Petition for standard 30km/h speed limits in city and towns throughout Europe

bk

Petition for standard 30km/h speed limits in city and towns throughout Europe:

http://en.30kmh.eu/

This petition basically wants to make the default speed limit for cities, towns and villages throughout Europe to be 30km/h, with councils then being able to apply exceptions for higher or lower speed limits.

I would argue that such a law would go a far way to making our cities much safer and more liveable.

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 50km/h - 80%

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 30km/h - 10%

Amirani

Don't see any issues with this myself.

corktina

no enforcement = no point

bk

corktina wrote: »

no enforcement = no point

Well this would be the first step.

I'd like to see far more automation for rules enforcement.

I'd like to see red light cameras throughout the city and average speed cameras.

Would go a long way to making this work.

MGWR

bk wrote: »

Petition for standard 30 km/h speed limits in city and towns throughout Europe:

http://en.30kmh.eu/

This petition basically wants to make the default speed limit for cities, towns and villages throughout Europe to be 30 km/h, with councils then being able to apply exceptions for higher or lower speed limits.

I would argue that such a law would go a far way to making our cities much safer and more liveable.

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 50 km/h - 80%

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 30 km/h - 10%

It'll also make the repairman a lot of money as well. Driving at slower than 19 mph means more wear and tear on the engine, especially due to bad airflow through the radiator; that air flow is needed for good heat exchange with the engine coolant.

The chance of you being hit by a car if you stay on the footpath = extremely close to zero. In addition, has everyone forgotten the Safe Cross Code? Takes more than overregulating car useage to make a city more "liveable". Stop demanding that the state do things for you and be adaptive instead.

corktina wrote: »

no enforcement = no point

No point either way. Why create more rules and then impose a police state to force them on everyone? That'll make a city less "liveable", and induce me for one to drive out to the country to live rather than dwell in a city.

bk

MGWR wrote: »

It'll also make the repairman a lot of money as well. Driving at slower than 19 mph means more wear and tear on the engine, especially due to bad airflow through the radiator; that air flow is needed for good heat exchange with the engine coolant.

Wow, really, so you are more concerned with the costs of maintaining your car, then saving lives! Nice......

30km/h speed limits also have other benefits:

- Significant reduction in CO2 released, good both for the environment and for making our cities more pleasant and smog free.

- Reduction in noise from cars of 40%, again making our cities a more pleasant place to be and live.

No point either way. Why create more rules and then impose a police state to force them on everyone? That'll make a city less "liveable", and induce me for one to drive out to the country to live rather than dwell in a city.

That is fine, but all the evidence shows, cities without cars or only few cars attract people into them, as them become more pleasant places to live, work and play.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Wow, really, so you are more concerned with the costs of maintaining your car, then saving lives! Nice......

30km/h speed limits also have other benefits:

- Significant reduction in CO2 released, good both for the environment and for making our cities more pleasant and smog free.

- Reduction in noise from cars of 40%, again making our cities a more pleasant place to be and live.

Mmmm point of order, a lot of vehicle gearing would mean using a lower gear and higher revs therefore more fuel, more emissions and more noise

markpb

MGWR wrote: »

It'll also make the repairman a lot of money as well. Driving at slower than 19 mph means more wear and tear on the engine, especially due to bad airflow through the radiator; that air flow is needed for good heat exchange with the engine coolant.

I'm sure then everyone avoids driving in heavy traffic like the quays (now) or the M50 (recently) so they avoid the additional wear and tear on their car?

The chance of you being hit by a car if you stay on the footpath = extremely close to zero.

What about when they're crossing? You're forgetting that pedestrians can legally cross the road at places other than traffic lights.

That'll make a city less "liveable", and induce me for one to drive out to the country to live rather than dwell in a city.

One mans meat is another mans poison. What is less liveable for you (as a motorist) could be more liveable for others.

Cienciano

Can't picture it happening. Driving at 30kph is poxy. There's a lot of things that would probably save lives, but for whatever reasons (convienience/cost) aren't done. This will be one of them. The argument "if it saves one life it'll be worth it" doesn't cut it outside of a liveline debate.

boarsboard

30 km is 2 slow

unless passing schools

ballooba

bk wrote: »

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 50km/h - 80%

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 30km/h - 10%

The chance of you dying if hit by a car at 0km/h -0%~.

Let's ban movement!

corktina

Better to banish cars altogether in selected areas .

Jamie2k9

Such a stupid petition if people don't want to be hit by a car or whatever then stay off the roads and walk on the path and use lights to cross roads. It's largely uneducated fools who get hit by cars.

At least councils could apply to change it, if it was introduced in my village, km of traffic would build up in minutes.

Another example is New Ross, it would be at complete standstill 24/7, its bad enough already.

P_1

To be honest having a limit @30kph could lead to more driver attention being focused on the speedo rather than keeping an eye out for potential hazards which could create more problems than it initially set out to solve.

knotknowbody

bk wrote: »

This petition basically wants to make the default speed limit for cities, towns and villages throughout Europe to be 30km/h, with councils then being able to apply exceptions for higher or lower speed limits.

I don't see the need for this at all, councils already have the power to set a 30km/h limit where they deem it necessary, I feel 50km/h is appropriate for the vast majority of urban areas, instead of defaulting to a lower limit, we should default to 50km/h as at present and councils should be more proactive and set 30km/h limits in high risk areas like outside schools, busy shopping streets and streets with inadequate footpath space for their pedestrian traffic levels.

I believe that this would give almost the same benefit in terms of road/street user safety, while still allowing traffic to move at a reasonable pace. It should be noted that we will never eliminate accidents completely once human error is still a possibility, what we need to aim for is the best balance between safety and efficient use of the infrastructure.

monument

30km/h is already used in loads of cities across Europe and even a growing number of cities in the UK.

Why is it being treated as something which is not tried and tested?

But I would add that I think we need a mix of 30, 40, 50, and over.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Mmmm point of order, a lot of vehicle gearing would mean using a lower gear and higher revs therefore more fuel, more emissions and more noise

30km/h limits = lower noise. At 50km/h engine noise is overshadowed by rolling noise -- which increases with speed.

The typical current urban driving is so hugely a waste of fuel and includes so much unneeded emissions, talking about the the diffence between 30km/h and 50km/h limits is almost meaningless.

ballooba

monument wrote: »

30km/h is already used in loads of cities across Europe and even a growing number of cities in the UK.

It's ignored where I know of it implemented in Ireland.

monument

Risk of a pedestrian dying by speed:



Noise and speed, note that at 50km/h rolling noise is around 50% of the noise souce:



Here's a night time 30km/h limit in Berlin aimed at reducing noise for residents:

ballooba wrote: »

It's ignored where I know of it implemented in Ireland.

Yeah, and 50km/h road I use daily which has an electronic speed sign on it has an average speed of somewhere between 50km/h and 65km/h -- with a notable few reaching 70km/h and slightly over. This is on the approach to a zebra crossing with a design speed of no higher than 50km/h.

Speed cameras (likely not in the form of vans) would be better placed in urban areas. Having them on some of the widest sections of roads is just daftness when urban limits.

I'd go with enforced 40km/h on the stretch mentioned above. But I don't think it's all about lower speeds: Another 50km/h road nearby with no zebra crossing, no houses for a good stretch, few pedestrians, good footpaths, I'd go for 60km/h. I'd also increase some 80km/h main roads to 100km/h -- around where I am there's some 80km/h roads between urban areas which are overall far better than the nearby 100km/h roads which just have a higher limit because they are national roads.

As BK said, enforcement is also needed, but I do know of somebody who ended up losing their licence because they broke the 30km/h twice in one day and were caught by a garda speed van both times (they may also have had points before).

knotknowbody wrote: »

I don't see the need for this at all, councils already have the power to set a 30km/h limit where they deem it necessary, I feel 50km/h is appropriate for the vast majority of urban areas, instead of defaulting to a lower limit, we should default to 50km/h as at present and councils should be more proactive and set 30km/h limits in high risk areas like outside schools, busy shopping streets and streets with inadequate footpath space for their pedestrian traffic levels.

I believe that this would give almost the same benefit in terms of road/street user safety, while still allowing traffic to move at a reasonable pace. It should be noted that we will never eliminate accidents completely once human error is still a possibility, what we need to aim for is the best balance between safety and efficient use of the infrastructure.

The idea is not to have no 50km/h+ limits in urban areas but to force local authorities to justify such limits:

dowlingm

I think a default of 40 might work just as the drink driving limits were reduced, allowed the law-abiding sections of society to "catch up" and then lowered further.

There's some shapes being thrown in these parts to ban lorries near schools.

MGWR

bk wrote: »

Wow, really, so you are more concerned with the costs of maintaining your car, then saving lives! Nice......

30km/h speed limits also have other benefits:

• Significant reduction in CO2 released, good both for the environment and for making our cities more pleasant and smog free.
  
• Reduction in noise from cars of 40%, again making our cities a more pleasant place to be and live.

me wrote: »

No point either way. Why create more rules and then impose a police state to force them on everyone? That'll make a city less "liveable", and induce me for one to drive out to the country to live rather than dwell in a city

That is fine, but all the evidence shows, cities without cars or only few cars attract people into them, as them become more pleasant places to live, work and play.

Actually, driving slower is cited as a cause of carbon dioxide increase rather than decrease, never mind increasing the real exhaust-related dangers (sulphur compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds, particulates et cetera). Driving slower uses more fuel than driving faster, merely due to the efficiency curve of the engine rather than the gearing; and the increased engine heat means more industrial wasted due to the increased repairs necessary. Also, it's steady speeds that really increase efficiency; in a city, you'll always have stop/start merely because of the nature of city streets. Carbon dioxide does not cause smog, BTW.

Not to mention that if the buses are also held down to 18.6 miles per hour, you may as well have them pulled by horses again for all the efficiency you'll get out of any internal combustion engine.

The only thing that reduces car noise are exhaust muffling and using quieter tyres. Unless you want to not hear a car approaching? That certainly increases danger to someone carelessly walking across the road no matter what speed the car is travelling at; remember that horse-drawn vehicles killed careless pedestrians at far lower speeds than 18.6 mph, and the type of politicians that would legislate such low urban speed limits would also legislate a ban on using car horns, not that the reaction time of most drivers would mean they sound the horn timely enough to alert someone crossing the street carelessly. (You're also trying to put soundproofers out of business.)

Try sifting out evidence from propaganda, and emotional arguments from logical. The kind of cities that work well with fewer cars are those with good public transport, especially of the grade-separated railway kind; and that is by people's choice rather than top-down legislation. Adherence to the venerable Safe Cross Code will save more lives than reducing urban speed limits; I've lived by it since being a lad, on both urban and rural roadways, and yes, it works. Streets and roads are not for the witless/careless, and you cannot make everything eejit-proof. Cities are for working rather than being purely residential.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

_Kaiser_

How about teaching the lemmings that walking out in front of cars (jay-walking) is a bad idea, and trying to enforce some sense of personal safety and responsibility (y'know, like we had 30 years ago!) instead?

If this ever came in, coupled with our godawful public transport, expect city centre businesses to die off rapidly as people just avoid the area completely.

More ridiculous big brother/nanny-statery nonsense under the guise of "saving lives". As stated already, sure lets just ban cars outright :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

Talking about noise reduction..

The EU Commission is proposing limit values of
68dB(A) at the second stage after the publication of the
regulation, which means that combustion engine passenger
cars would be required to be as silent as electric vehicles.
A result of this proposal is the contradictory possibility
that internal combustion engine passenger cars become as
quiet as electric vehicles, putting manufacturers in the ironic
situation of potentially having to fit noise-making devices to
all vehicles they have been forced by legislation to quieten.

http://www.acea.be

loyatemu

signed - they already have 30km/h limits in most French towns and city centres and they seem to have coped, businesses have survived etc

Victor

corktina wrote: »

no enforcement = no point

Well, to a certain degree, the drivers in front will enforce it.

MGWR wrote: »

It'll also make the repairman a lot of money as well. Driving at slower than 19 mph means more wear and tear on the engine, especially due to bad airflow through the radiator; that air flow is needed for good heat exchange with the engine coolant.

Sitting at traffic lights must kill your radiator!

The trick is more constant travel speeds. Going from 0km/h to 50km/h to 0km/h as one races from one traffic light to the next uses more fuel and energy and wear and tear that going at a more constant, slower speed.

The chance of you being hit by a car if you stay on the footpath = extremely close to zero.

In Britain, 8% of pedestrian traffic casualties are killed on the footpath.

In addition, has everyone forgotten the Safe Cross Code? Takes more than overregulating car useage to make a city more "liveable". Stop demanding that the state do things for you and be adaptive instead.

Not everyone can adapt - children, older people, those with mobility impairments all have requirements that are impaired by traffic.

What you are doing is engaging in victim blaming. Back in the 19th century, 16,000 railway workers (nor including those in depots which would be covered by the Factories Acts) were killed or maimed every year (minor injuries not counted), mostly because of minor rules breaches in unsafe working conditions where it was difficult to keep to the rules. It is not dissimilar on the roads today.+

monument

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

How about teaching the lemmings that walking out in front of cars (jay-walking) is a bad idea,

A quick Google search found these:

• Struck pedestrian on footpath
• Careless driver mounts footpath to avoid collision with milk truck, court hears
• Call for HGV traffic ban as cars forced to mount path

Silly lemmings walking on footpaths -- they should have stayed at home.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

...and trying to enforce some sense of personal safety and responsibility (y'know, like we had 30 years ago!) instead?

30km/h is a type of "personal responsibility" on those who create the most disruption -- from noise which adds to stress of city life, to speed which makes it harder to cross a road.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If this ever came in, coupled with our godawful public transport, expect city centre businesses to die off rapidly as people just avoid the area completely.

Most of the time traffic going into heavily used car parks in Dublin City centre are traveling slower than 30km/h and, at peak shopping times, slower again.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

More ridiculous big brother/nanny-statery nonsense under the guise of "saving lives".

It's for a number of reasons including safety and saving limbs as well as life (in these debates we all too often forget about everything but death; but it's also to make towns and cities more relaxed places to visit and live in -- it's travel, but the affects of motor travel on other things.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As stated already, sure lets just ban cars outright :rolleyes:

30km/h = practical, as proven around Europe.
Banning cars outright = not practical.

:rolleyes:

MGWR wrote: »

Actually, driving slower is cited as a cause of carbon dioxide increase rather than decrease, never mind increasing the real exhaust-related dangers (sulphur compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds, particulates et cetera). Driving slower uses more fuel than driving faster, merely due to the efficiency curve of the engine rather than the gearing; and the increased engine heat means more industrial wasted due to the increased repairs necessary. Also, it's steady speeds that really increase efficiency; in a city, you'll always have stop/start merely because of the nature of city streets. Carbon dioxide does not cause smog, BTW.

@BK: As the man says: "Try sifting out evidence from propaganda, and emotional arguments from logical."

I found this paper called "Impact of 30 km/h zone introduction on vehicle exhaust emissions" and it concludes:

It is unlikely that imposing strict speed limits in urban areas has a significant influence on emissions of NOx or CO2. Concerning the impact on emissions of PM VeTESS results indicate that the exhaust from the diesel vehicles may show a significant decrease, whereas MEET functions assume a moderate increase. The effect on emissions of PM should be confirmed by further research, also focusing on the impact of acceleration or gear shifting behaviour.

Or as I said in my first post: The typical current urban driving is so hugely a waste of fuel and includes so much unneeded emissions, talking about the the difference between 30km/h and 50km/h limits is almost meaningless [in terms of emissions].

I await an emotional, quasi-logical or anecdotal argument to try to dispute the above.

MGWR wrote: »

Not to mention that if the buses are also held down to 18.6 miles per hour, you may as well have them pulled by horses again for all the efficiency you'll get out of any internal combustion engine.

MGWR wrote: »

The only thing that reduces car noise are exhaust muffling and using quieter tyres.

As shown above, rolling noise is much lower at 30km/h, than at 50km/h.

MGWR wrote: »

That certainly increases danger to someone carelessly walking across the road no matter what speed the car is travelling at;

Cars are not silent at 20-30km/h, but the risk of collision is offset by more time for drivers to react and breaking distance reduced, and, in the event of a collision, death or major injury is much, much lower (as shown in the graph above).

MGWR wrote: »

remember that horse-drawn vehicles killed careless pedestrians at far lower speeds than 18.6 mph.

Cities and towns are for both and more, including, tourists.

30km/h will have a positive effects for all groups.

Victor

Spook_ie wrote: »

Mmmm point of order, a lot of vehicle gearing would mean using a lower gear and higher revs therefore more fuel, more emissions and more noise

As above, in city traffic, it is the stop-start nature of driving that determines fuel consumption.

Cienciano wrote: »

The argument "if it saves one life it'll be worth it" doesn't cut it outside of a liveline debate.

But the reality is that it would cut 80-90% of casualties in affected areas.

MGWR wrote: »

Driving slower uses more fuel than driving faster, merely due to the efficiency curve of the engine rather than the gearing;

That may have been true 40 years ago with the 1973 oil crisis, but many modern cars have a very different efficiency curve.

Not to mention that if the buses are also held down to 18.6 miles per hour, you may as well have them pulled by horses again for all the efficiency you'll get out of any internal combustion engine.

In city traffic, you often can't reach such a speed anyway, so that point is somewhat moot.

The only thing that reduces car noise are exhaust muffling and using quieter tyres.

... or going slower. Are you saying going faster isn't louder?

Try sifting out evidence from propaganda, and emotional arguments from logical.

Likewise.

Streets and roads are not for the witless/careless, and you cannot make everything eejit-proof.

Cities are for working rather than being purely residential.

How much productive work actually gets done while driving? By your criteria, children and older people don't work all that much and most other people only work maybe 1760 hour per year out of 8760 - about 20% of their time.

Victor

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If this ever came in, coupled with our godawful public transport, expect city centre businesses to die off rapidly as people just avoid the area completely.

You can't shop from a car - there are precious few drive through shopping facilities in Ireland.

The reality is that bus users spend more on Grafton Street and Henry Street than motorists. Add pedestrians, cyclist and rail users and motorist spending in these areas is already in a minority.

Tigger

if people on paths are getting hit that's a whole other issue

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

Better to banish cars altogether in selected areas .

I'd be in favour of this. Leave the 50kph limit in but restrict road usage in the town centres, more pedestrianised streets, more PT only roads etc.
You need to make town centres nice places for people to be, slowing traffic doesn't do this, removing it (from key areas) does.

monument

Tigger wrote: »

if people on paths are getting hit that's a whole other issue

It's not another issue -- when it happens, it tends to happen when speeds are higher.

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'd be in favour of this. Leave the 50kph limit in but restrict road usage in the town centres, more pedestrianised streets, more PT only roads etc.
You need to make town centres nice places for people to be, slowing traffic doesn't do this, removing it (from key areas) does.

It's worth saying that this is about much more than town or city centres.

In Berlin, 30km/h covers almost all residential streets, 75-80% of secondly roads and about 10-15% of main roads. URL="http://youtu.be/zBtK2llDoMs?t=56m48s"]source[/URL

Tigger

monument wrote: »

It's not another issue -- when it happens, it tends to happen when speeds are higher.

care to back that up ?
ie: more cars obeying the 50kmph mounting kerbs? cos i assume its speeders

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

It's worth saying that this is about much more than town or city centres.

true but that's where the biggest benefits and impacts are to be had. I don't really see the need or reason to have the whole of Dublin at a blanket 30kph (trunk roads aside)

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

true but that's where the biggest benefits and impacts are to be had. I don't really see the need or reason to have the whole of Dublin at a blanket 30kph (trunk roads aside)

Where the "biggest benefits" are is very subjective.

If it was implemented across the city much like it has been in Berlin, than -- for example -- people living or working on Harts Corner in Glasnevin might view the biggest benefit to be their localised section of 30km/h. The same might apply to any village centre, road pinch point or residential area across the city.

Tigger wrote: »

care to back that up ?
ie: more cars obeying the 50kmph mounting kerbs? cos i assume its speeders

With a 50km/h limit more people will mount kerbs in a collision than with a 30km/h limit. And, sure, that includes people going over the limit in both cases.

bk

One point that seems to be missed about this proposal. This proposes to make the default speed limit 30km/h for cities, towns and villages.

The councils still have the power to exclude certain streets, etc. and make them 50km/h, etc. or even less.

This is a reverse of the current situation where the default is 50km/h and exceptions have to be made for 30km/h

I think this is by far the most beneficial impact of this proposal, it would force councils to really think about and analyse the pros and cons of making a street 50km/h

It puts the emphasise on safety of our streets and the liveability of our neighbourhoods.

A big problem I see with many councils in Ireland is that most of their engineers are road engineers. They have relatively few city planners. There almost no engineers with expertise in cycle infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure, etc.

Irelands councils are far too focused on cars. They are too focused on getting them in and out of our towns and cities quickly and into their onstreet and council car parks (a big revenue generator for councils).

Such a policy from the EU top down would force these engineers to start to think differently and to think of towns and cities as places where people live, work, play and not just a speedway for motorists speeding through.

Spook_ie

Victor wrote: »

You can't shop from a car - there are precious few drive through shopping facilities in Ireland.

The reality is that bus users spend more on Grafton Street and Henry Street than motorists. Add pedestrians, cyclist and rail users and motorist spending in these areas is already in a minority.

True but if that's the case then why do so many more people go shopping "out of town" now, nothing to do with the fact they cater for people in cars by parking arrangements etc.?

It'll be fine in Grafton St. if you're only shopping for a new shirt that you can carry in a carrier bag and hop onto your cycle/bus/train or whatever but anything more and people head for the likes of Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown or some similar shopping centre.

Example, my better half used to do some food shopping in M&S Grafton St, she migrated to M&S Mary St, now she goes to M&S Liffey Valley and all because of hassle driving into and out of town

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Example, my better half used to do some food shopping in M&S Grafton St, she migrated to M&S Mary St, now she goes to M&S Liffey Valley and all because of hassle driving into and out of town

And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact sales at such inner city shops are actually up as more and more people opt to live in cities and not just work there.

Ever been in Tesco's on Parnell St, absolutely jointed with people who live in the apartments in the surrounding area.

So in the past lots of people use to drive into town to do there shopping, but not many people lived there as it was an unattractive place to live due to so many cars.

Now most of these people drive to the suburban retail parks as they are easier to access and have free parking, but this is a good thing as less cars in the city center make it a more attractive place to live and more and more people opt to do that.

Yes some types of business in the city center will suffer and close down (e.g. White goods and large electrical retailers), but new types of business will pop up in their place to service the new types of people living in the cities.

Iwannahurl

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'd be in favour of this. Leave the 50kph limit in but restrict road usage in the town centres, more pedestrianised streets, more PT only roads etc.
You need to make town centres nice places for people to be, slowing traffic doesn't do this, removing it (from key areas) does.

It's not either/or. The solid evidence for casualty reduction in 30kmh/20mph zones fully justifies the lower speed limit on its own.

Traffic calmed city centre and residential areas, along with measures to reduce or exclude motorised vehicles, is the way to go.

cdebru

bk wrote: »

And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact sales at such inner city shops are actually up as more and more people opt to live in cities and not just work there.

Ever been in Tesco's on Parnell St, absolutely jointed with people who live in the apartments in the surrounding area.

So in the past lots of people use to drive into town to do there shopping, but not many people lived there as it was an unattractive place to live due to so many cars.

Now most of these people drive to the suburban retail parks as they are easier to access and have free parking, but this is a good thing as less cars in the city center make it a more attractive place to live and more and more people opt to do that.

Yes some types of business in the city center will suffer and close down (e.g. White goods and large electrical retailers), but new types of business will pop up in their place to service the new types of people living in the cities.

That is just untrue and a distortion of history people did not move out of the centre of Dublin because of the cars, they were moved out and wanted to move out because of the diabolical housing that was the city centre.

The reason people didn't live there was because there simply was nowhere decent to live, the reason people still shopped there was because of the dreadful planning that built suburbs like crumlin, marino, finglas, ballyfermot etc but failed to provide them with any facilities.

What changed and made the city centre more attractive was not less cars that is just patent nonsense, it was the building boom that built apartments and places for people to live in the city centre. At the time people were moving back into the city centre car ownership was on the rise and city centre suffered regular gridlock.

The depopulation and repopulation of the city centre had nothing to do with the increase or decrease of traffic in the city centre it was a housing issue plain and simple.

Reducing the speed limit to 30km across the city is a nonsense idea, 50km is fine for most areas, unless there are areas of higher risk like active schools or higher pedestrian populations like the city centre. All this would do is create barrel for the gardai to shoot fish and collect revenue and grind the city to a halt.

monument

cdebru wrote: »

Reducing the speed limit to 30km across the city is a nonsense idea, 50km is fine for most areas, unless there are areas of higher risk like active schools or higher pedestrian populations like the city centre. All this would do is create barrel for the gardai to shoot fish and collect revenue and grind the city to a halt.

How exactly would a default 30km/h limit grind the city to a halt?

May go into the housing issue later -- but I partly agree with both of you on that.

ballooba

monument wrote: »

How exactly would a default 30km/h limit grind the city to a halt?

Maybe if you got rid of traffic lights it wouldn't. But given the length of time it takes people to move through junctions in Dublin you'd end up with single figure average speeds.

TheBandicoot

Would buses be subject to this limit as well?

cdebru

monument wrote: »

How exactly would a default 30km/h limit grind the city to a halt?

May go into the housing issue later -- but I partly agree with both of you on that.

Ok average speeds currently for buses across the city 2009 16.61km/h
If you reduce speed limits to 30 you are going to lower that average big time,as the only thing bringing that average up is when buses get a bit of open road and can make progress.

You cut the maximum speed you are going to increase journey times, increased journey times in todays climate means less buses, longer gaps between buses, which will mean more people turning to the private car, which will increase congestion and lower speeds further.

Some of the cycling lobby are living in a dream world where if you could just slow everything down to the speed of a bicycle we would all suddenly realise how great they are and ditch our cars. It wont happen.

Carawaystick

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

if people don't want to be hit by a car or whatever then stay off the roads and walk on the path and use lights to cross roads. It's largely uneducated fools who get hit by cars.

Like the Grandmother killed by a cop driving with bald tyres, while standing on the path at a busstop.....

Not that it was the cops fault as she was acquitted.:mad:

Victor

cdebru wrote: »

Reducing the speed limit to 30km across the city is a nonsense idea, 50km is fine for most areas, unless there are areas of higher risk like active schools or higher pedestrian populations like the city centre.

This is close to victim blaming, being at school isn't the risky activity, driving is.

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

This is close to victim blaming, being at school isn't the risky activity, driving is.

No you are twisting what I said.

unless there are areas of higher risk like active schools or higher pedestrian populations like the city centre.

How is that victim blaming ? That is just pointing out the reality that those areas are a higher risk so a reduced speed may be warranted.

I never said being at school was a risky activity, but running across the road in front of the school certainly would be.

Iwannahurl

cdebru wrote: »

Ok average speeds currently for buses across the city 2009 16.61km/h

If you reduce speed limits to 30 you are going to lower that average big time,as the only thing bringing that average up is when buses get a bit of open road and can make progress.

You cut the maximum speed you are going to increase journey times, increased journey times in todays climate means less buses, longer gaps between buses, which will mean more people turning to the private car, which will increase congestion and lower speeds further.

Some of the cycling lobby are living in a dream world where if you could just slow everything down to the speed of a bicycle we would all suddenly realise how great they are and ditch our cars. It wont happen.

So are you by any chance saying that the average speed of buses in Dublin City has dropped since the 30 km/h zone was introduced?

I don't know whether it has, by the way. Just wondering.

The reduction in casualties due to the introduction of 30 km/h speed zones is reason enough to implement them, imo. The rest, if it occurs, is the icing on the cake.

Victor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So are you by any chance saying that the average speed of buses in Dublin City has dropped since the 30 km/h zone was introduced?

The average speed probably went up due to the north quays bus lane and the College Green bus gate.

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

I never said being at school was a risky activity, but running across the road in front of the school certainly would be.

As I have pointed out before, for a small hairless ape that evolved on the african plains, standing still in the presence of predators such as lions, hyenas, wild dogs or Irish motorists was probably not a survival trait.

In the presence of such threats it is an entirely natural reaction to sprint from areas of cover to other areas of cover. Instinctive behaviour is not easily modified. Therefore the solution is to deal with the predators.

monument

cdebru wrote: »

Ok average speeds currently for buses across the city 2009 16.61km/h

If you reduce speed limits to 30 you are going to lower that average big time,as the only thing bringing that average up is when buses get a bit of open road and can make progress.

You cut the maximum speed you are going to increase journey times, increased journey times in todays climate means less buses, longer gaps between buses, which will mean more people turning to the private car, which will increase congestion and lower speeds further.

Some of the cycling lobby are living in a dream world where if you could just slow everything down to the speed of a bicycle we would all suddenly realise how great they are and ditch our cars. It wont happen.

Have you read the thread?

Nobody is suggesting all road be set at 30km/h but for the default to be such, so the councils would have to actively choice the 40km/h, 50km/h+ roads or sections of roads.

The main outcome would likely be that most or all residential streets, town/village centres, and urban narrow roads would be set at 30km/h. Nobody here is suggestion the limit should 30km/h on "open roads" such as the wide sections of the N11, Nass Road, etc etc.

Away from larger roads with large sections of uninterrupted bus lanes, the ability for bus drivers to sometimes speed up single trips by putting the foot down for small bursts adds a lot less to the Dublin Bus product you might think. Why? Because such speed increases are not dependable and bus users rushing to work or elsewhere have to time the trip on the bases of the worst journey time - not blips of speed increases which might be knocked out by somebody fumbling with change or congestion. Nor can they bet on an extra bus coming because the last run went faster.

As Luas shows -- a far more important factor is reliability. It's far, far better for public transport to take, for example, ~25mins all the time rather than 20mins some mornings and 35mins other mornings. Far more important factors are having more continuous QBCs, less detours without good priority, moving towards cashless buses, and changing how buses use Leap.

cdebru

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As I have pointed out before, for a small hairless ape that evolved on the african plains, standing still in the presence of predators such as lions, hyenas, wild dogs or Irish motorists was probably not a survival trait.

In the presence of such threats it is an entirely natural reaction to sprint from areas of cover to other areas of cover. Instinctive behaviour is not easily modified. Therefore the solution is to deal with the predators.

Sorry but this is over dramatic nonsense, traffic is not predatory no one is setting out to knock anyone down, nor are children running across roads in fear .

But like I said in high risk areas a slower speed is justified but not a blanket 30km for the entire city.