New Dublin Speed Limit - MORE Dangerous?

Emme

I'm a cyclist and ever since the new speed limit was introduced in Dublin I have felt more in fear of my life than ever. Before the limit the traffic seemed to move more smoothly and I was happy to pooter along in the cycle lane (if it wasn't blocked) and let buses and cars pass me by.

:mad: Now they seem to be going at the same speed as me, the traffic is travelling at a constipated pace and is all bunched up together in fits and starts and it's like a bad game of dodgems. I thought it was dangerous before but it's much worse now. I'm talking about the Dame Street/Christchurch and Thomas Street area. Christchurch is particularly bad. I'm not sure how the speed limit applies there but the roads definitely feel less safe.

IMHO this new speed limit is lethal as well as ridiculous and I don't even drive regularly in the city centre. What do others think?

Stark

Have you never cycled in busy traffic before? Exact same issue only with the 30km/hr, you don't have to play constant leapfrogging where you overtake someone stuck in traffic only to have them overtake you again only to stop in front of you.

biko

I'm used to biking in traffic and do prefer when we all travel at the same speed.
This way if anything happens they'll have a shorter braking distance.

Emme

Stark wrote: »

Have you never cycled in busy traffic before? Exact same issue only with the 30km/hr, you don't have to play constant leapfrogging where you overtake someone stuck in traffic only to have them overtake you again only to stop in front of you.

Yes I have cycled in busy traffic before, for several years in fact. In theory it would be better if we were all going at the same speed but my experience is that the new speed limit makes the traffic more congested.

Victor

I think congested is very much the wrong word. I imagine what you are seeing is well distributed traffic as opposed to the usual racing to the next red traffic light.

Cheeble

I've both driven and cycled to work since it was introduced, from either perspective, I don't think it's made any difference whatsoever.

Cheeble-eers

Run_to_da_hills

Cheeble wrote: »

I've both driven and cycled to work since it was introduced, from either perspective, I don't think it's made any difference whatsoever.

Cheeble-eers

You obviously travel and from work during rush hour. :rolleyes:

Cheeble

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You obviously travel and from work during rush hour. :rolleyes:

Yes.

That was kinda my point really.

Cheeble-eers

Aard

If it "hasn't made any difference whatsoever", then that's a good thing right? The fact that fewer pedestrians will die on impact still stands.

jaceq

Aard wrote: »

If it "hasn't made any difference whatsoever", then that's a good thing right? The fact that fewer pedestrians will die on impact still stands.

Well, I think that if people stopped crossing roads whenever they want, and whenever they want that would improve whole situation a lot more.
I think the new speed limit is ridiculous, people with cars (like me) will avoid city center even more and will go for shopping (and any other needs) to shopping centers on outskirts of the city. I am just waiting now for information, how hardly city center businesses are impacted by this. I am sure that this move is something that this country can afford in current climate ...

Heroditas

jaceq wrote: »

Well, I think that if people stopped crossing roads whenever they want, and whenever they want that would improve whole situation a lot more.

Yes but in the modern-day nanny state we have to pander to these morons and make exceptions for them, i.e. it's not their fault and blame the motorist instead.

jaceq

Heroditas wrote: »

Yes but in the modern-day nanny state we have to pander to these morons and make exceptions for them, i.e. it's not their fault and blame the motorist instead.

Agree.

Btw. Everyone is now concerned about the environment, how is the new speed limit (and higher congestion) go with that? The amount of CO2 and other gases from our cars raised.
Someone could say, take a bus or other public transport rather than car... well with the way the public transport works in Dublin and how unreliable it is it's just not an option.

I think that "converting" people to public transport should start with... good public trasport that would appear to more people.

Aard

I totally agree with the jaywalking/nanny-state thing.

As somebody who uses the bus regularly (I don't drive) I am glad to read you comment about avoiding driving into town. If more people follow suit then bus journey times will be quicker. Then when the bus is quicker, it may become "an option" for those who currently avoid it.

foggy_lad

@Heroditas many morons in cars are noted for not driving with due care and attention and also for not having due consideration for other road users including pedestrians so the nanny state has reduced the speed limits in the hope that many car drivers will be prevented from causing serious injury or death through their aggressive and inconsiderate driving. And in many cases this could also save the irresponsible car drivers from criminal charges!

monument

The two major factors which makes crashes between cars and pedestrians or cyclists worse is the mass and speed difference. Reducing speeds of cars makes it safer in the event of a crash, it makes serious injury or death far less likely.

Emme wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and ever since the new speed limit was introduced in Dublin I have felt more in fear of my life than ever. Before the limit the traffic seemed to move more smoothly and I was happy to pooter along in the cycle lane (if it wasn't blocked) and let buses and cars pass me by.

:mad: Now they seem to be going at the same speed as me, the traffic is travelling at a constipated pace and is all bunched up together in fits and starts and it's like a bad game of dodgems. I thought it was dangerous before but it's much worse now. I'm talking about the Dame Street/Christchurch and Thomas Street area. Christchurch is particularly bad. I'm not sure how the speed limit applies there but the roads definitely feel less safe.

I'm very interested to why you think it's more dangerous: What are you doing when you feel it's more dangerous? Are you just cycling along, change lanes, crossing junctions, or what?

And, if you don't mind me asking, why did you think it was so dangerous before? Have you looked at any cycling books like Cyclecraft which teaches how to be safe in traffic and not fear it?

Emme wrote: »

What do others think?

It feels safer to me. Far more so than I thought it would.

And I'd call my self an experienced urban cyclist, but the city centre now feels nicer to cycle in. I'd now have less of a problem recommending DublinBikes to people who are not used to urban cycling..

The quays feels far safer to have traffic moving at the same speed than traffic zooming by.

The area around O'Connell Bridge, and the D'olier Street / Westmoreland Street / College Street triangle -- all with multiple lanes feels far safer. Changing lanes around here used to feel like one of the worst areas in the city and now it's fine (bar a few cars speeds but most of them are still slower than before).

Parnell Street, which previously had far too many people speeding (mostly to the next set of lights or to as far as Capel Street which is also backed up), feels far safer. O'Connell Street also feels a bit nicer -- which is surprising as I never had much of a problem with it.

Victor

jaceq wrote: »

, people with cars (like me) will avoid city center even more

You (and others) never explain this. Is it because it may take you an extra 30-60 seconds to get to your parking spot?

Surely having the city centre as a more pleasant location will encourage shoppers, tourists, revellers, visitors, etc.

Heroditas wrote: »

Yes but in the modern-day nanny state we have to pander to these morons and make exceptions for them, i.e. it's not their fault and blame the motorist instead.

This is not a nanny state measure. A nanny state measure seeks to wrap us in cotton wool. By contrast, this seeks to remove the danger in the first place.

In the 19th century, something like 16,000 railway workers (not including those who worked in workshops and factories) were injured and 400 killed every year on the railways in the UK. It wasn't that the staff were doing anything particularly dangerous, but that even a minor loss of concentration or failure of a piece of equipment could result in injury or death out of all proportion to the incident. Of course, passenger / customer injuries and deaths were dealt with in a much more considerate manner as the passengers could much more readily vote with their feet. While staff education did reduce the number of injuries, real change only came about when the dangers themselves were addressed.

This measure is about reducing the danger where the dominant activity is walking. If it was nannying, we would be insisting that all pedestrians and drivers would wear helmets.

jaceq wrote: »

Btw. Everyone is now concerned about the environment, how is the new speed limit (and higher congestion) go with that? The amount of CO2 and other gases from our cars raised.

This measure should be neutral or even save on gas pollution - the trick is for people not to race to the next traffic lights. Noise pollution should be down.

jaceq wrote: »

Someone could say, take a bus or other public transport rather than car... well with the way the public transport works in Dublin and how unreliable it is it's just not an option.

And congested traffic is an option?

Carawaystick

Heroditas wrote: »

Yes but in the modern-day nanny state we have to pander to these morons and make exceptions for them, i.e. it's not their fault and blame the motorist instead.

How many motorists have been injured by pedestrians in a) Dublin b) Ireland in the last i) year ii) since the formation of the state?

Now, is the number of pedestrians injured by motorists larger or smaller than any of those 4 numbers?????

Motorists have an obligation not to hit pedestrians as doing so often results in injury. Pedestrians have an obligation not to collide with vehicles as doing so sometimes results in property damage.

thetonynator

the way they talk about the safety aspect, you'd swear that there were 5 people a day dying in car accidents in the city centre. fatal car accidents rarely if ever happen in the city centre.

jd

Jeeze, I'm laughing thinking about the time my sister got fined for driving 18 k/hr in a 10 k/hr zone in Germany . (:eek: it may have been a temporary limit in the very centre of a town/village) DCC are proposing a fairly small area for the 30 k/hr zone. I do think there should be a few amendments,maybe along the quays and 1 or 2 other areas. But I can't see why people are so upset, pedestrians should have priority in the core city center.

Tragedy

I used to regularly cycle from Knocklyon to Trinity and back again, I never felt unsafe in rush hour traffic, never had any accidents or close misses with cars.

Pedestrians stepping out in front of me on the other hand...
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who's seen the 30km/h limit in action has seen how it's changed the jaywalking dynamic. It was already bad, but now it's ****ing endemic.

Also, next time you're walking along a 30km/h section in town - stop and look at the drivers going past. See how many are literally fixated on their speedo as they fight their car to try stay at 30. They aren't watching out for you, they're desperately trying not to break the new limit.

monument

thetonynator wrote: »

the way they talk about the safety aspect, you'd swear that there were 5 people a day dying in car accidents in the city centre. fatal car accidents rarely if ever happen in the city centre.

How many deaths and serious injuries is low enough for you?

Tragedy wrote: »

I used to regularly cycle from Knocklyon to Trinity and back again, I never felt unsafe in rush hour traffic, never had any accidents or close misses with cars.

That's great. But this isn't just about people who currently cycle and already think its safe enough. And this new measure hardly, if at all, affects rush hour traffic.

Tragedy wrote: »

Pedestrians stepping out in front of me on the other hand...
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who's seen the 30km/h limit in action has seen how it's changed the jaywalking dynamic. It was already bad, but now it's ****ing endemic.

I've never found pedestrians that bad in the city centre, a bell (a legal requirement for cyclist) works wonders for pedestrians in the way. Not everybody heeds it, but the majority do.

Were you by any chance going too fast in the city centre when you did cycle into TCD?

Tragedy

This measure does affect rush hour traffic, how can it not? Maximum speed is now 60% of what it was - and outside rush hour, it's even worse. I don't mind the limit so much on streets - but what exactly is it doing on the quays?
Quoting that the 'average speed' is XXkm/h is useless if anyones thinking of doing it - average speed includes time stopped at lights right?

And no, not a chance I was breaking the limit - my bike was a 5 year bucket of rust that had never had any maintenance done to it. I don't think it could break 30km/h down a hill :P


I still have yet to read a plausible convincing argument for this, that actually uses relevant statistics or examples.
It all seems to be "well, if we reduce it less people will die right? Right? RIGHT??? Right!".

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

This measure does affect rush hour traffic, how can it not? Maximum speed is now 60% of what it was - and outside rush hour, it's even worse. I don't mind the limit so much on streets - but what exactly is it doing on the quays?
Quoting that the 'average speed' is XXkm/h is useless if anyones thinking of doing it - average speed includes time stopped at lights right?

Simply put speeds in the city centre at rush hour are so low that 30km/h has little affect. Much of the speed that was achieved at rush hour before the new limit was rushing to the next traffic lights or into traffic a little down the road.

And no, not a chance I was breaking the limit - my bike was a 5 year bucket of rust that had never had any maintenance done to it. I don't think it could break 30km/h down a hill :P

Maybe then you were going so slow that peds walked out in front of you!

I still have yet to read a plausible convincing argument for this, that actually uses relevant statistics or examples.
It all seems to be "well, if we reduce it less people will die right? Right? RIGHT??? Right!".

No, it's not just just 'right, right, right', question marks or otherwise.

It's backed up by very solid research published in the BMJ, and, elsewhere, complied by agencies like the WHO and the OECD, see links and quotes in the other thread you were looking at

Victor

thetonynator wrote: »

the way they talk about the safety aspect, you'd swear that there were 5 people a day dying in car accidents in the city centre. fatal car accidents rarely if ever happen in the city centre.

The way motorists are on about it, you'd think they were all going to have their legs cut off.

Tragedy

monument wrote: »

Simply put speeds in the city centre at rush hour are so low that 30km/h has little affect. Much of the speed that was achieved at rush hour before the new limit was rushing to the next traffic lights or into traffic a little down the road.



Maybe then you were going so slow that peds walked out in front of you!



No, it's not just just 'right, right, right', question marks or otherwise.

It's backed up by very solid research published in the BMJ, and, elsewhere, complied by agencies like the WHO and the OECD, see links and quotes in the other thread you were looking at

Monument. If a Traffic Light cycles every 30seconds, and because of the new speed limit, I get there 35 seconds later - I'm now delayed by potentially over a minute by just one small section. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the new speed limits are improving traffic flow and decreasing congestion? Because a lot of posters keeping trotting out "smoother traffic flow" like Victor without actually backing up that assertion.

Btw I'd read all the linked reports well before the speed limit was dropped(accident statistics, reporting and spin doctoring of both is a pet project of mine). Unfortunately, all the ones I've read are studies of other cities, countries, situations or completely irrelevant.


An example of why most of the reports are, to put it bluntly, fuzzy logic at best:

A review of accident statistics for Dublin City area for the period 1998 – 2007 reveals that 47% of fatalities and 24% of injured persons were pedestrians.

Research indicates that the percentage of pedestrians killed when in a collision with a vehicle travelling at 50 kph is 45 % but reduces to 5% when the vehicle speed is 30 kph.

The way this is worded, correlates quote #2 as being related to quote #1.
It isn't in any way, shape or form. Unless it investigated what speed the fatalities happened at, there is no correlation between the two quotes.

Pro 30km/h people on boards trot out "The average speed was less than 20mp/h already, the lower speed limit makes no difference" but in the next post say "The lower speed limit will save lives as people hit at 30km/h are more likely to survive than at 50km/h" WHAT? I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID PEOPLE WERENT GOING THAT FAST PREVIOUSLY?

monument

We're getting quite off topic and we're already taking about this in the other thread on the motors board, so, l'll just reply to everything over in the motors thread.

thebman

Victor wrote: »

You (and others) never explain this. Is it because it may take you an extra 30-60 seconds to get to your parking spot?

Your not reading if you think it hasn't been explained. Too busy assuming your right I imagine.

In the 19th century, something like 16,000 railway workers (not including those who worked in workshops and factories) were injured and 400 killed every year on the railways in the UK. It wasn't that the staff were doing anything particularly dangerous, but that even a minor loss of concentration or failure of a piece of equipment could result in injury or death out of all proportion to the incident. Of course, passenger / customer injuries and deaths were dealt with in a much more considerate manner as the passengers could much more readily vote with their feet. While staff education did reduce the number of injuries, real change only came about when the dangers themselves were addressed.

Sorry but this is completely irrelevant to the current situation of people blindly walking out in front of cars. There are crossings, you don't have to pay much attention, just wait for the green man and noise to come on.

If someone is covering their ears, closing their eyes and walking out in front of traffic then there is little you can do. They are just determined to kill or seriously injure themselves. Doesn't matter what speed the car is going. They'll probably try it in front of trains afterwards to see will it work.

It is a completely unnecessary move to try to discourage cars from city centre and get people to use already over-crowded or unreliable public transport. The trains are full at peak and expensive at this stage. The buses are expensive and rarely turn up on time. This can't entirely be blamed on traffic. I've gotten the bus for years and live at the first stop outside of city centre and see them waiting around reading newspapers when they are late and changing from their route missing stops to try to make up time. Not to mention driving the wrong route or drivers having to be told where to go on the route they are supposed to drive. Bus service is a poorly managed mess with many drivers not giving a crap and until that is solved and we get extra train capacity, people will drive.

jaceq

Victor wrote: »

You (and others) never explain this. Is it because it may take you an extra 30-60 seconds to get to your parking spot?

No, it's because it takes me 60-90 minutes more to get there due to congestions than to get to shopping centers on the outskirts.

Surely having the city centre as a more pleasant location will encourage shoppers, tourists, revellers, visitors, etc.This is not a nanny state measure. A nanny state measure seeks to wrap us in cotton wool. By contrast, this seeks to remove the danger in the first place.

This actually is very nanny style. By lowering speed limit many people are impacted (in cars, businesses etc.) just because some other people don't really care and are doing anything they want.

This measure is about reducing the danger where the dominant activity is walking. If it was nannying, we would be insisting that all pedestrians and drivers would wear helmets.

Again, If people wouldn't be jaywalking whenever they want, just crossing on traffic light (when GREEN is ON) they this problem wouldn't exist.

This measure should be neutral or even save on gas pollution - the trick is for people not to race to the next traffic lights. Noise pollution should be down.

And congested traffic is an option?

It isn't neutral. Higher congestion = higher emissions, that's a fact.
Since public transport is not an option for many (because it's so unreliable, so slow , and it's so city center centric) this speed restriction will make only congestion worse.

KevR

Extra congestion aside, driving at 30kmh instead of 50kmh on certain roads can increase emissions.
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roads-emissions.html

foggy_lad

jaceq wrote: »

No, it's because it takes me 60-90 minutes more to get there due to congestions than to get to shopping centers on the outskirts.



This actually is very nanny style. By lowering speed limit many people are impacted (in cars, businesses etc.) just because some other people don't really care and are doing anything they want.



Again, If people wouldn't be jaywalking whenever they want, just crossing on traffic light (when GREEN is ON) they this problem wouldn't exist.



It isn't neutral. Higher congestion = higher emissions, that's a fact.
Since public transport is not an option for many (because it's so unreliable, so slow , and it's so city center centric) this speed restriction will make only congestion worse.

how many pedestrians were convicted of jaywalking in the last 20 years?

compare that number to the number of car drivers convicted of driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, careless/wreckless driving, driving in excess of the speed limit, driving whilst using a mobile phone for calls or texting, drunk/drug driving, driving without insurance/tax/licence/nct/correct number plates etc etc.

car drivers are far more likely to break the law than pedestrians on the streets of dublin!

Empire o de Sun

Everyone is acting like it applies to the whole city, it doesn't. And on what streets besides the quays could you have actually reached 50 km/h safely before.

The only road that seems to be significantly affected to me is the quays.

They need to make the intersections within the 30 km/h zone as raised tables. So they are the same level as the footways and provide a traffic calming effect.


I would be great if the metro and the dart (which should be under the same brand) were complete. But Dublin City Council have no control over this.

Bike lanes are nowhere near the proper size in the city.

But I have to say it is much more pleasant to cycle in the city since the Bus Gate (whos traffic signs don't comply with any standards/laws) and the 30 km/h limit came in.

_Kaiser_

Victor wrote: »

The way motorists are on about it, you'd think they were all going to have their legs cut off.

It's obvious Victor (from posts like this and others) that you're very anti-car anyway. As a mod of this forum I'd think a bit more objectivity would be required from you? (but that's for another thread).

Anyway, as a motorist myself, and as has been pointed out over the few threads on this subject this new limit is a bad idea for several reasons:

- The road is designed for a higher limit and as such lowering it to what is an unnaturally low speed in moving traffic (outside the core peak hours mostly) increases speedometer watching rather than the driver watching the road and pavements around him - this surely can't be safer?

- Motorists will get frustrated by being held to this ridiculously low limit for fear of being caught by the revenue brigade (sorry, AGS Traffic Corps) and frustration leads to mistakes and more accidents.

- Pedestrians and cyclists (which in my experience are the biggest offenders in terms of breaking road safety regulations in the city centre) are encouraged to take more stupid chances (jay-walking/weaving through traffic, breaking lights) as cars are moving slower, so they have more time (they assume) and sure even if anything happens it's the motorists fault, right? :rolleyes:

- Eventually motorists will avoid the city centre entirely unless they have to - resulting in even more lost business to those city centre traders.
Nor will they take buses instead as Dublin Bus/CIE can't run a proper service outside of peak hours as it is... in fact, it was this that finally prompted me to buy a car after years of putting up with it!

- It's a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't really exist (unless I'm missing daily reports of pedestrians being "mowed down" by "rampaging" 50km/h drivers). As I said in the other thread, while every life lost is tragic, this measure does nothing to address the aforementioned jay-walking, lane weaving and light breaking.

Yes I'm aware that Irish drivers have a lot to learn too but this does nothing there either - education of the public generally is seriously lacking.
While we're at it, how about improving road markings and signage (especially the removal of outdated or irrelevant advertising, campaign posters etc).

- As I also said in the other thread, this is simply a typically Irish solution in that it appears to do something, but actually doesn't (or makes things worse!) It's simply the latest example of a PC nanny-state obsessed establishment trying to justify their own existence.

_Kaiser_

foggy_lad wrote: »

how many pedestrians were convicted of jaywalking in the last 20 years?

compare that number to the number of car drivers convicted of driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, careless/wreckless driving, driving in excess of the speed limit, driving whilst using a mobile phone for calls or texting, drunk/drug driving, driving without insurance/tax/licence/nct/correct number plates etc etc.

That's a bit of a red herring in that enforcement by AGS generally is so lax and hap-hazard (the "it depends who you get" approach), that these figures can't really be relied upon anyway.

Besides, from what I've read here, "jay-walking" as an offence is only a technicality at present (enacted but never enforced) so until this changes you can't realy compare it to motoring offences.

(off-topic sidenote - not specifically to you as I see it a lot on Boards - but its RECKLESS, not Wreckless)

Stark

KevR wrote: »

Extra congestion aside, driving at 30kmh instead of 50kmh on certain roads can increase emissions.
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roads-emissions.html

On a road without junctions or roundabouts. Something we all knew anyway, on a road where you don't have to stop, 80-100km/hr is most efficient.

BluePlanet

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- The road is designed for a higher limit and as such lowering it to what is an unnaturally low speed in moving traffic (outside the core peak hours mostly) increases speedometer watching rather than the driver watching the road and pavements around him - this surely can't be safer?

And some roads are designed for a lower limit yet county councils have put up 80kph signs. It doesn't mean you have to travel at that speed. So just because the Quays were designed to be a dual-carriageway, doesn't mean you have to travel those speeds.
Watching the speedo is rubbish, just travel as fast as the surrounding vehicles. If you have to constantly watch the speedo at 30kph, then you'll also have to do it at 50.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- Motorists will get frustrated by being held to this ridiculously low limit for fear of being caught by the revenue brigade (sorry, AGS Traffic Corps) and frustration leads to mistakes and more accidents.

I would expect international experience would show this to be true or false. I haven't seen anybody putting up links showing that when such and such city loweredthe speed limit, more accidents resulted.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- Pedestrians and cyclists (which in my experience are the biggest offenders in terms of breaking road safety regulations in the city centre) are encouraged to take more stupid chances (jay-walking/weaving through traffic, breaking lights) as cars are moving slower, so they have more time (they assume) and sure even if anything happens it's the motorists fault, right?

Again, international experience should show that to be true or false, but we could adopt a wait and see before drawing that conclusion.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- Eventually motorists will avoid the city centre entirely unless they have to - resulting in even more lost business to those city centre traders.
Nor will they take buses instead as Dublin Bus/CIE can't run a proper service outside of peak hours as it is... in fact, it was this that finally prompted me to buy a car after years of putting up with it!

The first part is exactly what we want. Less motorists choosing to drive into the city centre. Of course it's only your opinion that they wouldn't take the LUAS or Dublinbus; however from the huge numbers riding the LUAS since it was created, i'd say that once we get the cars out of the way and quality bus corridors in place, we'll see more public transport uptake which will result in higher footfalls in the city centre.
And that is the goal.

HydeRoad

BluePlanet wrote: »

The first part is exactly what we want. Less motorists choosing to drive into the city centre. Of course it's only your opinion that they wouldn't take the LUAS or Dublinbus; however from the huge numbers riding the LUAS since it was created, i'd say that once we get the cars out of the way and quality bus corridors in place, we'll see more public transport uptake which will result in higher footfalls in the city centre.
And that is the goal.

Of course we need less private motorists in the city. But the ONLY way to do that is carrot. Stick doesn't work, at all, ever. It is an anomaly to suggest that LUAS has taken many people out of cars. It has taken SOME people out of cars. But by far the majority of LUAS passengers came from buses, not cars. Private motorists continue to motor privately into town. The LUAS as is is quite good, and proved it's worth particularly during the icy spell. But it is a long, long way from what is required to get the city moving efficiently. It is not even in the penny hapenny place.

HydeRoad

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

They need to make the intersections within the 30 km/h zone as raised tables. So they are the same level as the footways and provide a traffic calming effect.

No, no, no. Dublin is crying out for proper road and environment engineering. But not this kind of nonsense. This is just the kind of knee jerk engineering that might be expected of incompetent fools in the councils. Such 'raised tables' would have caused havoc in the recent icy spell. Creating obstacles contributes nothing to road safety, only make things more frustrating and difficult. Raised tables encourage jaywalking. There needs to be a very definite contrast between the 'safe' zone of a pedestrian area, and the 'danger' zone of a traffic crossing. Pedestrians need to be given far more priority, but they still need the warning of danger, and a semblence of order and control.

The way to handle busy junctions is to have less traffic lanes, very specifically designated bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lanes, and very specifically marked pedestrian areas, but much wider pedestrian areas than presently available. Of course it depends on individual locations and space available, but that's why you have engineers. Speed bumps, 'raised tables,' traffic light poles, unnecessary signage, distracting advertising, all make driving conditions difficult and unsafe. A confusing mishmash of white lines, dotted lines, hatching lines, all pointing to nowhere, with ambiguous lane markings and cycle lanes that disappear and reappear at random, also contribute nothing but danger and confusion.

Bus lanes should be coloured seperately from the general traffic lanes, probably red or green, with a strong white border line, and as much continuous running as possible. I would like to see a soft kerb between the white bus lane line and the traffic lane, that can be crossed with ease, but provides a much more assertive 'territory' marking than a plain white line. Too often cars queue alongside a bus lane with two wheels sitting on or over the white line.

Cycle lanes too need to be very definitely defined, and not this joke of a dotted white line that disappears and reappears seemingly at random, where it's up to the cyclist's own judgement what he does where there is no marking. Rumble strips on the approach to junctions and crossings might signify where cyclists should slow down, but of course enorcement is the key here, and they should be as vigorously policed as other road vehicles. Cycle lanes should not be obstacle courses, no more than roads or footpaths should be.

Good progress should be ENCOURAGED, even in the city area, or at least the semplence of progress. If people feel they are making good progress, they will be less inclined to rush and race, break red lights, take chances, or intimidate other road users. If road users are hamstrung at every turn, be they pedestrians, cyclists or road vehicles, then they WILL tend to disrespect traffic restrictions, traffic lights, speed limits, etc.

More right turn restrictions, less traffic lights, less restrictive speed limits, would mean drivers would make progress, feel less frustration, and pay more attention to what they are doing. This must go hand in hand with better road engineering, less traffic lanes, wider footpaths, very definite breaks between bus lanes, cycle lanes, and general traffic, wider pedestrian crossings, maybe five metres deep or more. Using road and kerb colours to clearly define safe areas and danger areas, with respect for the older granite pavings in central city areas. NO speed bumps, NO raised tables, NO unnecessary obstacles. Also, the removal of at least sixty per cent of sign and traffic light poles, which have become an unsightly and confusing mess. Road signs and signals need to be far more concise. There is no need for more than two red lights on each junction, as long as those red lights are uniformly positioned everywhere.

All of this is everything that the city is not at the moment, where road engineering is piecemeal and inefficient, ugly and unsightly, and contributes nothing except frustration and further danger than anything positive for anyone, pedestrian, cyclist or motorist alike.

_Kaiser_

HydeRoad wrote: »

No, no, no. Dublin is crying out for proper road and environment engineering. But not this kind of nonsense. This is just the kind of knee jerk engineering that might be expected of incompetent fools in the councils. Such 'raised tables' would have caused havoc in the recent icy spell. Creating obstacles contributes nothing to road safety, only make things more frustrating and difficult. Raised tables encourage jaywalking. There needs to be a very definite contrast between the 'safe' zone of a pedestrian area, and the 'danger' zone of a traffic crossing.

+1

Just look at O'Connell St these days. Imagine a driver or pedestrian unfamiliar with the area and the now very blurred line between road and pavement - in fact, wasn't there an accident at the Spire a few years back where this was thought as the cause? (I think this was it).

I myself find it very poorly thought out. A typical example of form over function.

KevR

Emme wrote: »

Now they seem to be going at the same speed as me, the traffic is travelling at a constipated pace and is all bunched up together in fits and starts and it's like a bad game of dodgems.

Stark wrote: »

Have you never cycled in busy traffic before? Exact same issue only with the 30km/hr, you don't have to play constant leapfrogging where you overtake someone stuck in traffic only to have them overtake you again only to stop in front of you.

Magnus wrote: »

I'm used to biking in traffic and do prefer when we all travel at the same speed.
This way if anything happens they'll have a shorter braking distance.

With regards to these points, I have to say that when I used to cycle a lot I would hate when traffic was travelling at the same speed as me. I always felt uneasy if a car was travelling along at the same speed just behind me as I couldn't keep an eye on what they were doing. The same if a car was travelling along at the same speed beside me - I would be afraid that I would be in their blind spot or that they wouldn't see me and pull over on top of me. I never assumed that traffic in my vicinity could see me, it's always safer to assume that they're not aware of your presence on the road in my opinion.

I preferred for them to just overtake me as quickly as possible as they would then be in front of me where I could see exactly what they were doing.

foggy_lad

KevR wrote: »

With regards to these points, I have to say that when I used to cycle a lot I would hate when traffic was travelling at the same speed as me. I always felt uneasy if a car was travelling along at the same speed just behind me as I couldn't keep an eye on what they were doing. The same if a car was travelling along at the same speed beside me - I would be afraid that I would be in their blind spot or that they wouldn't see me and pull over on top of me. I never assumed that traffic in my vicinity could see me, it's always safer to assume that they're not aware of your presence on the road in my opinion.

I preferred for them to just overtake me as quickly as possible as they would then be in front of me where I could see exactly what they were doing.

in these cases you would be within your rights as a cyclist to use the full width of the traffic lane thus making you feel safer and less likely to be sideswiped by some dozy driver.

nomdeboardie

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

...its RECKLESS, not Wreckless)

+1
Tee Hee, I love the irony of this mis-spelling in the motoring context...

dynamick

HydeRoad wrote: »

Of course we need less private motorists in the city. But the ONLY way to do that is carrot. Stick doesn't work, at all, ever.

I can think of a few sticks that work or have worked in the past:
London congestion charge
Ramps
parking charges and taxes
one-way streets
removing car traffic lanes for buses/bikes/walkers
More 'green man' time at pedestrian lights

If you screw up driving, then you'll discourage people from driving. And screwing up driving costs less than providing public transport.

kevo1

I live in Dublin city. I love driving. I love cars and I love been able to drive through Dublin. However there are loads of roads in the Dublin region to drive above 30kph. What we don’t have is a central core in our capital city where the car is not allowed to dominate -a city centre which is not primarily set out to facilitate the movement of vehicles at the expense of pedestrians and bicycles. That makes sense on most of the road network but not all of the network.

If the council decided tomorrow to allow cars to drive through temple bar at 50kph we would all be appalled. We all love to meander along streets like Eustace street and seldom feel threatened by the cars we share the road with. It feels liberating. And the cars still get to where they need to. So why is it so hard to believe the same atmosphere can’t apply to big wide roads such as Dame Street or Eden Quay?

As it is, the city centre is a great place to be and return tourist numbers confirm this. But think just how much more fantastic a place it could be – a collection of calm, slower moving quieter wide and narrow streets and spaces and riverside walks to enjoy and relax and meander through - An experience more like walking down Grafton street only having to share the experience with cars and bicycles.

What this 30kph is trying to achieve is fundamental and visionary and shows a high level of understanding and care about what actually improves the quality of an urban CORE environment. And remember there were many detractors when it was proposed that Grafton street would become car free. And what a success that has turned out to be. I do wonder could the 30kph have been introduced with better communication and explanation. Also could the physical upgrade of this zone (eg paving, kerbs marking) have been upgraded before 30kph became the rule. But then again when Grafton street was first pedestrianised it was just blocked off at first and still had it’s tarmac surface.

Because of the new 30kph rule, I’m going to go out of my way to do as much of my socialising and shopping in Dublin city centre as possible.

gurramok

Yesterday evening I witnesses 2 groups of pedestrians running across a line of moving traffic at O'Connell bridge. It was that dangerous, the rest of us at the pedestrian crossing drew gasps at their stupidity.

Now, if they had been hit by the cars & vans, whats the next excuse for their deaths?

jaceq

dynamick wrote: »

I can think of a few sticks that work or have worked in the past:
London congestion charge
Ramps
parking charges and taxes
one-way streets
removing car traffic lanes for buses/bikes/walkers
More 'green man' time at pedestrian lights

If you screw up driving, then you'll discourage people from driving. And screwing up driving costs less than providing public transport.

This is dangerous zone, if you introduce too many sticks , people will just move out from that area (long term) and economy will suffer.

KevR

foggy_lad wrote: »

in these cases you would be within your rights as a cyclist to use the full width of the traffic lane thus making you feel safer and less likely to be sideswiped by some dozy driver.

But then they'd be behind me indefinitely which I mentioned I wasn't very fond of either..

Cookie_Monster

foggy_lad wrote: »

in these cases you would be within your rights as a cyclist to use the full width of the traffic lane thus making you feel safer and less likely to be sideswiped by some dozy driver.

no, you wouldn't.

You should always keep left, stated in the rules of the road. So if your are cycling of driving a car you should always be over to the left of the lane rather than the centre or right-hand side of it, in the course of normal traffic & driving conditions. Obviously there are exceptions when turning right etc

BluePlanet

Rubbish, any experienced cyclist will tell you to take control of the lane where appropriate.
I do it all the time on narrow stretches to prevent dangerous overtaking.
You might have to deal with the odd idiot who'll beep at you, but my safety trumps his right to go fast everytime.

Zoney

I agree with Blueplanet. If it's not safe to overtake, then you are safer well out from the edge of the road. If someone does then try funny business you have room to manoeuvre (although if they have been stupid, they may then not have sufficient safe room to their right). Most motorists have no problem with this if the cyclist isn't acting the lig (breaking lights is very common still for cyclists and with proper control of lanes by cyclists, it isn't necessary).

Roundabouts are still incredibly iffy even doing this - it's amazing the speed some people will build up on the roundabout itself! If you've only a couple of rbouts on your route - it may be safer to lose a couple mins and act as pedestrian. Then again, maybe not - some roundabouts are lethal as pedestrian - especially with lack of indicator use by drivers, and again, inappropriate speed. Lugging a bicycle across makes the pedestrian job even more iffy.

All in all, Irish roads have some way to go to be more pedestrian and cyclist friendly.

concussion

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no, you wouldn't.

You should always keep left, stated in the rules of the road. So if your are cycling of driving a car you should always be over to the left of the lane rather than the centre or right-hand side of it, in the course of normal traffic & driving conditions. Obviously there are exceptions when turning right etc

It's exactly what motorcyclists do all the time. If a cyclist is moving the same speed as the traffic, it's much safer for them to be in the centre of the lane. I don't see why this is an issue - they're not holding up other vehicles.

schemingbohemia

jaceq wrote: »

Since public transport is not an option for many (because it's so unreliable, so slow , and it's so city center centric) this speed restriction will make only congestion worse.

sorry can you remind me where the new speed limit is again???

with the bus gate, buses have been much more reliable and moving at a better pace.