Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
DCC see sense regarding 30kph zone - some streets [might be] freed from it
-
09-09-2010 8:00pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
OK I'm now convinced SleepDoc is a troll myself.
Come on! You're trying to tell me that cyclists weaving in and out of traffic/lanes randomly without any hand signals, ignoring traffic lights, and mounting the pavement randomly isn't dangerous?? :rolleyes:Anyway, accidents involving cyclists are rarely the cyclists fault. 60-75% of accidents involving cars and cyclists are the car driver's fault. I'm not anti-car, I'm anti-car being driven at life threatening speed.
30 km/h on a road like the Quays is an unnaturally slow and artificial limit that I'd argue is actually MORE dangerous than your "life threatening" (sigh) 50 km/h.
Why? Because instead of watching the road and the pedestrians and cyclists you're so worried about, their eyes are instead glued to the speedometer, lest some snap happy Garda with a quota to meet does them for being 5 km/h over this ridiculous limit.
The other problem with your argument is that it seeks to absolve pedestrians and cyclists of any personal responsibility for their own safety/actions.
Now I know that in our touchy-feely pc nanny state world, the "experts" would have you believe that no matter what happens in your life, it's never your fault (but don't forget these same "experts" are usually profiting from this stupidity - personal injury lawyers, counsellors etc).
But in real life the fact is that part of being an adult is taking responsibility!
I know you'll say "what about kids?" Well when I was young (and I'm only in my mid-30s) my parents taught me about watching out for cars when crossing the road, and only crossing at lights etc - plus I wouldn't have been allowed to roam the streets on my own if I wasn't able to be trusted to do that - it was called "responsible parenting".
[slightly off-topic, more generalised rant
]
It's attitudes like yours that have given rise to an entire generation of people who think they're "owed" something and that there will always be someone else to take the fall for the decisions they make in life.
Commit a crime? Well sure it was your "disadvantaged background" right?
Can't pay your mortgage that you could never afford anyway? Well lobby for "debt forgiveness" and everyone ELSE will pay it for you!
Jaywalk out in front of a moving car without looking and get hit? Well damn those "maniac" drivers! He should have known I'm not mature enough to be let roam the streets on my own! :rolleyes:
I miss the "good ole days"
[end rant]0 -
Kaiser2000 wrote: »OK I'm now convinced SleepDoc is a troll myself.
Come on! You're trying to tell me that cyclists weaving in and out of traffic/lanes randomly without any hand signals, ignoring traffic lights, and mounting the pavement randomly isn't dangerous?? :rolleyes:
30 km/h on a road like the Quays is an unnaturally slow and artificial limit that I'd argue is actually MORE dangerous than your "life threatening" (sigh) 50 km/h.
Why? Because instead of watching the road and the pedestrians and cyclists you're so worried about, their eyes are instead glued to the speedometer, lest some snap happy Garda with a quota to meet does them for being 5 km/h over this ridiculous limit.
The other problem with your argument is that it seeks to absolve pedestrians and cyclists of any personal responsibility for their own safety/actions.
Now I know that in our touchy-feely pc nanny state world, the "experts" would have you believe that no matter what happens in your life, it's never your fault (but don't forget these same "experts" are usually profiting from this stupidity - personal injury lawyers, counsellors etc).
But in real life the fact is that part of being an adult is taking responsibility!
I know you'll say "what about kids?" Well when I was young (and I'm only in my mid-30s) my parents taught me about watching out for cars when crossing the road, and only crossing at lights etc - plus I wouldn't have been allowed to roam the streets on my own if I wasn't able to be trusted to do that - it was called "responsible parenting".
[slightly off-topic, more generalised rant]
It's attitudes like yours that have given rise to an entire generation of people who think they're "owed" something and that there will always be someone else to take the fall for the decisions they make in life.
Commit a crime? Well sure it was your "disadvantaged background" right?
Can't pay your mortgage that you could never afford anyway? Well lobby for "debt forgiveness" and everyone ELSE will pay it for you!
Jaywalk out in front of a moving car without looking and get hit? Well damn those "maniac" drivers! He should have known I'm not mature enough to be let roam the streets on my own! :rolleyes:
I miss the "good ole days"
[end rant]
Even leaving out your ridiculous, unstructured rant, you're straying from topic.
The 30kph hour speed limit is a good idea. Sadly lack of enforcement and the stupidity of some motorists who think it is within their rights to drive at whatever speed they like have diluted it's effect.0 -
-
-
-
-
RTE.ie were wrong.
Revisit the story's page, it was updated after I tweeted about it today.
We'll take it that RTE at least got what the AA spokesperson said their position was correct. So, the AA told RTE that the 30km/h limits has been constricting traffic. But the AA also told the Irish Times the 30km/h limits “haven’t made a blind bit of difference”. Which one is it?
If only some of the inner streets were time based like when at night time.
Do you mean not having it at night?
It's a 30km/h zone it's not a limit just in one place like a school at a certain time -- people still walk and cycle at night, people still visit and live in the city at night. And as I said on the thread on the motors board: Berlin has more 30km/h roads at night time than it does at day time to reduce the noise of traffic at night so people can sleep easer, as here:Speed limit of 30 km/h at night
Like other major cities, Berlin is obliged to take steps towards reducing noise levels, which are particularly disturbing when we are asleep. Permanent traffic noise at night with a noise level of more than 55 decibel may increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Along Berlin´s main roads, up to 300.000 people are affected. Therefore, to lessen noise at night time, Berlin implemented a speed limit of 30 km/h on certain roads.There is no difference in safety for pedestrians and most especially cyclists between 50, 30 or 20 when they actually obey the rules and don't attempt to cross when not permitted, break red lights, etc.
What are you talking about obeying the rules? People are permitted to cross anywhere 15m away from pedestrians crossings, pedestrians have the priority at unsignalled junctions. And when accidents happen cars etc can easily mount footpaths.
Here's the real difference between 50km/h and 30km/h. Note that there is a huge difference between 50km/h and 30km/h (although little between 30km/h and 20km/h):
However Dublin cyclists don't think the ROTR applies to them and we appear to have adopted Italian crossing genetics for pedestrians.
Is this the same ROTR that says motorists should keep to speed limits (in the 30km/h zone as well as other places motorists that it's ok to do so)? Not park on footpaths or operational cycle tracks and clearways? Block pedestrian crossings, yellow boxes?
In short, motorists also break the law often. And btw I'm not saying all motorists break the law all the time, but I'm sure you're not saying the same about cyclist.Kaiser2000 wrote: »Come on! You're trying to tell me that cyclists weaving in and out of traffic/lanes randomly without any hand signals, ignoring traffic lights, and mounting the pavement randomly isn't dangerous?? :rolleyes:
No using hand signals? What does that sound like... hmmm... motorists not using indicators? Motorists don't speed past orange lights... err? Or break filter lights? And motorists don't park on the footpath in Dublin???
Again, not all motorists do this stuff.Kaiser2000 wrote: »30 km/h on a road like the Quays is an unnaturally slow and artificial limit that I'd argue is actually MORE dangerous than your "life threatening" (sigh) 50 km/h.
Why? Because instead of watching the road and the pedestrians and cyclists you're so worried about, their eyes are instead glued to the speedometer, lest some snap happy Garda with a quota to meet does them for being 5 km/h over this ridiculous limit.
There's nothing natural about cars or driving (nor is cycling 'natural' before you ask). And all speed limits are artificial, sign polls did not grow up out of the ground.
If somebody is not able to keep an eye on a speedometer and drive, they should be asking questions about your ability to drive at all. If this is a real issue anybody has, they should really think twice about being able to drive.Kaiser2000 wrote: »The other problem with your argument is that it seeks to absolve pedestrians and cyclists of any personal responsibility for their own safety/actions.
Now I know that in our touchy-feely pc nanny state world, the "experts" would have you believe that no matter what happens in your life, it's never your fault (but don't forget these same "experts" are usually profiting from this stupidity - personal injury lawyers, counsellors etc).
But in real life the fact is that part of being an adult is taking responsibility!
What are you talking about what he said was from Garda records for Dublin?
As per the quoted Irish Times article here. The same seems to be true else where. Another here.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The rule you mention there. Also, walking along the road, often outside barriers at junctions to cross quicker; crossing at official crossing points on red lights, etc, etc.
Just on your point about when pedestrians "actually obey the rules and don't attempt to cross when not permitted" ... you agree that's huge area everywhere 15m away from pedestrian crossings? You seem to be trying to make out that people only get hit when they are in the wrong but you're not making a very good argument to back that.Using figures from two and a half decades ago, before massive improvements in pedestrian protection on vehicles, doesn't help your argument.
First, its worth noting that speed limits don't just apply to the average car, but also SUVs, vans, trucks, buses etc.
The graph is from this 2006 OECD report, there's three set of figures for its source, the latest being 2002.
This is from 2009:
NOTE: This is for an adult, children are more likely to be killed.
It came with this note: Fig. 1. Pedestrian fatality risk. (a) The fatality risk as a function of impact speed for adult pedestrians hit by the front of a passenger car. The dotted curves show approximate 95% confidence limits. (b) Zoom in on the risk curve below 60 km/h.
SOURCE: Erik Rosen, Ulrich Sander, Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 41, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 536-542, ISSN 0001-4575, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.002.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-4VP5VMR-3/2/811da0e6cd22bd0738319342571ed3ae)Also, if pedestrians don't deliberately place themselves in danger its irrelevant.
Again you're claiming that peds only or mostly get hit when they are in the wrong with nothing to back that up.Cyclists in Dublin break the ROTR at will, constantly, more so than any driver. You just need to drive in Dublin to see this. We need a couple of arrests/convinctions to beat some sense in to them but thats never going to happen.
Yes, we need better enforcement. But remember you're saying this in the contest of:- Drivers breaking speed limits all over the place not just in the 30km/h zone -- and drivers freely admit to breaking speed limits.
- 1/5 of drivers use their phone when driving and 1/10 text while driving, as here.
- Drivers parking on footpaths all over Dublin.
- Drivers breaking orange lights all the time.
- Drivers stopped in advanced stop boxes or on pedestrian crossings.
You'll find that all road users break the law.The 30km/h zone hasn't saved a single life and is never going to, end of. Its Green anti-car guff and will likely vanish shortly after that party is consigned to history, seeing as its already going to be brought back in reach.
**** science? And... hmm... blame a party that has nothing to do with it? The Greens don't have any councillors on Dublin City Council. :rolleyes:0 - Drivers breaking speed limits all over the place not just in the 30km/h zone -- and drivers freely admit to breaking speed limits.
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Last graph was from the literature review, and from the same source, just the original data and not the literature review...
Data collected between 1999 and 2007:
NOTE SAYS: Fig. B2. Comparison of the raw and weighted results. (a) Comparison of the empirical and analytical fatality risks for the raw and weighted data. The empirical fatality risks, or fatality rates, have been grouped in intervals of 10 km/h. (b) Zoom in on the risks below 50 km/h. The largest relative differences between the raw and weighted risks are at low speeds.No, I'm saying stop abusing the bits of science you want in a anti-car vendetta. For that is all things like the 30km/h zone are.
Using raw figures for "this is the danger to pedestrians" is also pointless.
What the are you talking about?
I have not gone near one "raw figure" and am not being selective. The graphs as posted as not raw figures -- they are the figures for speed and likelihood of death. These don't even mention serious injury etc.If speeds above 30km/h are that dangerous, why do we allow 100km/h on national routes? They have pedestrians.
We don't allow 100km/h on all national routes!? But what you seem to be trying to do is compare a non-urban are with a built up area, why would you do that?Dublin has pedestrian crossings, protection barriers, pedestrianised streets, dedicated pedestrian bridges, and so on - it has significant protections that make the figures on their own pointless - isolated and being used in an attempt to make a point.
I've address this already, and you have yet to respond:
Just on your point about when pedestrians "actually obey the rules and don't attempt to cross when not permitted" ... you agree that's huge area everywhere 15m away from pedestrian crossings? You seem to be trying to make out that people only get hit when they are in the wrong but you're not making a very good argument to back that.2008, if you even look at the intro of the paper. The data is going to be older than the paper, I'd even assume it could be the same data as the 2002 paper if not older.
Just to say: Generally a paper's publication date is given, I was not trying to mislead in any way. And see the graph and its data source years above.All of which, bar trucks - which there aren't meant to be many of due to the 5-axel ban - have had the same improvements done to them.
Only 5-axel trucks are bared, all others can enter and you can still enter with a permit. Is there really that much improvement to double decker buses or bin or delivery trucks? And on SUVs it could be said that there has been an increase in SUVs in recent years.I am a cyclist and a pedestrian also [ heavy user round Jervis St ] and all this does is make pedestrians falsely believe its safer sure 'it's 30 now'
On that bases we should also increase the speed in area which are at 50km/h but motorists often speed on?0 -
-
this sort of thing is much more likely to make people
slow down.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/09/07/speed-bumps-of-the-future-creepy-optical-illusion-children0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement