DCC want to *expand* the 30km/h limits

Yakuza

Despite removing some of the area covered by this limit, they now want to extend the areas to which it applies to all residential streets. I hope this daft proposal doesn't see the light of day. It would be good to have it around schools and some areas of high pedestrian density (where it is now) but having it the default for all residential areas is daft, IMHO.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-s-30km-h-limit-fails-to-reduce-traffic-speed-1.1589133

end of the road

Yakuza wrote: »

Despite removing some of the area covered by this limit, they now want to extend the areas to which it applies to all residential streets. I hope this daft proposal doesn't see the light of day. It would be good to have it around schools and some areas of high pedestrian density (where it is now) but having it the default for all residential areas is daft, IMHO.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-s-30km-h-limit-fails-to-reduce-traffic-speed-1.1589133

oh i'd say it will, DCC count things as a success when the rest of us know its a failure, wonder is their plan to eventually drive all cars out of the city? wouldn't put it past them

hollypink

Isn't it pointless to extend the 30km/h limit when it hasn't reduced traffic speeds in the city centre areas where it's supposed to be in force?

The lower limit had been introduced in the interests of road safety and to make the city centre more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists.

However, senior executive engineer with the council Niall Gormley said recent speed measurements showed the 30km/h limit “has not brought about any reduction in traffic speeds”.

spatchco

who will enforce it another bylaw joke

Carawaystick

I thought it was daft to have a 30 limit on the quays, and not have it in residential areas.
There was a sign outside the long stone where the limit went up to50 as the street narrowed and you have pedestrians and cyclists mixed in with heavy traffic

It seems daft that engine alley or John Dillon street; or Fitzroy avenue or lienster, Munster& ster streets have a 50 limit

bambergbike

Yakuza wrote: »

Despite removing some of the area covered by this limit, they now want to extend the areas to which it applies to all residential streets. I hope this daft proposal doesn't see the light of day. It would be good to have it around schools and some areas of high pedestrian density (where it is now) but having it the default for all residential areas is daft, IMHO.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-s-30km-h-limit-fails-to-reduce-traffic-speed-1.1589133

I live in a residental area where all the local streets have 30 km/h limits and it's not daft, it's bloody wonderful. When you pop down to the shops and run into a neighbour, you don't have to raise your voice and shout above the traffic to chat to them. The old people who live here feel safe and can move around the neighbourhood confidently. Drivers don't ignore zebra crossings because they're going too fast to stop at them anyway - they stop even at the ones on blind corners where they can't actually see whether there's a pedestrian crossing until they have already stopped to look. Children are free-range and healthy. Cyclists don't cycle on the pavement or in the "door zone" because they're terrified of being read-ended by speeding cars. People come first and cars second - even though this is a hilly neighbourhood a few miles out of town where very few families can imagine life without having a car.

If kids are to make their way to and from school and their after-school activities under their own steam or at least without adult supervision (walking or by bike or by some combination of walking or cycling and public transport) they need safe, livable streets for the entire door-to-door journey, not just right around their schools. Liveable streets are worth it, in economic and human terms. Ferrying kids everywhere deprives children of the experience of learning to be independent and of the fun they can have making their own way around with their friends. It can make them helpless, dependent, fat and unhealthy. It's also a massive waste of time and source of stress for the adults involved; they could be having fun or doing something economically productive or cooking healthy dinners for their children instead. It should be possible for six-year olds to make simple journeys by themselves once they know their usual routes and have been shown the points where they need to be especially careful. Other countries manage this; we seem to be missing a few ingredients. Among them: 30 limits that extend well beyond the immediate environs of schools, where they only benefit children arriving by Mammy taxi or Daddy taxi. Even children arriving by bus need 30 limits in residential areas, since otherwise they can't get to the bus stop safely!

It's not just about 30 limits, however; we need to do other things to ensure drivers take responsibility for their part in creating an environment that works for people from six to eighty-six using different forms of transport - private and public, motorized and unmotorized. I was out and about in my residential neighbourhood recently with my three-year old niece. We were on the footpaths, I was walking and she was on her balance bike. All the streets had 30 limits, but many drivers slowed to 15 km/h or less as they passed us - we weren't using the road, but they could imagine the child losing her balance and falling from the footpath into the road, and they didn't want to rely entirely on me being able to catch her in time even though they could see she had adult supervision. So they gave us space on these roads we weren't using, just in case we ended up using them by accident. They did so partly because they are nice people and good neighbours, but also because German road traffic law states firmly that drivers have to keep an eye out for children and elderly people and be ready to anticipate any unpredictable movements they might make. This seems to work; drivers don't see a 30 limit as an entitlement to do 30. Driving at 30 makes it possible for drivers to detect situations in which they should slow down further. If they have an elderly cyclist or a kid wobbling uphill in front of them, they will drive at much slower speeds until it's safe to overtake. Sometimes they have to wait for while; these residential streets are choc-a-bloc with parked cars, so overtaking is difficult and people just have to patient. Other cars are, as usual, the main barrier to making progress in a car.

Expecting drivers to slow down for the first mile or two and the last mile or two of a long journey is not anti-motorist. It's true that I'm asking drivers to sacrifice a few seconds at either end of their journeys for the sake of a big quality-of-life bonus for non-motorists, but drivers will end up getting that time back (and more) if our roads environment becomes more suitable for active travel:

1) Congestion reduces as the total number of car journeys decreases. Where space for increasing car capacity is limited, the most rational way to reduce delays to drivers is to facilitate journeys made by less space-hungry modes.

2) Individual drivers spend less time in their cars ferrying children or elderly relatives around if more people can travel independently.

Victor

bambergbike, awesome post.

Islington Borough in London found that while they changed the speed limit they control to 20 mph (32 km/h), the found that an awful lot of casualties are on roads that Transport for London controls - these retain a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit.

SeanW

bambergbike wrote: »

I live in a residental area where all the local streets have 30 km/h limits and it's not daft, it's bloody wonderful.

I lived in Dublin and Cork cities for a while (both times outside the respective 30kph zones that came in while I was there) and though I used both car, bus and foot modes of trave extensively, I can say that I would have found the 30kph zones to be on the whole to have a negative impact on my life there if they had been expanded beyond their existing remits, especially in Dublin where the 30kph zone is bounded by key motoring routes that can and should be used in preference to O'Connell Street etc.

Dorset St. in particular (being 50kph, the boundary of the zone), I used very fequently as both a pedestrian and a motorist. And in its current state it works very well for both:
1) As a pedestrian, the footpaths were wide, the traffic lights gave green men at good timings, as non-pedestrianised streets go I rather liked it, certainly in preference to some of frankly pedestrian hostile streets I have to use now to get to work, on the South side of the CC.
2) As a motorist, I found the ability to legally travel at a speed appropriate to the settings to be welcome, and made good time when I travelled it by car, normally in the off-peak, night times etc.

Victor wrote: »

bambergbike, awesome post.

Islington Borough in London found that while they changed the speed limit they control to 20 mph (32 km/h), the found that an awful lot of casualties are on roads that Transport for London controls - these retain a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit.

Are you suggesting that this is because of their reduced speed limits?

Might it not have something to do with the 30MPH streets are main arterial traffic routes whereas the other streets are likely to be regarded by motorists etc as side streets?

bambergbike

Victor wrote: »

Islington Borough in London found that while they changed the speed limit they control to 20 mph (32 km/h), the found that an awful lot of casualties are on roads that Transport for London controls - these retain a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit.

I'm always really cautious about interpretations of casualty figures - although those ones certainly seem to make sense - because the most dangerous roads can have a perfectly clean slate not because they are safe, but because people know they are dangerous and keep their children locked up well away from them. Casualty figures are worth looking at, of course, but only in tandem with other "quality of life" or "level of service" indicators.

SeanW wrote: »

As a motorist, I found the ability to legally travel at a speed appropriate to the settings to be welcome, and made good time when I travelled it by car, normally in the off-peak, night times etc.

I won't deny that speed limits are a crude and blunt instrument to some extent. If all drivers always drove with due consideration towards other road users in general (and vulnerable road users in particular), we could get rid of a lot of formal rules (including speed limits) and replace them with one simple message: road users must always be attentive and considerate. If more people used their judgement and their common sense more, they could be given more scope to do so. In principle, I would like people to be encouraged to use their judgement rather than being bombarded with hundreds of separate instructions. We have some roads with such huge signs warning drivers of upcoming bends that the bends are frequently hidden behind the signs; those grate with me because I would like to think that drivers incapable of recognizing a bend clearly marked with plenty of reflectors shouldn't be on the roads at all. At the moment, however, I think there is still scope for using additional restrictive rules like 30 speed limits as a means of redressing the current power imbalance between people driving powerful, heavy vehicles and people who are "naked" in traffic, unprotected by an exoskeleton and often also afforded pathetically inadequate protection by our road traffic engineers, our justice system and the education and instruction we provide to road users. If we progress to the point where "might is right" is replaced by vision zero and a mutual respect agenda, we can then talk about restoring powers of discretion to drivers.

In the meantime, I'm not going to get into the specifics of Dorset Street, although it would be interesting if you could quantify the time saving made under the higher limit. How much time did you save anually by making good time? I think I can remember reading that cost-benefit analysis tends to show that the costs of road accidents cancel out the minutes shaved off journeys here and there by drivers travelling at speeds that make collisions more likely, but I haven't got a reference for that handy and it didn't specifically refer to Dorset Street anyway - maybe Dorset Street is different.

I will, though, respond to your general point about it being safe to speed up a bit at quiet, off-peak times. I strolled down to my local supermarket to pick up a few things for dinner a few days ago. It's on a street where the limit was changed to 30 and then changed back to 50 after a gentleman took and won a court case to protest that he ought to be able to drive to work in a timely fashion on what is a major traffic artery as well as the main shopping street in the village/suburb. He won. It was just before eight in the evening, so not the dead of night, but certainly an off-peak time with no commuter traffic. In the space of a few minutes, I counted lots of pavement cyclists. They all had decent lights, so it wasn't that they felt safer on the pavement because they were invisible. And they weren't using the pavement to take a shortcut by riding against traffic instead of crossing the road to ride on the correct side; they already on the correct side. So the only obvious reason for them choosing to use the pavement was that they didn't feel safe in the road because of the speed of the traffic.

They basically had 3 choices:

Option 1: ride in a stream of fast traffic on a dark, wet night (scary, high subjective risk of being rear-ended, the cyclist as mobile traffic calming device)
Option 2: ride in the door zone (scary, high objective risk of being doored and thrown into the main traffic stream)
Option 3: ride on the pavement (not scary, somewhat unsafe, and illegal).

Now, I hate pavement riding - I would have taken Option 1 if I had been cycling, and I know the cars would have slowed to match my speed - but I could really see where the cyclists were coming from. It's not fun being a mobile human traffic calming device doing 30 in a 50 zone where parked cars and heavy traffic in both directions mean that drivers can't overtake and stay behind cyclists long enough get quite frustrated. Riding in the door zone instead of in the main traffic stream can feel a bit safer, but one cyclist has already been killed on this street doing that since the limit was changed back to 50; these cyclists seemed to be aware of the danger. In a way, I was happier to be personally inconvenienced by cyclists using the pavement than to see cyclists risking their lives in the door zone for the sake of keeping motor traffic moving.

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

Are you suggesting that this is because of their reduced speed limits?

Might it not have something to do with the 30MPH streets are main arterial traffic routes whereas the other streets are likely to be regarded by motorists etc as side streets?

The problem is that leaving the main streets at 30 mph fails to deal with many collisions / casualties. Those streets are the ones with the most users, most traffic and most casualties and the point has to be made that they should be included in the lower speed limits and have work done to passively enforce those limits.

SeanW

Victor wrote: »

The problem is that leaving the main streets at 30 mph fails to deal with many collisions / casualties. Those streets are the ones with the most users, most traffic and most casualties and the point has to be made that they should be included in the lower speed limits and have work done to passively enforce those limits.

I disagree, the streets in your post are arterial, main routes, so naturally they would have a greater number of cars, ergo, more accidents because of the fact that there's more traffic. It's the arterial vs. local nature of the streets, I expect that lead to that difference more so than the 20MPH speed limit.

As to the matter of main streets being included in 30kph limits, again I disagree: the whole point of any kind of well thought out policy is that it is fair to all. So while 30kph limits are a good ideas for secondary or central streets, a sensible compromise allows motorist to minimise their exposure to them for all but the shortest, start/end of journey uses. The current 30kph regimes in Dublin and Cork do this, blind expansions would not.

SeanW

bambergbike wrote: »

Expecting drivers to slow down for the first mile or two and the last mile or two of a long journey is not anti-motorist. It's true that I'm asking drivers to sacrifice a few seconds at either end of their journeys for the sake of a big quality-of-life bonus for non-motorists

It's a bit more than "a mile or two" and WAAAAAAAAAAY more than a few seconds.

bambergbike wrote: »

In the meantime, I'm not going to get into the specifics of Dorset Street, although it would be interesting if you could quantify the time saving made under the higher limit. How much time did you save anually by making good time? I think I can remember reading that cost-benefit analysis tends to show that the costs of road accidents cancel out the minutes shaved off journeys here and there by drivers travelling at speeds that make collisions more likely, but I haven't got a reference for that handy and it didn't specifically refer to Dorset Street anyway - maybe Dorset Street is different.

Whatever way I used it, it always worked very well, as a pedestrian, I never felt threatened by the 50kph traffic, the crossing facilities were excellent for the most part, the buses had bus lanes, (there are cycle lanes as well).

As to the time saved doing 50kph vs 30kph you're probably taking minutes, but far more valuable than that was the lack of frustration from having to hold back for artificial speed limts that IMO prevade other roads in the city, basically everything on what used to be the N4 (and still is in parts) from Heuston to the start of the M4 and routes like the Santry by-pass.

I will, though, respond to your general point about it being safe to speed up a bit at quiet, off-peak times. I strolled down to my local supermarket to pick up a few things for dinner a few days ago. It's on a street where the limit was changed to 30 and then changed back to 50 after a gentleman took and won a court case to protest that he ought to be able to drive to work in a timely fashion on what is a major traffic artery as well as the main shopping street in the village/suburb. He won. It was just before eight in the evening, so not the dead of night, but certainly an off-peak time with no commuter traffic. In the space of a few minutes, I counted lots of pavement cyclists. They all had decent lights, so it wasn't that they felt safer on the pavement because they were invisible. And they weren't using the pavement to take a shortcut by riding against traffic instead of crossing the road to ride on the correct side; they already on the correct side. So the only obvious reason for them choosing to use the pavement was that they didn't feel safe in the road because of the speed of the traffic.

Don't recall seeing many cyclists, remember there are bus lanes and cycle lanes over junctions, but I didn't drive in such a manner as to cause problems for anyone, I don't think.

bambergbike

Victor wrote: »

The problem is that leaving the main streets at 30 mph fails to deal with many collisions / casualties. Those streets are the ones with the most users, most traffic and most casualties and the point has to be made that they should be included in the lower speed limits and have work done to passively enforce those limits.

This brings us back to the quays in Dublin, I think. Of course they don't look like quiet neighbourhood streets where traffic calming could easily and cheaply be implemented to provide pedestrians and cyclists with a very high level of service. The need to re-engineer them to provide an adequate level of service to pedestrians and cyclists arises precisely because they are busy streets used by thousands of people.

SeanW wrote: »

As to the matter of main streets being included in 30kph limits, again I disagree: the whole point of any kind of well thought out policy is that it is fair to all. So while 30kph limits are a good ideas for secondary or central streets, a sensible compromise allows motorist to minimise their exposure to them for all but the shortest, start/end of journey uses. The current 30kph regimes in Dublin and Cork do this, blind expansions would not.

I am familiar with a number of cities that have about 30 limits covering about 70% of streets; that generally does seem to cover the start/end points of journeys and a central area and not much else. I can understand your general objection to anything - however sensible - being applied blindly. So what I would suggest is making all urban streets 30 in principle and then very carefully and systematically sifting out the exceptions where good reasons for higher or lower limits can be demonstrated. The bottom line is that it should be objectively and subjectively safe and pleasant to make direct, efficient journeys using sustainable modes. Unsustainable modes should be facilitated wherever it is possible to do so without compromising the safety and comfort of sustainable transport users unduly. Of course nobody wants to be delayed, "unfairly" or otherwise, but cyclists and pedestrians are often concerned about arriving at their destinations alive; we need to address these concerns.

robertxxx

Why do this when its not obeyed when its on the drag strip called the south quays.

Aard

robertxxx wrote: »

Why do this when its not obeyed when its on the drag strip called the south quays.

People not abiding by laws is not a good reason for not having them.

bambergbike

robertxxx wrote: »

Why do this when its not obeyed when its on the drag strip called the south quays.

Maybe we are doing the right things in the wrong order; if drivers had first learned about the benefits of "livable streets" in the sort of residential context where the principle is obvious to the point of being almost self-explanatory, it might have been easier to then "export" the idea to a more frantic, frazzled city-centre environment.

Valentine1

Was thinking about this today. I was cycling on the Quays and I can safely say that I was the only person traveling below 30kph.

would welcome the limit on many residential streets but what is the point if there is to be no enforcement?

Aard

Enforcement through design. It should be more of a long term project to turn residential streets into slow streets through redesign.

Valentine1

Aard wrote: »

Enforcement through design. It should be more of a long term project to turn residential streets into slow streets through redesign.

So long as that doesn't involve putting speed bumps on ever street and road I'm ok with it.

bambergbike

Valentine1 wrote: »

So long as that doesn't involve putting speed bumps on ever street and road I'm ok with it.

Yes. In theory, self-enforcing streets are a great idea, but we also need to promote a minimum of driving skill. Speed bumps are useless if people accelerate up to each one (overtaking slower road users to do so) and then slam the brakes on just as they reach an obstacle. I've also seen people swerving around them instead of going over them in Sligo.

I cycled up Cemetery Road in Sligo just after the speed bumps had been put in. A motorist overtook me at the bottom of the hill and then came almost completely to a halt right in front of me to crawl over a speed bump. He got over it eventually and set off again just before I would have had to put a foot down and then do a hill start to get going again. The same thing happened at the next one. In congested traffic I'm used to being overtaken by motorists who block my path seconds later when they get stuck, but it was new to me that I can get stuck behind a motorist on a completely clear stretch of road as well.

Ernest

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-s-30km-h-limit-fails-to-reduce-traffic-speed-1.1589133

"The council lowered speed limits for most of the shopping and central business area of the city from 50km/h to 30km/h in 2006.
In January 2010 it extended the zone from Bolton Street on the north side to St Stephen’s Green on the south side, and from Church Street in the west to Gardiner Street and Dawson Street to the east.
O’Connell Street, Dame Street and the north and south quays, previously excluded from the zone, were also brought under the new limit ".

I read the above in Saturday's Irish Times. This extension was news to me. As one of the relatively few people who take speed limits seriously, or try to, I had not seen any signage to indicate this extension and was not aware that the slow-drive areas had been extended.
Would it have been too much to expect Dublin City Council to erect speed limit signs when (rightly or wrongly) they decide to change speed limits from the default 50kpm to 30kpm or extend this to new areas?
Writing on the road itself is not necessarily enough as such markings are obscured by other cars.
In view of this, it is hardly surprising to me that DCC have found that average vehicle speeds have not decreased.

Iwannahurl

Any information available on method used by Dublin City Council to measure average speeds for the purposes of the present study?

Locations? Number of vehicles counted? Duration of survey(s)? Time of day etc?

monument

Ernest wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-s-30km-h-limit-fails-to-reduce-traffic-speed-1.1589133

"The council lowered speed limits for most of the shopping and central business area of the city from 50km/h to 30km/h in 2006.
In January 2010 it extended the zone from Bolton Street on the north side to St Stephen’s Green on the south side, and from Church Street in the west to Gardiner Street and Dawson Street to the east.
O’Connell Street, Dame Street and the north and south quays, previously excluded from the zone, were also brought under the new limit ".

I read the above in Saturday's Irish Times. This extension was news to me. As one of the relatively few people who take speed limits seriously, or try to, I had not seen any signage to indicate this extension and was not aware that the slow-drive areas had been extended.
Would it have been too much to expect Dublin City Council to erect speed limit signs when (rightly or wrongly) they decide to change speed limits from the default 50kpm to 30kpm or extend this to new areas?
Writing on the road itself is not necessarily enough as such markings are obscured by other cars.
In view of this, it is hardly surprising to me that DCC have found that average vehicle speeds have not decreased.

The zone is fully marked with speed limit signs... Or you can say where these are missing?

Large zone signs and more entry treatments might have been a good idea, but the normal signs seem to be all in place.

Valentine1

monument wrote: »

The zone is fully marked with speed limit signs... Or you can say where these are missing?

Large zone signs and more entry treatments might have been a good idea, but the normal signs seem to be all in place.

the only places I have ever seen them is on the Quays where they seem to be painted on the road surface only.

LXFlyer

You people mustn't be looking very hard.

There are very clear 30kph signs in place.

Valentine1

lxflyer wrote: »

You people mustn't be looking very hard.

There are very clear 30kph signs in place.

So clear that I miss them every day?

LXFlyer

Valentine1 wrote: »

So clear that I miss them every day?

So clear that I see them every day.

Look at either side of the road turning off O'Connell Bridge onto Aston Quay for example.

They were and are in place at each point where the zone starts.

end of the road

Valentine1 wrote: »

So long as that doesn't involve putting speed bumps on ever street and road I'm ok with it.

thats most likely what they will do, any excuse for the anti motorist/pro cycling extremists to make things difficult with no good alternatives, if they really wanted cars out of the main tourist and shopping areas of the city they could build multi-story car parks on the outskirts with specialised busses going around these areas designed with trollys and shopping in mind, not going to happen though

Victor

Victor wrote: »

The problem is that leaving the main streets at 30 mph fails to deal with many collisions / casualties. Those streets are the ones with the most users, most traffic and most casualties and the point has to be made that they should be included in the lower speed limits and have work done to passively enforce those limits.

While there's more accidents on the main roads (big surprise) the fatalities are well spread out, there's not even a correlation between higher speed limits and fatalities on those maps.

Victor

Deleted User wrote: »

While there's more accidents on the main roads (big surprise) the fatalities are well spread out, there's not even a correlation between higher speed limits and fatalities on those maps.

4 of the 9 fatalities are on TFL roads, another 3 are on borought principal roads and the last two are adajent to main roads. The vast majority of the serious injuries are also on these roads. how can you say there is no correlation?

The message is clear - main roads need safety improvements.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

4 of the 9 fatalities are on TFL roads, another 3 are on borought principal roads and the last two are adajent to main roads. The vast majority of the serious injuries are also on these roads. how can you say there is no correlation?

The message is clear - main roads need safety improvements.

What the traffic numbers like? Would it not always be the case that main roads with greater traffic numbers, and likely more heavy vehicles, are going to be the most dangerous?

Iwannahurl

Traffic speed has a much stronger relationship to road fatalities than traffic volume. Which is not to say that road collisions are not multi-factorial.

bk

end of the road wrote: »

thats most likely what they will do, any excuse for the anti motorist/pro cycling extremists to make things difficult with no good alternatives, if they really wanted cars out of the main tourist and shopping areas of the city they could build multi-story car parks on the outskirts with specialised busses going around these areas designed with trollys and shopping in mind, not going to happen though

Again, motorists only make up 10% of shoppers in the city. (Cyclists 9%)

Not saying there shouldn't be better park and ride facilities, there definitely should be.

However this argument is a red herring as it is clear that the majority of motorists aren't entering the city for shopping, the majority use it as a rat run and are of zero benefit to retailers.

LXFlyer

Valentine1 wrote: »

So clear that I miss them every day?

Also clearly signed on the entry to Pearse Street Bus gate, Burgh Quay, and O'Connell Street northbound.

Victor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Traffic speed has a much stronger relationship to road fatalities than traffic volume. Which is not to say that road collisions are not multi-factorial.

I agree, but if traffic is 10-100 times greater, then it has implications, both for collisions and street habitability. Traffic volume and speed also cause community severance and isolation.

monument

Valentine1 wrote: »

So clear that I miss them every day?

From which way do you entry the 30km/h zone? Honest question, I'm interested in how people see or miss these things.

FYI:

EASTBOUND: If I'm recalling correctly the signs are on top of the traffic lights at the Ormond Quay Upper / Capel Street junction: This is then re-enforced by 30km/h painted on the road and then an electronic sign before the Millennium Bridge:




WESTBOUND: There's 30km/h signs, as pictured below, I think followed by 30km/h painted on the road and then the electronic sign at the busier O'Connell Bridge crossing.




It's likely more could be done, such as adding more entry treatments and looking at using larger 30km/h zone signs like this design from Berlin:



Some kind of surface difference even just at the entry point might be a good idea too -- from rumble strips to a meter or two some type of stone etc with or without being raised.

Carawaystick

I'm not justifying poor observation skills, but the top picture, has a completely non-expected design; it doesn't look like a speedlimit sign.

The middle picture has the dark car, turning left. The signs are out of the line of the driver's sight. The left sign will be missed, while the right sign is high and likely out of the line of sight also.
When I drive ( as i cycle a bit) I "watch the wheels" and the drivers. I don't look at stuff above my focus too much, and peoples vertical focus is much less than their horizontal focus, maybe 25 degrees V vs 100 degreesH with an amount of curvature in the corners to give an oval focus of vision.
These signs would be well suited for trafic coming from Georges quay.


The sign from Berlin, is well designed, and considerably harder to miss, but if placed on Burgh quay, will suffer the field of focus issue.

In France, speed ramps, or road paintings or the 'x' junction sign are used to indicate the 30 limit.

In Luxemburg, the 'priorite a droit' is used to calm traffic; this means traffic pulling out onto a road from a junction has right of way. So through traffic has to go slowly, to avoid getting sideswiped, and trafic pulling out has to take it handy to avoid through traffic drivers being careless.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm not justifying poor observation skills, but the top picture, has a completely non-expected design; it doesn't look like a speedlimit sign.

It's a speed sensor. There is also the regulatory sign.

LXFlyer

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm not justifying poor observation skills, but the top picture, has a completely non-expected design; it doesn't look like a speedlimit sign.

The middle picture has the dark car, turning left. The signs are out of the line of the driver's sight. The left sign will be missed, while the right sign is high and likely out of the line of sight also.
When I drive ( as i cycle a bit) I "watch the wheels" and the drivers. I don't look at stuff above my focus too much, and peoples vertical focus is much less than their horizontal focus, maybe 25 degrees V vs 100 degreesH with an amount of curvature in the corners to give an oval focus of vision.
These signs would be well suited for trafic coming from Georges quay.


The sign from Berlin, is well designed, and considerably harder to miss, but if placed on Burgh quay, will suffer the field of focus issue.

In France, speed ramps, or road paintings or the 'x' junction sign are used to indicate the 30 limit.

In Luxemburg, the 'priorite a droit' is used to calm traffic; this means traffic pulling out onto a road from a junction has right of way. So through traffic has to go slowly, to avoid getting sideswiped, and trafic pulling out has to take it handy to avoid through traffic drivers being careless.

Directly in front of the first signs are two standard speed limit signs.

SeanW

Aard wrote: »

People not abiding by laws is not a good reason for not having them.

Could someone please tell this to all the cyclists in Dublin?

bambergbike wrote: »

So what I would suggest is making all urban streets 30 in principle and then very carefully and systematically sifting out the exceptions where good reasons for higher or lower limits can be demonstrated.

The problem with this is two-fold.

1. Ireland does not have speed limits, AFAIK the legal term is "Maximum Speed Limit" that is theoretically supposed to be adjusted to conditions. Although I don't think anyone has been done for speeding within the MSL, the idea is that the use of this term reinforces the idea that "It's a limit, not a target."
   The flip side of this is that in order to be fair, a MSL must be absolute limit beyond which a motorist will cause danger at any time of the day or night. While most of them are indeed very good guides to the appropriate street or road conditions (noting the substantial difference in functionality of a street versus a road), many of them are not, and as far I am concerned, there is no moral onus on motorist to obey those that are too low for the conditions, which I would say is roughly 10% of roads.
   Additionally, because "It's a limit, not a target" is the unofficial mantra, by definition it is very difficult to have a speed limit that is too high, because if conditions do not permit safe travel at the speed limit, a motorist should know better than to go anywhere near it - for example narrow, twisty rural laneways with 80kph limits - those are entirely theoretical MAXIMUM speed limits because in practice to do so would be suicidal.
2. In an Irish context, "default" means "more or less blanket." Most motorways are 120kph. Most non-urban nationals are 100kph. Most regionals outside urban areas are 80kph. The penchant for treating the default as absolute in Ireland even goes to the extent of downgrading a speed limit along with its classification when an alternative route, e.g. motorway is built alongside it.
   
   Realistically, there would be few or zero exceptions to a 30kph "default" including hundreds of small town regional periphery roads where the existing 50kph limit is already ridiculously low: you would have a new generation of idiotic MAXIMUM speed limits where you could drive 200% of the new limit or more without causing any kind of problem whatsoever to anyone, in any possible way.
   
   I'm not against 30kph limits on principle but a more considered way to do it would be to leave the 50kph default but allow the case to be made for 30kph. The rules would be very simple;
   1 ) You would have to show that the road/street has little or no "through" usage, i.e. people driving from one place to another have no reason to use the route in question, unless as explicitly part of the start or end of their journey. In the case of a town or small city, failure on this point would be a provokation to construct a bypass or ring-road to satisfy the condition, prior to the 30kph limit being re-proposed, and then accepted.
   2 ) There will be an explicit beneficiary, either local residents in a residential area, or beneficiaries in a highly central urban area, parkland etc.

The bottom line is that it should be objectively and subjectively safe and pleasant to make direct, efficient journeys using sustainable modes. Unsustainable modes should be facilitated wherever it is possible to do so without compromising the safety and comfort of sustainable transport users unduly.

Speaking a frequent pedestrian and public transport user, I agree - but there is much more to be done in other ways before the speed limits issue is even looked at IMO.

For example, as part of my work in Dublin City, I have to negogiate on foot some streets that can only be described as pedestrian-hostile. Narrow, congested footpaths, pedestrian lights that take several minutes to give me the green - that is, when I'm "lucky" enough to have the protection of traffic lights at all, some junctions have either no pedestrian protections at all or only over 2 arms of a 4 way junction. Indeed, at one corner of St. Stephens Green, the City Council is taking away a pedestrian plaza type of thing to drive a new section of street through it. which will only add to the already considerable pedestrian hostility of walking routes in that area.

You fix these junctions to provide things like all-way pedestrian crossings, where all traffic is halted so that all pedestrian movements including diagonal movements, make the timings a little less hostile, and other engineering solutions, you do far more to make things safer for those using foot and possibly bike modes of transport, without screwing motorists more than is absolutely necessary.

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

The flip side of this is that in order to be fair, a MSL must be absolute limit beyond which a motorist will cause danger at any time of the day or night.

I think that might be too high a test. Would you say that you should be able to fire your gun anywhere you want, any time of day or night, however you want and the only restriction should be when you absolutely would kill someone?

While most of them are indeed very good guides to the appropriate street or road conditions (noting the substantial difference in functionality of a street versus a road), many of them are not, and as far I am concerned, there is no moral onus on motorist to obey those that are too low for the conditions, which I would say is roughly 10% of roads.

Then report those roads.

Additionally, because "It's a limit, not a target" is the unofficial mantra, by definition it is very difficult to have a speed limit that is too high, because if conditions do not permit safe travel at the speed limit, a motorist should know better than to go anywhere near it - for example narrow, twisty rural laneways with 80kph limits - those are entirely theoretical MAXIMUM speed limits because in practice to do so would be suicidal.

What about the "twisty rural" national routes with 100km/h?

The penchant for treating the default as absolute in Ireland even goes to the extent of downgrading a speed limit along with its classification when an alternative route, e.g. motorway is built alongside it.

Ther are a few things at play there:
* That is the way the law is structured.
* Councils are lazy.
* Councils usually get it wrong anyway.
* There is a change in the profile of drivers on those roads - the percentage of novice and 'Sunday' drivers increase, as does the % of cyclist and pedestrians.
* And indeed those roads should be disincentivised for long distance drivers.

I'm not against 30kph limits on principle but a more considered way to do it would be to leave the 50kph default but allow the case to be made for 30kph. The rules would be very simple;
1 ) You would have to show that the road/street has little or no "through" usage, i.e. people driving from one place to another have no reason to use the route in question, unless as explicitly part of the start or end of their journey. In the case of a town or small city, failure on this point would be a provokation to construct a bypass or ring-road to satisfy the condition, prior to the 30kph limit being re-proposed, and then accepted.
2 ) There will be an explicit beneficiary, either local residents in a residential area, or beneficiaries in a highly central urban area, parkland etc.

Take a look at the attached and tell me which bits are unreasonable. The first attachment is a submission I did to Dublin City Council, the second and third to Fingal County Council.

Victor

Guess the speed limits on these roads:

1. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.448002,-6.202083&spn=0.005303,0.015278&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.448199,-6.203914&panoid=Pqq2bB9CRCOdZ_Ngw-hy5Q&cbp=12,27.42,,0,0.81 1.

Road works aside, should be 100-120 km/h, actually 50 km/h.

2. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.585589,-6.146142&spn=0.005337,0.015278&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.585595,-6.146588&panoid=0O4myXdhyQ4jkotJ2yTitQ&cbp=12,99.2,,0,10.62 2.

Should be 30 km/h, actually 80 km/h.

3. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.601238,-6.199924&spn=0.01067,0.030556&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.601238,-6.199924&panoid=sSr4-TKtbrRAMUR0yE2yHA&cbp=12,264.54,,0,2.02 3.

Should be 80 km/h, actually 50 km/h.

4. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.4835,-6.291904&spn=0.004826,0.030556&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.483511,-6.291887&panoid=UlqShfquMdOL9-X00UPQqg&cbp=12,277.79,,0,2.73 4.

Should be 60 km/h, actually 80 km/h.

5. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.394372,-6.441808&spn=0.005361,0.015278&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.393944,-6.442293&panoid=CZIuYnMj4V_3xHi5yn3h7g&cbp=12,242.8,,0,12.74 5.

Should be 30 km/h, actually 80 km/h.

6. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.434697,-6.403913&spn=0.009894,0.030556&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&layer=c&cbll=53.433928,-6.404292&panoid=TdmE0uaIqmc60iqS2ErBEA&cbp=12,185.19,,0,11.12&z=15 6.

Should be 30 km/h, actually 80 km/h.

7. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.378585,-6.333713&spn=0.005363,0.015278&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.378585,-6.333713&panoid=wIH-M49BgcFVjtfk05Rqtg&cbp=12,304.53,,0,5.26 7.

Should be 30-50 km/h, actually 80 km/h.

8. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.402945,-6.31203&spn=0.00268,0.007639&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.402945,-6.31203&panoid=SS305JBo3jw1uczYkrRKFA&cbp=12,285.78,,1,0.96 8.

Should be 30 km/h, actually a suspect 30 km/h.

9. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.402958,-6.299069&spn=0.00268,0.007639&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.402958,-6.299069&panoid=uFQb2FM0Lto1Pkg6Ngzh6A&cbp=12,110.06,,0,6.07 9.

Should be 30 km/h, actually 80 km/h.

10. https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Swords&hl=en&ll=53.412039,-6.226952&spn=0.002417,0.015278&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=5.43804,15.644531&oq=swords&hnear=Swords,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.412045,-6.226943&panoid=U84ProjqvvXyDyvw9GGPLw&cbp=11,86.04,,0,0.81 10.

Should be 50-60 km/h, actually 50 km/h.

SeanW

Victor wrote: »

I think that might be too high a test. Would you say that you should be able to fire your gun anywhere you want, any time of day or night, however you want and the only restriction should be when you absolutely would kill someone?

No, but your example is hyperbolic for a number of reasons:

1. Most people don't have guns
2. Use of guns is limited by both tradition and law to limited purposes, e.g. hunting or target shooting, on ones own land, or that of another with explicit permission. In rare cases, guns are used in self-defence and as a last resort use of force against tresspassers.
3. If you were to use a gun outside of those tightly defined contexts you would be almost 100% certain to cause problems, panic, damage, and casualties would be very likely.
4. Use of motor cars is also very heavily restricted and partly for good reason, before you can take a car out on the roads:
   1) You have to have a driving license
   2) The car must be taxed
   3) Insured
   4) NCT'ed most likely
   5) Meet a whole plethora of EU regulations, many of which are matter of extreme concern to those who like having cars that actually work.

If you are sweriously comparing exceeding an idiotic speed limit on a road to going out onto the road and wildly firing a gun around the place, I'm not really sure what the potential for intelligent debate is. I hope I missed something here.

Then report those roads.

Right, who do I report these roads to? The NRA? The Dept of Transport? Local authorities? What is the procedure for this? It should also be remembered that many of the limits I refer to are there intentionally as the result of the policymaking. If it were easy to "report these roads" I would expect one of the following things to happen.

1. Absolutely nothing
2. A response stating that the speed limit makes sense in theory and if I break them I've statistically killed 10 people and made 1000 fluffly kittens cry little kitten tears - according to some gob****es calculator.
3. The report would be passed on to the guards and GoSafe who would respond by putting on speed traps (an option that would be the preferred choice of some people here).

The rarest sound in nature is that of a government admitting "This regulation is too much." and it usually requires the government imposition to have some catastrophic consequence (like the Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the '20s) for it to happen, and even then only in the past as modern governments seem to be immune to logic at times and theres a view in many more quarters nowadays that more government is better government. So you will have to forgive me if I don't take your "report it" advice all that seriously.

What about the "twisty rural" national routes with 100km/h?

"It's a limit, not a target"

Ther are a few things at play there:
* That is the way the law is structured.

Yes, that's how the law and general practice works in Ireland. "Default" == "More or less absolute"

Take a look at the attached and tell me which bits are unreasonable. The first attachment is a submission I did to Dublin City Council, the second and third to Fingal County Council.

Some of that makes sense. The problem is that your documents contradict themselves, fundamentally and irreconcilably.

On the one hand, you have a map showing 30 kph limits applying to side-streets only, leaving Dorset St. the North/South Circular Roads, the Wetern section of the quays, and many parts of the old National road-streets unchanged. This I could actually agree with.
On the other, your documents claim the need to include arterial streets in a 30kph downgrade, as you have done here, with that map of the streets in London.

These positions are fundamentally irreconcilable ... which are you actually advocating? I'm asking because I don't know - on this particular point your documents are so incoherent they raise many more questions than they answer.

While there is much in those documents I might agree with, you lost me on two specific points:

On certain routes, e.g. the twisting sections of the Chapelizod Bypass, the existing limit may be inappropriate, especially in the narrow bus and cycle lane (formerly a hard shoulder), which has poor line of sight due to the relatively sharp bends and steep verges. It is exceptionally unsafe and discouraging for cyclists to be passed by buses and taxis at much higher speeds at close distance. It may be appropriate to have a 50 or 60 km/h limit in those lanes, as provided for in Section 9(1) Road Traffic Act 2004 and as adopted by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on the N11.

If I understand correctly you would like to have 50kph and 60kph limits appled PERMANENTLY on the Chapelizod Bypass?

I admit that my experience of the CB is primarily in the off peak hours, when I lived in Dublin and used to drive between my "gaf" and Longford, I would use this road primarily after 8 PM and sometimes well after it, and the prevailing conditions at those hours dicated that even 80kph would have been a little bit conservative for what is at that hour and virtually abandoned grade separated dual carriageway. (Ditto for the Lucan Bypass).

You lose my support also with this:

However, there will still be some housing estates and a large number of country laneways with extensive ribbon development that will remain at 80km/h.

I don't know what kind of ribbon developments you are used to seeing in North Co. Dublin, but a lot of my problems are with urban peripheries that have a few houses side by side, so the deifinition of the "town" goes with these houses miles into the countryside. Much of the "ribbon development" was done in the 70's and 80's under the explicity understanding that the houses were being built along main roads.

Additionally, in most of these ribbon developments that I am familiar with, drivng your car past them you are more likely to be hit by lightening than even meet a pedestrian, or a cyclist, let alone be any kind of danger to one.

All the roads that you called for to be reduced from 80kph to 50kph may well be part of my problem I find whereby a speed limit makes sense in some bizarre theory, but is totally unrelated to anything that could be considered safe or considerate driving.

Victor wrote: »

Guess the speed limits on these roads:

Goodie, this should be fun

1. My guess (related to the motorway widening works that may still be ongoing) 60kph.
2. 80kph.
3. Either 50 or 60kph
4. 80kph
5. 50kph
6. 80kph
7. 50kph (due to its proximity to a more built up area to the South)
8. 30kph
9. 50kph
10. Either 30 or 50 kph

SeanW

BTW you might enjoy a short round of "guess the limit" yourself, so I've decided to post a small one.

Guess the limit on these roads/streets:

1. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.715222,-7.758139&spn=0.002518,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.715291,-7.758183&panoid=doK_m_SEzawmgegET7jd7g&cbp=12,340.91,,0,6.68
2. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.725717,-7.799634&spn=0.001265,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.725717,-7.799634&panoid=vs_xSULnAkZF2FVEkYMuaA&cbp=12,57.69,,0,8.01
3. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.721908,-7.814552&spn=0.00506,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.721908,-7.814552&panoid=EcMUNLLijYVIv9I__FK2lg&cbp=12,112.84,,0,15.22
4. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.727804,-7.829883&spn=0.002529,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.727908,-7.829771&panoid=gFXnpP019HEPD2o0rC934g&cbp=12,205.62,,0,2.4
5. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.705148,-7.615414&spn=0.00228,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.705146,-7.615417&panoid=B6e5tLwrHeUCn-8PbFmJNg&cbp=12,305.05,,0,17.92
6. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.384631,-6.363267&spn=0.002537,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.384591,-6.363164&panoid=PX_jgv3xRbzHsACNbtBeOA&cbp=12,130.66,,0,0.4

Answers:

1) 50kph, despite being a totally rural road miles from the town centre.
2) 50kph, the same as above, despite being in the heart of the town centre.
3) 50kph, the same as the above two, despite the road sinking into the bog and having extremly hostile speed bumps that make the road questionable for anything over 10kph!!
4) 80kph
5) 60kph, despite its width, despite it being well outside what is thought of as the town, limited usage of ribbon development with houses built well in from the road, extremely good visibility and regional nature of the route in question.
6) 30kph!!! Which is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin.

bambergbike

SeanW wrote: »

Additionally, in most of these ribbon developments that I am familiar with, drivng your car past them you are more likely to be hit by lightening than even meet a pedestrian, or a cyclist, let alone be any kind of danger to one.

This may well be true in some cases. But why? One of the main things stopping people from walking and cycling more on their everyday journeys is the fact that they would probably encounter quite a few motorists who consider meeting a pedestrian or a cyclist more unlikely than being struck by lightening and drive accordingly. I was at the athletics track at Skreen in Sligo last year for a running seminar. Over the course of the afternoon, as we were out on the track doing a few drills, people kept showing up in their cars, parking and walking round the track. Seemingly they were afraid to just go and walk on the country roads around their houses. I thought it was utterly bizarre. I cycled back to Sligo town in the dark afterwards. Nearly every oncoming driver I met was courteous enough to dip their lights, but a few weren't, and not everybody who passed me gave me much clearance (worrying at the best of times, but especially on a frosty January night). In general, I could see why a lot of people don't feel confident walking or cycling in rural and semi-rural locations in Ireland, especially after dark, lights or no lights. That doesn't mean that there's no demand for walking for cycling, it's just that it's latent or supressed demand that isn't met by current conditions. How on earth can parents let teenagers - never mind younger children - walk or cycle on roads used by drivers who think pedestrians and cyclists are rarer than lightening strikes?

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

BTW you might enjoy a short round of "guess the limit" yourself, so I've decided to post a small one.

Guess the limit on these roads/streets:

1. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.715222,-7.758139&spn=0.002518,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.715291,-7.758183&panoid=doK_m_SEzawmgegET7jd7g&cbp=12,340.91,,0,6.68
2. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.725717,-7.799634&spn=0.001265,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.725717,-7.799634&panoid=vs_xSULnAkZF2FVEkYMuaA&cbp=12,57.69,,0,8.01
3. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.721908,-7.814552&spn=0.00506,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.721908,-7.814552&panoid=EcMUNLLijYVIv9I__FK2lg&cbp=12,112.84,,0,15.22
4. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.727804,-7.829883&spn=0.002529,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.727908,-7.829771&panoid=gFXnpP019HEPD2o0rC934g&cbp=12,205.62,,0,2.4
5. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.705148,-7.615414&spn=0.00228,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.705146,-7.615417&panoid=B6e5tLwrHeUCn-8PbFmJNg&cbp=12,305.05,,0,17.92
6. https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.384631,-6.363267&spn=0.002537,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.384591,-6.363164&panoid=PX_jgv3xRbzHsACNbtBeOA&cbp=12,130.66,,0,0.4

Answers:

1) 50kph, despite being a totally rural road miles from the town centre.
2) 50kph, the same as above, despite being in the heart of the town centre.
3) 50kph, the same as the above two, despite the road sinking into the bog and having extremly hostile speed bumps that make the road questionable for anything over 10kph!!
4) 80kph
5) 60kph, despite its width, despite it being well outside what is thought of as the town, limited usage of ribbon development with houses built well in from the road, extremely good visibility and regional nature of the route in question.
6) 30kph!!! Which is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin.

I would have gone for:

1. Should be 60 km/h, likely 80 km/h.
2. Should be 30 km/h, likely 50 km/h.
3. Should be 60 km/h, likely 50 km/h (if inside town boundary) or 80 km/h (if outside town boundary).
4. Should be 60 km/h (with a sharp bend sign), likely 80 km/h.
5. Should be 60 km/h (but should be rework to add footpaths), likely 80 km/h.
6. At that particular point, should be 60 km/h-80 km/h, dropping to 50 km/h at the bend. I understand the bend is signed for 30km/h due to problems trucks were having.