speed limits.

I don't really want to drag this into a detailed discussion of safe driving technique (this isn't Motors), but the same principles apply to cycling.

monument

Lumen wrote: »

That's all covered by proper training. Read Roadcraft if you're interested...

And how many drivers have read this? How many have proper training?

EDIT: OR even how many abide by the training they have?

Lumen

monument wrote: »

And how many drivers have read this? How many have proper training?

That is entirely my point.

monument

Lumen wrote: »

That is entirely my point.

So, which is the most realistic approach for Dublin City Council to take?

(a) Lobby the Government on the need for driver training.

(b) Reduce the speed limit.


From what I can see: (a) give you: Lobbying which is likely falling on deaf ears, or get a response claiming driver training is getting better, or something along those lines. And even if somehow better driver training was put in place tomorrow, it would only be for new drivers, thus would not affect the over all quality of driving for decades. You also don't get the benefits of more relaxed streets.

And even if you have properly trained drivers, accidents are still likely to happen between cars and pedestrians or cyclists, and without changing the speed limits you will not be reducing the chances of death / serious injury as you are not reducing the speed difference between cars and pedestrians or cyclists (the other main factor in making these crashes so bad for pedestrians or cyclists is mass, and, clearly, that's a lot harder to change).

While (b) is effective straight away. It has proven safety benefits. It's within the council's remit. Costs very little to do. Realistically you'll still have people going over the new speed limit and not getting caught, but it's better than many people going at or over the old one. The city gets other benefits of making streets nicer and more pleasant place to be. It makes cycling more attractive to those who do not cycle.

Lumen

You cannot make the roads idiot proof. Low speed limits just get government off the hook, and are therefore counterproductive to the proper solution.

I'm not interested in excuses about what is "realistic" for one particular arm of government. We elect people to govern effectively, and if they can't do that they should step out of the way and let someone competent do the job.

It is entirely realistic to train every driver on the road. It would require them reading a book, taking a one day course followed by an exam. Best timed one or two years after the initial test is passed for new drivers, and staggered for everyone else.

The reason those in power will not grasp the nettle is because they're a bunch of old, fat wasters who are chauffered around the place, and couldn't give a ****e about either cycling or driving.

Victor

Lumen wrote: »

The reason those in power will not grasp the nettle is because they're a bunch of old, fat wasters who are chauffered around the place, and couldn't give a ****e about either cycling or driving.

Then nothing the council can do will change that, so the council have decided to change some of the things it can change.

BTW minister@transport.ie if you want to try.

Lumen

Victor wrote: »

Then nothing the council can do will change that, so the council have decided to change some of the things it can change.

Sometimes doing nothing is the best policy.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

You cannot make the roads idiot proof.

True, but do you really think we can educate the idiots into behaving safely?

I just don't think they can.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

True, but do you really think we can educate the idiots into behaving safely?

I just don't think they can.

When you think of societal progress, what springs to mind? For me, better education is in the mix. We hope that our children will be smarter than us. One day, they may solve the energy problem and invent the flying motorcycle, the robot monkey butler and the weightless powermeter. All my dreams will be realised.

My vision of the future does not involve stupid people bumbling around slowly and fearfully in glorified dodgem cars.