Dublin City Council vote against scraping 30km/h zone

monument

SEE MY NEXT POST BELOW.

Dublin City Council meeting moving on 30km/h issue now. Webcast here: http://short.ie/0icyqj

Will update once anything changes.

poochiem

didn't realise they had live webcasts, thanks!

monument

poochiem wrote: »

didn't realise they had live webcasts, thanks!

Yeah, forgot to post here when it started. You can watch it all again in a few days when it's put up as a video.

Vote now.

Tormey has a motion to scrap the 30km/h in total, while Montague put on an amendment which will slightly reduce the 30km/h zone rather than scrap it.

Montague's amendment has failed. 22 for, 24 against, needed 26 to pass.

Tormey's motion has also failed. 12 for and 28 against.

ten speed racer

You were quick off the mark Monument, I was just about to post the same thing.

Edit: this means that the status quo remains, with the 30 km/h zone staying as it was.

poochiem

monument wrote: »

Yeah, forgot to post here when it started. You can watch it all again in a few days when it's put up as a video.

Vote now.

Tormey has a motion to scrap the 30km/h in total, while Montague put on an amendment which will slightly reduce the 30km/h zone rather than scrap it.

Montague's amendment has failed. 22 for, 24 against, needed 26 to pass.

Tormey's motion has also failed. 12 for and 28 against.

I was watching, jesus they get heated don't they? It was interesting to see the amended zone idea almost passed - I thought it was a bit absurd "ye can zoom along from here to here but then slow again for the bit at the end" seemed to be the gist of that.

Thanks for the link, I find all that stuff fascinating.

Doctor Bob

So it's being retained as is, with no amendment?

I just caught the end of it (had to use IE instead of Firefox) so it was hard to decipher what was going on. Looking forward to seeing the breakdown of names on each side.

monument

Also this will be reviewed in five months times, as per the original plan.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

So it's being retained as is, with no amendment?

Yes.

ten speed racer

monument wrote: »

Montague's amendment has failed. 22 for, 24 against, needed 26 to pass.

I think you got that the wrong way round. Was it not 24 for, 22 against?

Doctor Bob

poochiem wrote: »

I was watching, jesus they get heated don't they? It was interesting to see the amended zone idea almost passed - I thought it was a bit absurd "ye can zoom along from here to here but then slow again for the bit at the end" seemed to be the gist of that.

I'm not sure Andrew Montague necessarily wanted the amended version; may have been the same logic used when suspending the bus gate before christmas, i.e. give a few inches rather than the whole nine yards. (I shouldn't speak for him; I'm just speculating...)

As for the quality of the debate, it makes me yearn for the simplicity of my life as a creche supervisor.

monument

ten speed racer wrote: »

I think you got that the wrong way round. Was it not 24 for, 22 against?

Sorry, I could have. It does not really matter anyway as it needed 26 to have any effect. And with the main motion failing the amendment also does not matter.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I'm not sure Andrew Montague necessarily wanted the amended version; may have been the same logic used when suspending the bus gate before christmas, i.e. give a few inches rather than the whole nine yards. (I shouldn't speak for him; I'm just speculating...)

As for the quality of the debate, it makes me yearn for the simplicity of my life as a creche supervisor.

That would be an accurate picture of what Montague wanted. I heard him say so anyway.

chakattack

Thanks Monument

I'm glad I bothered emailing the councilors now.

Pigeon Reaper

I notice a lack of outcry on other forums about the limit staying. Perhaps people have become used to the limit. It is however widely ignored on some roads.

tomasrojo

Good outcome, I think. Now we can give it a bit of a chance to work (or not work, as the case may be).

chakattack

@ Monument

To be fair I'm delighted about the outcome but until the green wave is engineered correctly the initiative is a little ridiculous.

Any idea on if/when this will be done or who needs a kick up the ass to get it done?

projectmayhem

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

I notice a lack of outcry on other forums about the limit staying. Perhaps people have become used to the limit. It is however widely ignored on some roads.

Actually while out & about I can see drivers are sticking to it for the most part but pack mentality comes into play a lot, especially at the quays. If one car goes faster, they call keep up.

Buses and taxi's have obviously not heard of the 30KPM limit.

delta_bravo

chakattack wrote: »

@ Monument

To be fair I'm delighted about the outcome but until the green wave is engineered correctly the initiative is a little ridiculous.

These do exist in the city already I think. I often get a run right from harrington st into westmoreland st without having to stop at a light. As far as I know theres one on the north quays also

monument

Video now online as a recording if anybody wants to view what was a quite heated exchange.

http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/

30km/h issue starts at 2hours 22mins.

You can flick forward to it

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Video now online as a recording if anybody wants to view what was a quite heated exchange.

http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/

30km/h issue starts at 2hours 22mins.

You can flick forward to it

I see you get a mention by Bill Tormey there at 02:36:00 (somewhere around there).

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

I see you get a mention by Bill Tormey there at 02:36:00 (somewhere around there).

SleepDoc

Bill Tormey makes far more sense if you press the fast forward button to the right of the screen.

Victor

Doctor Bob wrote: »

As for the quality of the debate, it makes me yearn for the simplicity of my life as a creche supervisor.

Similar skillset.