Why 30 km/h speed limits are important in the context of Jake's Legacy vigil

DrMike

Press release issued 17th February for immediate use to coincide with Jake’s Legacy vigil at Leinster House gate from Sun 15th to Wed 18th Feb.

Day 3 of the Vigil. Cyclist.ie – The Irish Cycling Advocacy Network- and Dublin Cycling Campaign strongly endorse the ‘Jake’s Legacy’ campaign to introduce lower speed limits in residential areas and housing estates. We have been campaigning for 30 km/h to become the default urban speed limit here in Ireland, similar to many UK and European cities.

We believe there is a need for a fundamental change in how road authorities view the interaction of traffic with people, to enable pedestrians and cyclists of all ages to use our roads and streets safely. In line with government policy as outlined in the Design Manual for Urban Roads & Streets (DMURS,2013), this will lead to increased safety - and will encourage more active travel on foot and on bikes. Much road traffic planning and provision (free-flow concept) has tended to be for the benefit of the private motorist to the detriment of other road users such as public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

Cyclist.ie wants to see a realisation of government targets, which aim to increase the use of the bike for everyday activity, and more general active travel. Besides improving the general health of our population this will also lead to safer roads and streets and help to transform residential estates into more vibrant and safer living spaces, with consequential benefits for the quality of life. 30 km/h speed limits will help to realise these targets.

Throughout Europe, 30 km/h is now generally accepted as the default urban speed limit. In some cities, speed limits as low as 10 km/h are in place in ‘home zones’. Even in the United States, where the car is king, 25 mph (40 km/h) limits are common in urban areas and 15 mph (24 km/h) limits at schools. In the UK the “20’s Plenty” Campaign has been successful in securing reduced speed limits in many urban locations - see its web-site. Ireland is lagging behind other countries in how we manage traffic to make our owns and cities more liveable.

Lower speeds also result in less noise and pollution and greater fuel efficiency (high fuel consumption is associated with stop-start traffic, not slow traffic). On residential roads and shopping streets, people simply don't want to be exposed to the noise, fumes and dangers from higher speed traffic.

[DMURS: on Department of Environment web-site]


FURTHER INFORMATION

Full press release with links on Cyclist.ie web-site. Fact-sheet on 30 km/h speed limits also on web-site


Mike McKillen (Chair of Cyclist.ie)

Aard

Huge exposure for the debate on safer residential steets. I'm glad to see they've dropped the pro-speedbumps stance. That really wasn't doing the campaign any favours. Hopefully local authorities will begin taking dmurs seriously.

serfboard

DrMike wrote: »

the ‘Jake’s Legacy’ campaign to introduce lower speed limits in residential areas and housing estates. We have been campaigning for 30 km/h to become the default urban speed limit here in Ireland

Heard Jake's mother on the radio recently and agree with her 100% in relation to 30km/h speed limits for housing estates (I'm not sure about the "residential areas" bit - in the sense of how this is defined).

Listening to her talk I couldn't understand why it's not brought in for housing estates nationwide straight away - is it becuase they'd then have to do something about it (in terms of enforcement), or is it financial (can't think why, unless for extra signage), or what?

Spook_ie

Not convinced by the whole 30kph limit argument, if you drive at any kind of speed around children you're too fast, however, perhaps the real culprit is actually parental supervision
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=24317


Extract: Emphasis is mine

The study noted that while injuries from road traffic accidents are a leading cause of death among children worldwide, the number of children dying on Irish roads has fallen in recent years.

The researchers identified 45 child pedestrian deaths and found that 62% of the children involved were male.

Almost half (49%) of these deaths took place at the weekend, with 44% occurring in the summer months and 35% occurring in the evening time.

Over half (53%) of these deaths occurred in children aged between one and four years, and almost 30% were as a result of ‘low speed vehicle rollovers, mainly in residential driveways'.

In relation to low speed vehicle rollovers, the average age of the child involved was just over 21 months. In all of these cases, the cause of death was head injuries.

Furthermore, over 80% of these accidents took place outside the child's residence and in 54% of cases, the driver was a family member who was attempting to reverse their vehicle.

The researchers emphasised that young children do not have the attention, perception or cognitive skills to interact safely with road vehicles. For example, they are unable to assess the importance of speed and distance when it comes to moving vehicles.

They may also end up playing in potentially unsafe locations, such as driveways, and are heavily reliant on adult supervision.

odyssey06

There's a 30 kmh speed limits in some Dublin areas already e.g. Marino.
It is not enforced. It is not observed, except where road conditions (ramps, parked cars) make going faster than that impossible. I don't believe it's the answer, and I think this is a campaign where the heart is ruling the head.

Greenmachine

DrMike wrote: »

Press release issued 17th February for immediate use to coincide with Jake’s Legacy vigil at Leinster House gate from Sun 15th to Wed 18th Feb.

Day 3 of the Vigil. Cyclist.ie – The Irish Cycling Advocacy Network- and Dublin Cycling Campaign strongly endorse the ‘Jake’s Legacy’ campaign to introduce lower speed limits in residential areas and housing estates. We have been campaigning for 30 km/h to become the default urban speed limit here in Ireland, similar to many UK and European cities.

We believe there is a need for a fundamental change in how road authorities view the interaction of traffic with people, to enable pedestrians and cyclists of all ages to use our roads and streets safely. In line with government policy as outlined in the Design Manual for Urban Roads & Streets (DMURS,2013), this will lead to increased safety - and will encourage more active travel on foot and on bikes. Much road traffic planning and provision (free-flow concept) has tended to be for the benefit of the private motorist to the detriment of other road users such as public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

Cyclist.ie wants to see a realisation of government targets, which aim to increase the use of the bike for everyday activity, and more general active travel. Besides improving the general health of our population this will also lead to safer roads and streets and help to transform residential estates into more vibrant and safer living spaces, with consequential benefits for the quality of life. 30 km/h speed limits will help to realise these targets.

Throughout Europe, 30 km/h is now generally accepted as the default urban speed limit. In some cities, speed limits as low as 10 km/h are in place in ‘home zones’. Even in the United States, where the car is king, 25 mph (40 km/h) limits are common in urban areas and 15 mph (24 km/h) limits at schools. In the UK the “20’s Plenty” Campaign has been successful in securing reduced speed limits in many urban locations - see its web-site. Ireland is lagging behind other countries in how we manage traffic to make our owns and cities more liveable.

Lower speeds also result in less noise and pollution and greater fuel efficiency (high fuel consumption is associated with stop-start traffic, not slow traffic). On residential roads and shopping streets, people simply don't want to be exposed to the noise, fumes and dangers from higher speed traffic.

[DMURS: on Department of Environment web-site]


FURTHER INFORMATION

Full press release with links on Cyclist.ie web-site. Fact-sheet on 30 km/h speed limits also on web-site


Mike McKillen (Chair of Cyclist.ie)

Firstly aren't they campaigning for a speed of a measly 20kph. (My sympathies for the loss of their child, in case I leave any doubts)
Baffled by cyclists.ie being in favour of a 30kph speed limit, considering that plenty of cyclist far exceed this in built up areas.

Hilly Bill

I drove into my estate today and checked the speed i was doing and it was 20kph. Its the speed i normally drive as im coming in and out . Im not one for going slow but drive to the conditions of the road and 20kph seemed about right for that road.
The point is that regardless of the limit that if you were driving at 50kph in an estate then you wont drive at the lower speed just because its the new limit. Joyriders wont slow down just because of a new limit and those that take care will still take care.
Why not a campaign to make parents teach their kids not to run between park cars and not to play on the road?

AlekSmart

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not convinced by the whole 30kph limit argument, if you drive at any kind of speed around children you're too fast, however, perhaps the real culprit is actually parental supervision
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=24317


Extract: Emphasis is mine

I'd be in general agreement with Spook_ie here.

For all of it's well meaning intent,and the genuine sadness of the Jake's Legacy campaign,I'm left a tad uncomfortable at the thrust of this campaign.

Noting the involvement of Dr Mike's organization,I would pose the question as to whether Pedal Cyclists will consider themselves bound by the new blanket limit ?

The study of Cyclist/Pedestrian accidents is,as yet,not given nearly as much media attention as those involving Mechanically Propelled Vehicles,yet it appears that significantly serious injuries are inflicted by Pedal Cycle components,particularly on young children.

With the significant expansion of the various "City Bikes" schemes,the opportunities for such conflicts are increasing rapidly,so it is not inconcievable that Pedal Cycling will sooner than later become the focus of similar campaigns.

Meanwhile,painting Cycle Lane markings into ever busier Bus Lanes still manages to be accepted as normality in whatever World is inhabited by Inhabited by our native Transport Planning professionals....I wish them well in their endeavours :rolleyes:

Tenzor07

Greenmachine wrote: »

Baffled by cyclists.ie being in favour of a 30kph speed limit, considering that plenty of cyclist far exceed this in built up areas.

Seriously? :eek:

Cookie_Monster

Greenmachine wrote: »

Baffled by cyclists.ie being in favour of a 30kph speed limit, considering that plenty of cyclist far exceed this in built up areas.

Why? Speed limits don't apply to cyclists anyway so I'm guessing the rationale is that anything that slows cars down makes cycling more attractive to people.

Jamie2k9

20 km/h is not enforceable at all and ridiculous. Isn't Dublin cc 20 km/h? How is that one working out....

Such speeds will anger and distract them even more.

coylemj

The mother's attitude is that she doesn't want her child to have 'died in vain' which is simply saying that there must be something wrong with the system so something must be changed.

What do we do when another child is killed? Drop the limit to 15 kph?

Hard cases make bad law.

Aard

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

20 km/h is not enforceable at all and ridiculous. Isn't Dublin cc 20 km/h? How is that one working out....

Such speeds will anger and distract them even more.

You're right -- we should allow people who are quick to anger to drive faster(!)....

MGWR

coylemj wrote: »

The mother's attitude is that she doesn't want her child to have 'died in vain' which is simply saying that there must be something wrong with the system so something must be changed.

What do we do when another child is killed? Drop the limit to 15 kph?

Hard cases make bad law.

It's nicknamed "lawfare", where the lawyers sue and sue some more to institute laws that make no sense, usually for the purpose of disrupting a society.

30 km/h (18.6 mph) and 20 km/h (12.4 mph) are speeds that are hard on autos and make car driving all that more stressful and pointless, not to mention the effect on bus transport. Looks like a Luddite's vision to Balkanise the capital city of Ireland.

Nekarsulm

Gotta be a great result for GoSafe. Park a van and pick off motorists speeding at 21 or 16 KPH. Rich pickings.......

_Kaiser_

I'm sorry for this family's loss (and indeed anyone who's lost a loved one to the roads) but more nanny state-ism and motorist scapegoating is not the answer.

The calls to lower limits/put in more speed ramps and such is another example of the "can't someone else do it" approach to personal responsibility that has become the norm in our "modern" society.
Instead of parents teaching their kids to be careful around cars and on roads (as we were taught when we were kids and indeed as I'm already teaching my own little fella) and watching them as they're out playing, now the idea seems to be to shift that responsibility entirely to the passing motorist. It's a bit like how many parents nowadays plonk their kids in front of the TV/XBox and expect the schools to do the rest.

And before the pedantry starts, no I'm not excusing people speeding through estates, but this seems like another knee-jerk reaction that won't make a blind bit of difference to the actual root cause of the problem - namely parents having kids that they aren't ready/prepared to look after properly.

loyatemu

putting aside the issue of very young children being allowed out to play unsupervised - children up to a surprisingly old age have poor perception of speed and distance and risk in general, they're also prone to being distracted and not paying attention to what they are doing. This is because they are kids.

Anyone saying "it's the parents fault" for not supervising their kids - are you suggesting 10 year olds shouldn't be allowed play outside their houses without a parent standing around watching them, telling them what to do at all times. Is this really the kind of world you want to create?

A 30km/h limit may be difficult to enforce but enforcement of limits is pretty haphazard in Ireland in general - that's not a reason to get rid of them; what it does do is send out a message to motorists that they are responsible for driving carefully in residential areas, should be prepared for the unexpected and should generally treat such roads as a shared space. Virtually every town centre and residential street in France has a 30 limit and IME it's mostly well observed.

_Kaiser_

loyatemu wrote: »

putting aside the issue of very young children being allowed out to play unsupervised - children up to a surprisingly old age have poor perception of speed and distance and risk in general, they're also prone to being distracted and not paying attention to what they are doing. This is because they are kids.

Anyone saying "it's the parents fault" for not supervising their kids - are you suggesting 10 year olds shouldn't be allowed play outside their houses without a parent standing around watching them, telling them what to do at all times. Is this really the kind of world you want to create?

A 30km/h limit may be difficult to enforce but enforcement of limits is pretty haphazard in Ireland in general - that's not a reason to get rid of them; what it does do is send out a message to motorists that they are responsible for driving carefully in residential areas, should be prepared for the unexpected and should generally treat such roads as a shared space. Virtually every town centre and residential street in France has a 30 limit and IME it's mostly well observed.

OK here's how I see it...

I'm almost 40 so grew up in the 80s. When I was 9 we moved abroad for a few years and my mother worked shifts. I walked my younger sister to and from school every day and generally looked out for her until our mother got home.

When I was 12 I walked 45 minutes to school every day in all conditions, crossing several main roads at peak times and like every other kid I played on the street, cycled around the area and generally enjoyed being young!

I was never in an accident/near-miss or incident.. why? Because as soon as I started walking on the streets I was taught about being careful of cars, roads and to look both ways before crossing etc and my mother kept an eye on what we were at.

I don't believe that the roads have changed that much that suddenly we need to dramatically lower limits or take other drastic measures to protect little Johnny and Mary, but I do think that our culture and society has devolved into a responsibility-shirking, validation-seeking shadow of what we had before and it's because of this that many people think that things like personal safety, accountability and liability are all "someone else's" problem.

No-one said that we should remove all limits or that motorists shouldn't be mindful and drive appropriately to the conditions (whether it's an estate or a motorway) so let's not overreact here but over-regulation - especially unenforced/unenforceable regulation - solves nothing and indeed makes things even worse as people do become desensitised to it and ignore it.

Maybe a tangent for a C&T thread but it applies equally here as to the wider issues we face

Hilly Bill

They shouldn't be playing in the middle of the road That's for sure.

Laois_Man

serfboard wrote: »

Listening to her talk I couldn't understand why it's not brought in for housing estates nationwide straight away - is it becuase they'd then have to do something about it (in terms of enforcement), or is it financial (can't think why, unless for extra signage), or what?

Jake's mother was told it would cost quarter of a million to do the signage in Kilkenny alone! The Government have allocated only 2 million which is not gonna go very far given the Kilkenny quote

odyssey06 wrote: »

There's a 30 kmh speed limits in some Dublin areas already e.g. Marino.
It is not enforced. It is not observed, except where road conditions (ramps, parked cars) make going faster than that impossible. I don't believe it's the answer, and I think this is a campaign where the heart is ruling the head.

Enforceable or not, the fact is it has been hinted by Mrs. Brennan on Matt Cooper (or it could have been Sean O'Rourke) radio show that the DPP cannot bring a prosecution against the person who hit Jake Brennan because they were technically not breaking the law. Driving at a "sensible speed" (which is open to a whole range of personal interpretations). Someone driving at an irresponsible speed should be prosecutable and not get away with it because the speed limit itself wasn't set at a responsible level. Anyone who thinks that people driving through a housing estate at 50 KPH should remain untouchable is talking nonsense.

Besides, it is enforceable with more speed vans - it would pay for itself. And technology is catching up - slowly mind you, but it will get there (The power of GPS tracking hasn't been fully exploited yet)

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why not a campaign to make parents teach their kids not to run between park cars and not to play on the road?

They will still do it - They're kids - so it doesn't solve anything!

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Gotta be a great result for GoSafe. Park a van and pick off motorists speeding at 21 or 16 KPH. Rich pickings.......

Indeed, and there's not a thing wrong with that where exceeding 20KPH is deemed unsafe!

Grolschevik

This.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm sorry for this family's loss (and indeed anyone who's lost a loved one to the roads) but more nanny state-ism and motorist scapegoating is not the answer.

The calls to lower limits/put in more speed ramps and such is another example of the "can't someone else do it" approach to personal responsibility that has become the norm in our "modern" society.
Instead of parents teaching their kids to be careful around cars and on roads (as we were taught when we were kids and indeed as I'm already teaching my own little fella) and watching them as they're out playing, now the idea seems to be to shift that responsibility entirely to the passing motorist. It's a bit like how many parents nowadays plonk their kids in front of the TV/XBox and expect the schools to do the rest.

And before the pedantry starts, no I'm not excusing people speeding through estates, but this seems like another knee-jerk reaction that won't make a blind bit of difference to the actual root cause of the problem - namely parents having kids that they aren't ready/prepared to look after properly.

And this.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

OK here's how I see it...

I'm almost 40 so grew up in the 80s. When I was 9 we moved abroad for a few years and my mother worked shifts. I walked my younger sister to and from school every day and generally looked out for her until our mother got home.

When I was 12 I walked 45 minutes to school every day in all conditions, crossing several main roads at peak times and like every other kid I played on the street, cycled around the area and generally enjoyed being young!

I was never in an accident/near-miss or incident.. why? Because as soon as I started walking on the streets I was taught about being careful of cars, roads and to look both ways before crossing etc and my mother kept an eye on what we were at.

I don't believe that the roads have changed that much that suddenly we need to dramatically lower limits or take other drastic measures to protect little Johnny and Mary, but I do think that our culture and society has devolved into a responsibility-shirking, validation-seeking shadow of what we had before and it's because of this that many people think that things like personal safety, accountability and liability are all "someone else's" problem.

No-one said that we should remove all limits or that motorists shouldn't be mindful and drive appropriately to the conditions (whether it's an estate or a motorway) so let's not overreact here but over-regulation - especially unenforced/unenforceable regulation - solves nothing and indeed makes things even worse as people do become desensitised to it and ignore it.

Maybe a tangent for a C&T thread but it applies equally here as to the wider issues we face

Hilly Bill

Laois_Man wrote: »

Jake's mother was told it would cost quarter of a million to do the signage in Kilkenny alone! The Government have allocated only 2 million which is not gonna go very far given the Kilkenny quote



Enforceable or not, the fact is it has been hinted by Mrs. Brennan on Matt Cooper (or it could have been Sean O'Rourke) radio show that the DPP cannot bring a prosecution against the person who hit Jake Brennan because they were technically not breaking the law. Driving at a "sensible speed" (which is open to a whole range of personal interpretations). Someone driving at an irresponsible speed should be prosecutable and not get away with it because the speed limit itself wasn't set at a responsible level. Anyone who thinks that people driving through a housing estate at 50 KPH should remain untouchable is talking nonsense.

Besides, it is enforceable with more speed vans - it would pay for itself. And technology is catching up - slowly mind you, but it will get there (The power of GPS tracking hasn't been fully exploited yet)



They will still do it - They're kids - so it doesn't solve anything!



Indeed, and there's not a thing wrong with that where exceeding 20KPH is deemed unsafe!

Same goes for those that speed in housing estates, they will still do it regardless of the limit.

Laois_Man

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Same goes for those that speed in housing estates, they will still do it regardless of the limit.

Yes they will

But presently, 50 KPH, although an insane speed to be doing in certain places, is in fact untouchable by the law, which is utterly ridiculous!

Laois_Man

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

OK here's how I see it...

I'm almost 40 so grew up in the 80s. When I was 9 we moved abroad for a few years and my mother worked shifts. I walked my younger sister to and from school every day and generally looked out for her until our mother got home.

When I was 12 I walked 45 minutes to school every day in all conditions, crossing several main roads at peak times and like every other kid I played on the street, cycled around the area and generally enjoyed being young!

I was never in an accident/near-miss or incident.. why? Because as soon as I started walking on the streets I was taught about being careful of cars, roads and to look both ways before crossing etc and my mother kept an eye on what we were at.

I don't believe that the roads have changed that much that suddenly we need to dramatically lower limits or take other drastic measures to protect little Johnny and Mary, but I do think that our culture and society has devolved into a responsibility-shirking, validation-seeking shadow of what we had before and it's because of this that many people think that things like personal safety, accountability and liability are all "someone else's" problem.

No-one said that we should remove all limits or that motorists shouldn't be mindful and drive appropriately to the conditions (whether it's an estate or a motorway) so let's not overreact here but over-regulation - especially unenforced/unenforceable regulation - solves nothing and indeed makes things even worse as people do become desensitised to it and ignore it.

Maybe a tangent for a C&T thread but it applies equally here as to the wider issues we face

The facts from the CSO don't back up any of this "our culture and society has devolved into a responsibility-shirking, validation-seeking shadow of what we had before" stuff.

The number of pedestrians killed on Irish roads was at its height in the 70's and 80's

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/thatwasthenthisisnow.pdf

(Page 165)

Hilly Bill

Surely you wouldnt need limits in a housing estate as any decent person wouldnt be driving like an idiot anyway. How many people actually ignore the children at play sign and think this is great i can go 50kph/30mph and aim for it?

Do we know at what speed the person that knocked down the kid was travelling at? Would the kid still have died if it was 20Kph?

Aard

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Surely you wouldnt need limits in a housing estate as any decent person wouldnt be driving like an idiot anyway. How many people actually ignore the children at play sign and think this is great i can go 50kph/30mph and aim for it?

The two housing estates I'm most familiar with (1960s/70s, south Dublin, no through access) have people regularly driving at 60-70kmph. Not many kids around these days. The corner radii are wide, the carriageways are wide, the streets are long and straight. These estates are full of "decent" middleclass people who do often drive like "idiots".

mrbike

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Would the kid still have died if it was 20Kph?

probably not.

Odds of Pedestrian Deaths:
@20mph 5%
@30mph 45%
@40mph 85%


source http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

Hilly Bill

Basically according to the stats there was a possibility that it would have been the same result.

Hilly Bill

Aard wrote: »

The two housing estates I'm most familiar with (1960s/70s, south Dublin, no through access) have people regularly driving at 60-70kmph. Not many kids around these days. The corner radii are wide, the carriageways are wide, the streets are long and straight. These estates are full of "decent" middleclass people who do often drive like "idiots".

I was talking about their driving not their social status.

schemingbohemia

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Basically according to the stats there was a possibility that it would have been the same result.

How do you get that? There's always a possibility depending on where on the body the victim is hit but the likelihood of death increases dramatically with the increase in speed as shown in the stats you were quoting - which by the way are in mph not kmh.

Spook_ie

Laois_Man wrote: »

Yes they will

But presently, 50 KPH, although an insane speed to be doing in certain places, is in fact untouchable by the law, which is utterly ridiculous!

No they're not, people can still be prosecuted for careless driving, you don't have to be speeding to be careless or inattentive

jwwb

Spook_ie wrote: »

No they're not, people can still be prosecuted for careless driving, you don't have to be speeding to be careless or inattentive

But only after the event. The event being sending a child to the morgue.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

No they're not, people can still be prosecuted for careless driving, you don't have to be speeding to be careless or inattentive

Careless driving is a lot harder to prove and, even if it was not, it's out of the fixed penalty system so it's a drain on police and court resources.

Aard

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I was talking about their driving not their social status.

People speed in housing estates, that's my point.

Iwannahurl

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm sorry for this family's loss (and indeed anyone who's lost a loved one to the roads) but more nanny state-ism and motorist scapegoating is not the answer.

The calls to lower limits/put in more speed ramps and such is another example of the "can't someone else do it" approach to personal responsibility that has become the norm in our "modern" society.

Instead of parents teaching their kids to be careful around cars and on roads (as we were taught when we were kids and indeed as I'm already teaching my own little fella) and watching them as they're out playing, now the idea seems to be to shift that responsibility entirely to the passing motorist. It's a bit like how many parents nowadays plonk their kids in front of the TV/XBox and expect the schools to do the rest.

And before the pedantry starts, no I'm not excusing people speeding through estates, but this seems like another knee-jerk reaction that won't make a blind bit of difference to the actual root cause of the problem - namely parents having kids that they aren't ready/prepared to look after properly.

Three pages on this topic already, a lot of it the usual ill-informed stuff trotted out whenever proposals such as lower speed limits are proposed, so much as I'd like to I will not be able to respond to all the points raised.

In terms of what makes effective policy in the area of public health and safety, education targeted at individuals comes a poor second to engineering and enforcement measures that lower population risk.

If you want to see how hard it is to educate, just look at the ignorance displayed in numerous threads and posts on the issue of speed in the Motors forum. Most of the posters will be licensed drivers and so will have passed a test or two, yet they are still clueless about the established facts and their implications. Not only that, but many such posters are convinced that the biggest problem on Irish roads is the ignorance of other drivers.

Yet here we are again, with (some) motorists seeing little children's supposed lack of education as being the real problem.

This is why engineering (the setting of appropriately low speed limits and physical restraints on motor vehicle speed) and enforcement (the imposition of speed limits, fixed speed cameras, police presence, regular surveys etc) are required, because many motorists simply cannot be educated enough. In this regard wilful or innate ignorance among adult drivers matters little, because when they are physically prevented from driving too fast for the conditions (eg in a residential area where children are playing) and run the risk of Penalty Points, fines, disqualification and/or a prison sentence, the message will get through sooner or later, somehow or other.

Traffic circumstances must be adapted to the needs of children, older people and such vulnerable road users, not the other way round. There is absolutely no justification for failing to curb the real source of the danger, which is motor vehicles.

Unfortunately, in order to have much-needed legislation enacted AND implemented, decision-makers in national and local government will have to be educated, and if they can't or won't be educated then they must be forced to act. In the ten years since the enabling legislation was passed in 2004, local authorities have implemented a 30 km/h speed limit on a total of just 1% of the country's local and residential roads. Assuming the target is 100% of suitable roads, it will take another 900 years for them to complete the job at that pace. That's not nanny-statism or anything near it. It's incompetence and negligence on a nation-wide scale.

Hilly Bill

Aard wrote: »

People speed in housing estates, that's my point.

And they will still do it regardless of any new laws.

Hilly Bill

schemingbohemia wrote: »

How do you get that? There's always a possibility depending on where on the body the victim is hit but the likelihood of death increases dramatically with the increase in speed as shown in the stats you were quoting - which by the way are in mph not kmh.

the possibility is zero if a child doesn't run in-between cars or play on a road.

schemingbohemia

Hilly Bill wrote: »

the possibility is zero if a child doesn't run in-between cars or play on a road.

Don't you mean exist in the first place?

The likelihood of injury rather than death are hugely increased by a reduction in speed.

mikom

"Mind that child" the signs say.
Would be nice if their parents did as the sign says also.

Spook_ie

I'd bet my bottom dollar that given the circumstance of a cyclist hitting a child or a child causing the cyclist to head butt the floor they'd be all over parental responsibility like a rash

Aard

Hilly Bill wrote: »

And they will still do it regardless of any new laws.

You're right and this is a huge problem. Unfortunately it will take a lot of time, money, and persuasion for 70's housing estate typologies to be retrofitted with appropriate speeding-discouraging designs. I don't think having a sign with "30 km/h" is going to change behaviour on its. Maybe there are some other solutions that are not very expensive that could discourage speeding. Strategic, targeted changes could help -- for example reducing corner radii to make crossing the road easier at T-junctions (often an afterthought in housing estates from that era).

the groutch

was it established what speed the driver was going at the time of the collision?

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd bet my bottom dollar that given the circumstance of a cyclist hitting a child or a child causing the cyclist to head butt the floor they'd be all over parental responsibility like a rash

This is trolling as it's distracting from the topic at hand and there's already cycling mega thread if you want to randomly interject with your latest or repeated views on cycling or cyclists.

You've been warned more than a few times on your obsessive focus on cyclists in threads which are not about cycling, as well as those which are.

-- moderator

the groutch wrote: »

was it established what speed the driver was going at the time of the collision?

We're really not getting into this as there's no info as to whether there's any legal action is being taken.

-- moderator

Spook_ie

Considering the OP is by the chairperson of Cycling Ireland I hardly think it's trolling, perhaps you should indicate to him that there is a cyclist megathread rather than using your catch all your trolling comments.

With that I'll bid you good day in this particular thread

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Considering the OP is by the chairperson of Cycling Ireland I hardly think it's trolling, perhaps you should indicate to him that there is a cyclist megathread rather than using your catch all your trolling comments.

With that I'll bid you good day in this particular thread

We're bidding Spook_ie good day and good month from not just this thread, but from Commuting and Transport.

Note to others and Spook_ie when he gets over his ban:

The identity of any poster does not make it a free-for-all for trolling threads with random off-topic rants.

Some posters think this is ok with cycling to derail threads with randomness and others think it's ok with derail public transport threads with things like their grievances over free passes etc -- no such grievances make it ok to derail threads with wildly off-topic comments, which amounts to trolling.

Spook_ie has been warned about this before but he was let off with just a warning. However, his replying to moderation on top of that warning cannot be tolerated -- he knows that such is strictly not allowed.

-- moderation

expectationlost

the inquest hasn't been held, we don't know what speed Jake was hit at, whether speed or lack of speed ramps were a factor. I don't really want to speculate, but then its been made into campaign issue, related to Jake Brennan but without facts. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/donohoe-accepts-20km-h-residential-limit-in-principle-1.2107587#.VOSc14TCvmk.twitter the Minister says he going to give the _option_ of 20kmph limits

galwaycyclist

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Gotta be a great result for GoSafe. Park a van and pick off motorists speeding at 21 or 16 KPH. Rich pickings.......

Your user name triggered my irony detection system. Neckarsulm is a town in south-western Germany so I googled "neckarsulm verkehrsberuhigte bereich"

= neckarsulm traffic calming

I got this as the top link - its a page on Shopping (and car parking) in Neckarsulm.

http://www.neckarsulm-erleben.de/main/anfahrtparkencityapp/browse/1.html

Bitte beachten Sie: Der innere Bereich der Innenstadt ist eine "Blaue Zone" mit Parkscheibenpflicht und eine 30 km/h-Zone bzw. zum Teil eine 7 km/h-"verkehrsberuhigte Zone"."

Roughly translated

Please be aware: The inner town centre is a "blue zone" with disk parking and a 30km/h speed limit. In part a traffic-calmed zone with a speed limit of 7km/h

Yes that is speed limit of 7km/h.

Germany likely has thousands of, mainly residential, zones where a speed limit of "Schritttempo" - literally walking speed - applies.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schritttempo

When some Irish people complain about even the idea of 30km/h zones not to mind more stringent measures it is hard not cringe with embarrassment.

Edit: and before anyone decides to kick off. Yes - it does apply to cyclists as well.

Irish Steve

OK, I'm going to add some fuel to the fire.

If our housing estates were properly designed, with ADEQUATE parking on the site of the houses for vehicles, (Plural) rather than on the road outside the property, the roads would be a lot safer, as there wouldn't be cars for kids to run through the gaps between and into the path of vehicles that can't see those kids, and maybe those same kids would learn to associate roads with moving vehicles rather than them being linear car parks that also have some moving traffic.

Another issue that is down to design is the absence of open spaces on those same estates for children to play safely on, and that does not mean a small piece of open ground surrounded on 3 sides by feeder roads that are also linear car parks.

Another help would be if the consequences of an accident for the driver were to be significant. Most of the time, even when a serious accident occurs, the driver of the vehicle is still going to be driving, and is unlikely to be penalised for (often) their stupidity. If there was a real risk of being taken off the road for a prolonged period of time, maybe some people would actually think about the way that they drive, but there are so few disqualifications for the people that cause accidents, there is no real worry about the causing of that accident in the first place.

For speed limits to be effective, they have to be appropriate, there are way too many places around here that have limits that have nothing to do with road safety, and everything to do with enabling yet more planning approvals for industrial unit type development on what used to be a safe road at 100 Kph. Where the problems will come will be on roads that are not residential as such, but are feeder roads for multiple estates. Do they also have 30 Kph speed limits? If they do, it's going to take for ever to get to and from the Motorways and N roads, and there's no guarantee that the N roads won't end up with low limits on them as well. The thought of trying to get across Dublin at 30 Kph will be enough to persuade me that it's not worth going there in the first place, it's bad enough now with the higher speed limits that are in place, if most of Dublin inside of the M50 has 30 Kph speed limits, which could happen given the way that councils operate these days, it won't be a pleasant place to go any more.

mrbike

Irish Steve wrote: »

The thought of trying to get across Dublin at 30 Kph will be enough to persuade me that it's not worth going there in the first place... it won't be a pleasant place to go any more.

It would be a lot more pleasant for the people that actually live in Dublin though.

AlekSmart

expectationlost wrote: »

The inquest hasn't been held, we don't know what speed Jake was hit at, whether speed or lack of speed ramps were a factor.

I don't really want to speculate, but then its been made into campaign issue, related to Jake Brennan but without facts. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/donohoe-accepts-20km-h-residential-limit-in-principle-1.2107587#.VOSc14TCvmk.twitter the Minister says he going to give the _option_ of 20kmph limits

Probably the most troubling aspect of this for me,is the "campaign" element...something just is'nt sitting well about it.

Hilly Bill

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Don't you mean exist in the first place?

The likelihood of injury rather than death are hugely increased by a reduction in speed.

I think you know what i said.

The chances of not being burnt is increased if you dont put your hand in the fire .