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

galwaycyclist

Irish Steve wrote: »

No, lets look at it from another perspective, and this is an example also from "real life",

If I am sitting in a coffee shop with my wife, I don't expect to have to tolerate feral kids coming up to my table and mixing salt with the sugar while the parents are sitting a few tables away and trying to ignore completely what their kids are doing. The parents should be monitoring what their offspring are doing, and ENFORCING acceptable behaviour from them.

We are not talking about coffee shops - we are talking about urban housing estates and cul-de-sacs. In a housing estate children must be assumed to be present and must be assumed to be using the entire area as play area.

In a housing estate, play, is acceptable behaviour from children. Play is also an essential component of child development. The idea that children should be supervised and monitored at all times in a housing estate is ridiculous.

The idea that children should be supervised and monitored at all times in a housing estate so that adults can feel free to drive at inappropriate speeds is perverse.

Holsten

Stupid law.

Usless reactionary policy playing up to emotion rather than reason or logic.

Any laws named after people usually follow the same pattern.

Irish Steve

galwaycyclist wrote: »

We are not talking about coffee shops - we are talking about urban housing estates and cul-de-sacs. In a housing estate children must be assumed to be present and must be assumed to be using the entire area as play area.

In a housing estate, play, is acceptable behaviour from children. Play is also an essential component of child development. The idea that children should be supervised and monitored at all times in a housing estate is ridiculous.

The idea that children should be supervised and monitored at all times in a housing estate so that adults can feel free to drive at inappropriate speeds is perverse.

Interesting that you chose to be very selective about your response, and ignored the comments I made lower down, especially given your earlier comments.

if you'd read my comments properly, you would have seen that I don't have a problem with appropriate speeds around children, I actually went further, but I do have a BIG problem with people that want to make other people responsible for irresponsible parents, regardless of where that happens.

If you think that children should be unsupervised in housing estates, then you are the one that has the problem, there are many other reasons for supervising children beyond drivers.

Hilly Bill

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ah yes a common argument (in Ireland). It ascribes an adult understanding of adult behaviour to small children in their home environment (eg outside their front door)

There is another group of adults who like to explain their behaviour by ascribing adult understanding to children in their interpersonal relationships. Some of these adults, despite their reliance on such explanations, find themselves on the sex offenders register.



Morally speaking is there really any difference in either case? In both cases we have adults who wish to behave in a particular manner for their own personal self gratification. In one case it is the gratification of a "right" to drive at a certain speed. In other cases it is a "right" to indulge other "needs". In both cases the rights of children are seen as subordinate to the "desires" of certain adults.

Oh what a gift to gie us......

Now,you are getting stranger.

Hilly Bill

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok so lets come at this from a different direction. A fire is a thing it has no understanding. It is not over 17 and it has not passed a driving test.

A fire cannot be expected to modify its own behaviour in response to others. So we modify the environment to control the fire. I don't know of anyone who allows unsupervised open fires in the presence of children who are too young to understand the danger. If we do allow such a situation and a child gets injured then the fault is not with the child.

In other environments where children and adults routinely mix the adults are expected to modify their behaviour to take account. If an adult is in a supermarket they just don't barge down other peoples children with their trolleys if they get in the way. The adults conduct themselves in a manner that takes account of children.

But if I understand your "fire" argument correctly, we are expected to understand that once an adult gets into a car those rules of conduct are turned on their head. Now it is the children who are expected to understand the adult and modify their behaviour to take account of the adult. The adding of a car means the adult is no longer has to expect child-like behaviour from children in locations like housing estates?

Nope, you haven't understood anything.

Iwannahurl

Irish Steve wrote: »

I don't have a problem with appropriate speeds around children, ... but I do have a BIG problem with people that want to make other people responsible for irresponsible parents, regardless of where that happens.

If you think that children should be unsupervised in housing estates, then you are the one that has the problem, there are many other reasons for supervising children beyond drivers.

None of which are affected by a 30 km/h, 20 km/h or "walking speed" limit, the purpose of which is to reduce the risk of traffic-related death and injury.

The evidence is solid and the benefits well-established in that regard. The arguments from motorists against lower speed are emotional not rational.

Aard

The 30 limit is not suggested to apply to "main" roads -- only residential housing estates. Since housing estates are usually no more than about 500m from the main road, the change in the limit from 50 to 30 means that on a 500m stretch you'd lose out on 24 seconds at a maximum. Most houses would be close to the main road so the loss of time is even less.

As a pedestrian, you'd often be lucky to wait less than 24 seconds for a green man signal.

Hilly Bill

30kph is quite generous for a housing estate. I clocked what i was doing after turning into the estate and it was between 20 and 25kph and it didnt seem to slow at all.

Irish Steve

Aard wrote: »

The 30 limit is not suggested to apply to "main" roads -- only residential housing estates. Since housing estates are usually no more than about 500m from the main road, the change in the limit from 50 to 30 means that on a 500m stretch you'd lose out on 24 seconds at a maximum. Most houses would be close to the main road so the loss of time is even less.

As a pedestrian, you'd often be lucky to wait less than 24 seconds for a green man signal.

I wish I had your confidence in the ability of our legislators to be so discerning.

There are some "main roads" that really need to be slower than 50 Kph because of the appallingly bad design that has been pushed through by developers that were desperate to get as many units as possible on the site.

My fear is that for political expediency, and vote winning, vast swathes of Greater Dublin will be covered by a blanket 30 Kph speed limit, without any real consideration as to if it should apply throughout the 24 hours, and the reality is that between (at least) 2300 and 0700 the chances of a collision with a child are extremely low, and in reality, a child that is not road savvy should not be out unsupervised during those times.

What I want to see is that we don't need enforcement and yet more nanny state attitudes, we should be spending significant sums on education of drivers AND parents, to make BOTH more aware of the risks, and the responsibilities, and get to a point where rather than having fixed limits, we have variable limits that are respected by all concerned, and failure to respect those limits will have consequences, and a defence of "I was under the limit" will be barred and not seen as any defence, an accident regardless of speed will have consequences for the driver responsible.

As a specific example, a school on the old N3 (R143 now) at Rathbeggan has a 50 Kph speed limit in the area on a road that otherwise has an 80 Kph limit. Before 0800, and after 1600, and all day Saturday and Sunday, and for at least 3 months in the summer, that speed limit is not needed to protect the school, and for a period of time between 0900 and 0920, 1350 and 1420, and again around 1500, it probably should be 30 Kph . As things stand now, it's ignored most of the time, and also ignored at the critical times of day, but if there was some REAL education, and a period of stricter enforcement, maybe the message would sink in that there are times and places when a different attitude is needed.

There are plenty of other places around the country where the same situation applies, and it should not be hard to have appropriate systems in place to inform people who are not local about the limits.

expectationlost

More guidelines for 30kph urban slow zones? they were already guidelines for this councils wouldn't implement them

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/News/30_km_h_slow_zone_included_in_new_advice_on_speed_limits1.html

For further information on speed limits around the country, check www.speedlimits.ie The website was launched to coincide with the new guidelines (although it is still under construction, and will go live in a few weeks), along with a Twitter account - @SPEEDLIMITSEIRE

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0319/688108-speed/

The Government allocated €2m to local authorities last month to support their implementation of the slow zone initiative.

Jake’s mother has accused Minister for Transport Paschal Donohoe of "passing the buck" by suggesting that local authorities had the option of introducing speed limits below 30km/h.

Rose Anne Brennan has campaigned for a mandatory 20km/h limit to be brought in.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Today with Sean O’Rourke, she said she told the minister that giving local authorities an option to introduce a lower limit would not work as many housing estates were privately owned.

"They have no right to touch private housing estates, unless they take them in charge. And a lot of the housing estates were built very badly and no county council will take them in charge until all the stuff is done.

"I said that to him - what about the private housing estates and there is a lot of them out there. He said Oh God that's down to the local county council," Ms Brennan said

expectationlost

Roseanne Brennan reacts to Minister Paschal Donohoe's new speed guidelines on Today SOR http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2015/0319/20746192-roseanne-brennan-reacts-to-minister-paschal-donohoes-new-speed-guidelines-on-today-sor/
making the point that this won't be able to applied to private housing estates like Jake's

coylemj

expectationlost wrote: »

Roseanne Brennan reacts to Minister Paschal Donohoe's new speed guidelines on Today SOR http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2015/0319/20746192-roseanne-brennan-reacts-to-minister-paschal-donohoes-new-speed-guidelines-on-today-sor/
making the point that this won't be able to applied to private housing estates like Jake's

A local authority can no more apply a speed limit to a private housing estate than it can to the grounds of a hotel. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is.

The problem with a blanket speed limit is that it will lead to speed limits that are too low in certain places and too high in others, we've probably all seen rural boreens with grass growing down the middle and 80 km/hr speed limit signs.

Consider the N11 (Stillorgan Road) between RTE and Fosters Ave. which is a three lane dual carriageway but there are private houses along this road, doesn't that make it a 'residential area' and wouldn't 'Jake's Law' as proposed mean the speed limit would be 20 km/hr? The limit is currently 60 km/hr and the cops dish out tickets there like confetti every Sunday.

Iwannahurl

coylemj wrote: »

The problem with a blanket speed limit is that it will lead to speed limits that are too low in certain places and too high in others, we've probably all seen rural boreens with grass growing down the middle and 80 km/hr speed limit signs.

Consider the N11 (Stillorgan Road) between RTE and Fosters Ave. which is a three lane dual carriageway but there are private houses along this road, doesn't that make it a 'residential area' and wouldn't 'Jake's Law' as proposed mean the speed limit would be 20 km/hr? The limit is currently 60 km/hr and the cops dish out tickets there like confetti every Sunday.

We already have a blanket speed limit in urban/built-up areas: 50 km/h. The Minister seems to have no problem with that, yet "believes" area-wide 30 and 20 km/h are problematic.

this comes down to administrative laziness and penny-pinching. Neither the DoT or Local Authorities want to bother their arse.

AGS could dish out tickets like confetti in 50 km/h urban areas all day every day throughout the year because compliance is so poor. They don't bother their arses either if they can help it.

expectationlost

coylemj wrote: »

A local authority can no more apply a speed limit to a private housing estate than it can to the grounds of a hotel. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is.

The problem with a blanket speed limit is that it will lead to speed limits that are too low in certain places and too high in others, we've probably all seen rural boreens with grass growing down the middle and 80 km/hr speed limit signs.

Consider the N11 (Stillorgan Road) between RTE and Fosters Ave. which is a three lane dual carriageway but there are private houses along this road, doesn't that make it a 'residential area' and wouldn't 'Jake's Law' as proposed mean the speed limit would be 20 km/hr? The limit is currently 60 km/hr and the cops dish out tickets there like confetti every Sunday.

did you listen to her?

what_traffic

from Dept Website
http://www.dttas.ie/roads/publications/english/guidelines-setting-and-managing-speed-limits-Ireland

here is the direct link to the PDF
http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf

coylemj

Iwannahurl wrote: »

We already have a blanket speed limit in urban/built-up areas: 50 km/h. The Minister seems to have no problem with that, yet "believes" area-wide 30 and 20 km/h are problematic.

An urban speed limit makes sense in that the whole urban area of (e.g.) Clonmel needs a speed limit lower that what applies to main roads between towns. The problem is that a blanket lower speed limit in 'residential areas' would require a single definition (of what is a 'residential area') which applied to the whole country and this would lead to completely barmy limits in certain areas.

It would give rise to the following issues.....

1. If there is a single house beside a long stretch of empty (no other houses) road, would the lower speed limit apply to the road for 100m either side of the house - or at all?
2. What distance would the road need to be from a house for the speed limit to apply? If the road came within that distance from one house only, for how much of the road would the lower speed limit apply?
3. Would there be a minimum number of houses needed to make up a 'residential area'.

There are far too many variables and IMHO it would be impossible to create one definition that would satisfy everyone. This is the flaw that I see in 'Jake's Law'.

I agree with the minister that this is a decision best left to each local authority.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

this comes down to administrative laziness and penny-pinching. Neither the DoT or Local Authorities want to bother their arse.

Seriously can't see that being the case, if anything a proposed blanket speed limit would save money because local authorities would simply impose the speed limit rather than conduct studies and invite feedback from their citizens as they do at the moment.

galwaycyclist

what_traffic wrote: »

from Dept Website
http://www.dttas.ie/roads/publications/english/guidelines-setting-and-managing-speed-limits-Ireland

here is the direct link to the PDF
http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf

The use of a home zone or woonerf symbol is a mistake in my view. The Irish state should be using road signs in a consistent manner - eg consistent with other countries.

In other countries that sign legally creates a pedestrian priority zone where children or other pedestrians can use the entire road surface.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_r%C3%A9sidentielle

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_rencontre

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf

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

By using this sign under the existing Irish traffic regulations Pascal Donohoe is turning the idea on its head.

expectationlost

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The use of a home zone or woonerf symbol is a mistake in my view. The Irish state should be using road signs in a consistent manner - eg consistent with other countries.

In other countries that sign legally creates a pedestrian priority zone where children or other pedestrians can use the entire road surface.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_r%C3%A9sidentielle

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_rencontre

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf

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

By using this sign under the existing Irish traffic regulations Pascal Donohoe is turning the idea on its head.

is there some EU designation of signs? in English?

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The use of a home zone or woonerf symbol is a mistake in my view. The Irish state should be using road signs in a consistent manner - eg consistent with other countries.

In other countries that sign legally creates a pedestrian priority zone where children or other pedestrians can use the entire road surface.
.

never happen here, never

what_traffic

galwaycyclist wrote: »

By using this sign under the existing Irish traffic regulations Pascal Donohoe is turning the idea on its head.

Agree. It's a nonsense.
He had the one chance here to have a real legacy (during a short transport Ministerialship) that would be talked about for generations to come and he blew it!

BoatMad

what_traffic wrote: »

Agree. It's a nonsense.
He had the one chance here to have a real legacy (during a short transport Ministerialship) that would be talked about for generations to come and he blew it!

nonsense, it is a great day for level headed politics. Instead of making meaningless unenforceable blanket limits , he has left it up to individual communities and their local authorities to come up with specific local solutions

The rural roads resigning is simply a return to the previous method of indicating that you should apply commnsense on a rural road, the speed limit hasn't changed. This nonsense of trying to sign every boreen is just that nonsense


A great day for joined up adult political thinking

expectationlost

check out the umlimited speed limit sign for the autobahan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Germany#Autobahns

and the new up to eighty sign https://twitter.com/joemagraollaigh/status/578507988605992960

but these posts in motors explain it http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94751439&postcount=18

slow but 80km ?

are there any examples of combination signs being used like this? (and the homezone 30kph one)

----
http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf
In instances where Local Tertiary roads or minor Local Secondary roads with a poor
alignment and cross-section (“boreen”) connect to other roads that have a speed limit of
100km/h or greater, the Rural Speed Limit Sign (RUS 041A) should be used instead of the
numerical 80 km/h speed limit sign. This alternative sign was introduced in the Road Traffic (Speed Limit – Traffic Sign) (Local
Roads) Regulations 2014 – SI No. 488 of 2014).
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/si/0488.html

BoatMad

expectationlost wrote: »

check out the umlimited speed limit sig for the autobahan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Germany#Autobahns

and the new up to eighty sign https://twitter.com/joemagraollaigh/status/578507988605992960

yes I am going to mistake the boreen outside my door with the autobahn to stuggart !!!!!

both mean " end of particular speed limits, apply discretion ", but overall legal limits still apply

galwaycyclist

BoatMad wrote: »

yes I am going to mistake the boreen outside my door with the autobahn to stuggart !!!!!

both mean " end of particular speed limits, apply discretion ", but overall legal limits still apply

Under the law the maximum speed is always the distance within which the vehicle can be safely brought to halt in the distance that can be seen to be clear.

This is a principle that seems to get dropped in many situations.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Under the law the maximum speed is always the distance within which the vehicle can be safely brought to halt in the distance that can be seen to be clear.

This is a principle that seems to get dropped in many situations.

i dont believe that to be the case at all. your source please, if one read the 1961 road traffic act , which was the legislation that introduced comprehensive sped legislation in ireland, no such rationale is advanced in that legislation

expectationlost

BoatMad wrote: »

yes I am going to mistake the boreen outside my door with the autobahn to stuggart !!!!!

both mean " end of particular speed limits, apply discretion ", but overall legal limits still apply

so one can still do 80km in boreen?

galwaycyclist

BoatMad wrote: »

i dont believe that to be the case at all. your source please, if one read the 1961 road traffic act , which was the legislation that introduced comprehensive sped legislation in ireland, no such rationale is advanced in that legislation

Traffic and Parking regulations 1997 (but the legal principle pre dates this)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

General Obligation Regarding Speed
7. A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt within the distance which the driver can see to be clear.

galwaycyclist

expectationlost wrote: »

is there some EU designation of signs? in English?

Well I found this presentation that refers to this type of sign as creating a pedestrian priority zone.

http://www.call.walk21munich.com/presentations/BS203_ArndtSchwab.pdf

And has this reference

EUROPEAN SUPPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
TO THE 1968 VIENNA CONVENTION ON ROAD TRAFFIC (1971 / 1993)
ARTICLE 27 bis „Residential Areas“
Pedestrians
- may make use of the road over its entire width,

Googling that leads to this amendment to the convention - which is a binding international treaty to my knowledge.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201731/volume-1731-A-17847-English.pdf

"ARTICLE 27 bis

Special rules applicable to residential areas signposted as such

In residential areas, signposted as such:

(a) Pedestrians may make use of the road over its entire width. Games are allowed;

(b) Drivers shall proceed at very low speed , as specified by national legislation and which in no case should exceed 20 km (12 miles) per hour;

(c) Drivers shall not put pedestrians at risk nor behave in an obstructive manner. If necessary they shall stop;

(d) Pedestrians shall not impede vehicular traffic unnecessarily;

(e) Parking is forbidden except where allowed by parking signs;

(f) At intersections, road users emerging from a residential area shall give way to other road users, except when otherwise provided in domestic legislation.

So it would seem based on these sources, that the Irish Minister for Transport Mr. Paschal Donohoe TD has chosen to take a form of a road sign covered by international treaty and use it in a manner that is different to its meaning under that treaty.

Edit: To be accurate it is not clear to me yet if that sign is contained in the Vienna Convention. However it is clear that as far as other countries are concerned, this "playing children with house" sign is to used to indicate a residential zone under the terms of the convention.

Edit #2: I should also point out that this concept was enshrined in international traffic law in 1993. And in Ireland in 2015, 22 years later, our traffic regulations still do not recognise the idea.

Cakewheels

The strange thing is, in the circular that went round from the Department to Local Authorities a few months ago, a different sign was recommended. It is just a combination of the 30km/h sign and the 'Children at Play' sign on one sign. The text referring to it in the circular was:

New Signage
A. The use of a combination 30 km/h speed limit sign in conjunction with a yellow warning sign showing “children at play” at the entry to a housing estate (a combination sign is shown in Appendix 1). The benefits of the new sign would include;
- High visibility at entrances to housing estates
- Clearly indicates that a reduced 30 km/h speed limit applies and links this lower speed limit to a warning sign which shows children at play
- Can be quickly implemented by local authorities within a reasonable timeframe
- Would provide consistent signage in estates across the country.

I don't understand why they did not just continue to recommend this approach for 30km/h roads in estates, and reserve any other new signage for 20km/hr areas or some sort of Home Zone concept which the Minister promised in the recent Dáil debate to introduce regulations for and pilot later this year.

_Kaiser_

So is it fair to say then that once again we've failed to simply copy an international standard (road sign in this instance) without adding enough of an "Irish twist" to it so as to completely feck up the original intent? :rolleyes:
You really have to worry about a country that can't even manage a "copy/paste" without messing it up.

There was no need for this at all except maybe to give the lads in the councils something to do - although I wonder who'll be getting the contract to make all these new - old! - signs?

Any eejit who hasn't the cop-on to realise that doing 80 km/h on a boreen is probably a "bad idea" shouldn't be on the road in the first place and no amount of (unnecessary and no doubt expensive) new signs is going to change that.