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

expectationlost

loughgill wrote: »

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.

this the circular http://www.kerrycoco.ie/en/allservices/roads/speedlimits/thefile,10301,en.pdf

expectationlost

the section on slow zones

7.3.2.1. Local Residential and Housing Estate Roads and ‘Slow Zones’
There is no standard definition of what constitutes a housing estate however for the
purposes of this document a housing estate is considered to be a self-contained grouping of
houses with single or multiple entry points for vehicles. In addition such areas often have
green areas or play areas associated with them.
Road authorities should give serious consideration to the lowering of the speed limit from 50
km/h to 30 km/h within housing estate areas and should distinguish between roads within
estates in the following categories:
1. Roads which are through roads within estates and which have very little direct frontage
housing and are not immediately adjacent to play areas. These roads would generally
have a speed limit of 50 km/h but may be reduced where the road authority deems it to
be appropriate.
2. Roads which have direct frontage housing or are immediately adjacent to play areas
should have speed limits of 30 km/h. The level of signage provided will depend on
prevailing speeds.
(i) Where the 85th percentile speed is already less than or equal to 30 km/h minimal
signage will be required. A speed limit plate of 450 mm diameter would be
appropriate placed on a pole on the left hand side of the road at the entry
point(s).
(ii) Where the 85th percentile speed is greater than 30 km/h then additional warning
signs may be required in combination with the 30 km/h sign. These should be
placed on a pole on the left hand side of the road at the entry point(s). The 30
km/h plate should normally have a diameter of 450 mm except where the local
authority decides that increased prominence is required. Where that occurs the
size of the speed limit plate (on the combination sign) may be increased to 600
mm and/or a sign may be erected on both sides of the road at the entry point(s).
3. In addition to the above and where a speed limit of 30 km/h is being implemented local
authorities and community groups should consider the implementation of ‘Slow Zones’.
‘Slow Zones’ should be developed and implemented as a Local Authority supported
community based approach to reduce the speed limit to 30 km/h and to add safety
measures within a select area in order to change driver behaviour. The ultimate goal of a
‘Slow Zone’ is to lower the incidence and severity of crashes and to enhance quality of
life.
‘Slow Zones’ should be established in self-contained areas that consist of Local Roads.
Gateways should announce the entry and exit from a ‘Slow Zone’. These are a set of signs
and markings at an intersection to alert drivers to the reduced speed limit.
The zone itself should be self-enforcing, reduced-speed area with speed bumps, markings
or other traffic calming treatments as required. Slow Zones should be implemented in
areas with low traffic volumes and minimal through traffic.
When leaving a 30 km/h speed limit or ‘Slow Zones’ appropriate speed limit signs need to be
posted on the reverse side of the entry signage. For exit to high speed roads, i.e. where the
speed limit is greater than 60 km/h, appropriate warning signs need to be considered.
Once the signs are in place local authorities should seek to identify if the new speed limits are
being observed. Temporary in-situ or portable speed measurement devices can be used by
authorities to collect the required information.
Where the measures set out in 2(ii) are not sufficient to achieve an 85th percentile speed of
30 km/h then further measures should be considered and implemented to achieve the
necessary reduction. Suitable measures for consideration include;
 Closure of a through road to traffic by way of a road closure at a particular point with
continued through access for pedestrians and cyclists. A network level analysis
should be considered to ensure that problems do not arise elsewhere.
 Entry treatment
 Build outs and/or increased on-street parking
 Pinch points

 Chicanes
 Ramps or speed cushions
 Speed tables
The various signage options are illustrated below. Full details and records of these signs
including locations etc. should be maintained on the MapRoad Road Management System.
30 km/h sign Combination of 30 km/h sign Slow Zone sign

http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf page 54

Aard

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

It's not necessarily about commonsense -- it's about what will stand up in court.

bambergbike

I've just looked at: http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf

There seems to be an absolutely massive hole in this document:

Section 7.3.2.1. says:

"Roads which have direct frontage housing or are immediately adjacent to play areas should have speed limits of 30 km/h."

But what about the roads which are not adjacent to play areas, but which are play areas?

Have I misread it, or am I correct that what we have here is a document of some 188 pages which doesn't mention, in a single line, that children use roads not only to access play areas but also as play areas?

For the former purpose, a limit of 30 km/h might be perfectly adequate; for the latter purpose, 30 km/h is much too fast. But lower limits don't seem to be provided for anywhere in the document.

Why?

the groutch

slow signs aren't worth the metal they're made of.

monument

bambergbike wrote: »

I've just looked at: http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf

There seems to be an absolutely massive hole in this document:

Section 7.3.2.1. says:

"Roads which have direct frontage housing or are immediately adjacent to play areas should have speed limits of 30 km/h."

But what about the roads which are not adjacent to play areas, but which are play areas?

Have I misread it, or am I correct that what we have here is a document of some 188 pages which doesn't mention, in a single line, that children use roads not only to access play areas but also as play areas?

For the former purpose, a limit of 30 km/h might be perfectly adequate; for the latter purpose, 30 km/h is much too fast. But lower limits don't seem to be provided for anywhere in the document.

Why?

Because Irish law does not allow for playing on any roadway which is not closed off.

galwaycyclist

bambergbike wrote: »

I've just looked at: http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/Guide_Speed_Limits_Mar_2015.pdf

There seems to be an absolutely massive hole in this document:

Section 7.3.2.1. says:

"Roads which have direct frontage housing or are immediately adjacent to play areas should have speed limits of 30 km/h."

But what about the roads which are not adjacent to play areas, but which are play areas?

Have I misread it, or am I correct that what we have here is a document of some 188 pages which doesn't mention, in a single line, that children use roads not only to access play areas but also as play areas?

For the former purpose, a limit of 30 km/h might be perfectly adequate; for the latter purpose, 30 km/h is much too fast. But lower limits don't seem to be provided for anywhere in the document.

Why?

Because they refuse to recognise the concept of roads having a place function. Paschal Donohoe is taking a road sign that has a particular meaning elsewhere in Europe and turning the idea on its head.

SeanW

expectationlost wrote: »

so one can still do 80km in boreen?

Yes, if the prevailing conditions dictate that this would be a safe speed. The limits are not changing, neither is the concept of a speed limit as a maximum limit, not a target.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

In my vast experience driving on L-roads, the maximum level of speed that is safe on any given stretch is very broad, from about 20kph through to 80kph and in very rare cases a little more, depending on your visibility, traffic profile and other prevailing conditions. More to the point, a safe speed dictated by the prevailing conditions can change multiple times with short stretch. To try to sign each with tailored limits would be stupidity of the highest order. And since I've never seen an L-road with a speed trap, it would also be completely pointless.

Unlike other road user categories, motorists have had to be trained and must maintain a license. So a requirement to "think for yourself" is appropriate in these cases.

Aard wrote: »

It's not necessarily about commonsense -- it's about what will stand up in court.

If a motorist causes an accident because they drove like a moron, then "but it was within the speed limit" would be precisely zero defense if it was shown that you (possibly among other things) failed to drive in accordance with prevailing conditions.

porsche959

MGWR wrote: »

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.

Yep. Also note the none-so-subtle emotional blackmail ("but think of the children!") in this campaign.

It's being unapologetically sloganned around the tragic death of a child.

_Kaiser_

SeanW wrote: »

In my vast experience driving on L-roads, the maximum level of speed that is safe on any given stretch is very broad, from about 20kph through to 80kph and in very rare cases a little more, depending on your visibility, traffic profile and other prevailing conditions. More to the point, a safe speed dictated by the prevailing conditions can change multiple times with short stretch. To try to sign each with tailored limits would be stupidity of the highest order. And since I've never seen an L-road with a speed trap, it would also be completely pointless.

Unlike other road user categories, motorists have had to be trained and must maintain a license. So a requirement to "think for yourself" is appropriate in these cases.

All true but the point is that whether the road has a maximum limit posted or one of these new/old signs you should ALWAYS drive appropriately to the conditions. It's a limit not a target and all that!

Therefore there's no need to individually sign every variable stretch of road no more than there is to replace what's there with these "whatever you reckon yourself" signs - except presumably as I said to give the council lads something to do and award the contract for making them to some no doubt friend of someone. :rolleyes:

monument

porsche959 wrote: »

It's being unapologetically sloganned around the tragic death of a child.

Yes, because our overly motoring focused road and street network is partly to blaim for deaths and injury.

Why would a dead child's mother feel the need to be apologetic about wanting to change things for the better?

expectationlost

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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



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



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.

Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (1968)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals

the one we are not party to.. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI~B~20&chapter=11&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en

2006 doc that includes the sign 'E17 Home zone' http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_signs_2006v_EN.pdf

is 'article 27 bis' and 'e17 home zone' a newer sign from 1971?

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Agreement_road_traffic_EN.pdf

it wasn't in the original 1968 convention?

PQ on it https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-02-03a.71

galwaycyclist

expectationlost wrote: »

Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (1968)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals

the one we are not party to.. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI~B~20&chapter=11&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en

2006 doc that includes the sign 'E17 Home zone' http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_signs_2006v_EN.pdf

e17 home zone seems to be a new sign what was there before in 1968 to refelct the article 27 rule? was it just slightly changed?

PQ on it https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-02-03a.71

So far I have been able to track that sign back to the 1960 Austrian Traffic regulations where it designates a "Wohnstrasse" or "living street" under article 76.

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/~/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40147687/image022.png

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10011336

However the Germans seem to have had a concept of a Spielstrasse or "play street" in the 1950s.

expectationlost

consultation ongoing in some council with children at play sign http://www.waterfordcouncil.ie/en/Resident/Parking,Travel,and,Roads/Vehicle,Speeds,in,Housing,Estates/

does anyone know where the sign w 142 children crossing is in law can't find it http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

expectationlost

Speed limit plan a bit of a fudge http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-talk/speed-limit-plan-a-bit-of-a-fudge-31085362.html

I am with Tommy Broughan, the TD for Dublin Bay North, who recently spoke in favour of Jake's Law in Dail Eireann and the proposed introduction of a 20km/h in 'Home Zones' and supported Roseanne Brennan's campaign for this reduction.

Deputy Broughan said: "I have long proposed low speed limit Home Zones in residential estates, so while I welcome Minister Donohoe's announcements today, I still worry about the lack of co-ordination of our road safety laws.

SeanW

You some key points from that Times article:

article wrote:

Unfortunately, as Seamus Boland, chief executive of Irish Rural Link, was writing on Friday in the Irish Independent, this "whatever you are having yourself" policy only makes sense if "a number of factors are in play... (including)... all rural drivers are inherently intelligent, know the roads they are on, are driving with 100pc concentration and have not imbibed substances which alter the mind."

I never take to the roads while impaired on drink or anything else. Period. I travel roads that I know, am intelligent, and usually on or close to 100pc concentration.

Should I thusly be held back, in the authors opinion, to speeds designed for sleepy, drunken, intellectually challenged tourists?

article wrote:

There can't be fudges, cars are killing machines.

Wow. Cars are like nuclear weapons or machine guns There is no point in trying to reason with people like this.

Edit: note to mods - I was referring to the journalist who wrote the article, not the poster.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

Wow. Cars are like nuclear weapons or machine guns There is no point in trying to reason with people like this.

Focus on the post and not the poster.

-- Moderator

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 any significance to the lack of sweeping line in some of these signs?

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Focus on the post and not the poster.

-- Moderator

I was attacking the article in the post, not the poster. Post edited to clarify this point.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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

Yes, but that is not the mechanism for setting speed limits , that is a rule that requires you to leave enough space ahead of you.

BoatMad

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

Indeed. It's a make work scheme

SeanW

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes, but that is not the mechanism for setting speed limits , that is a rule that requires you to leave enough space ahead of you.

It also highlights why speed limits that are too high are not a problem, because the maximum permissible speed will always be the posted limit OR that which enables you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, whichever is LOWER.

So if a 120kph speed sign was put in a housing estate, everyone would know that it is not a guide to safe driving, and it would never be treated as such either by motorists or by the law if a collision was caused by a careless motorist.

The reverse is not true - many of our speed limits are arbitrary and are too low to reflect safe driving speeds. In all such cases, speeding is a victimless crime. Yet motorists are required by law to drive to speeds well below safe limits because the same downward flexibility required by law in the former case, is not reversed to include upward flexibility in the latter.

BoatMad

The reverse is not true - many of our speed limits are arbitrary and are too low to reflect safe driving speeds. In all such cases, speeding is a victimless crime. Yet motorists are required by law to drive to speeds well below safe limits because the same downward flexibility required by law in the former case, is not reversed to include upward flexibility in the latter.

100% , we have many many case of lower speed limits that are utterly inconsistent with the engineering of the road , glen of the downs being a spectacular case, where even the builders, The NRA, said the road was built to full standard dual carriageway and suitable for 100 Km/h

galwaycyclist

expectationlost wrote: »

is there any significance to the lack of sweeping line in some of these signs?

No the "kerbline" pictogram is found in some implementations - it should be seen as emphasising that children are expected to be on the road and not just behind the kerb on the footpath.

The Dutch don't use that line in their version of the sign - but in its purest implementation the Dutch re-engineer the road so that there is no distinction between "road" and "footpath" its all one surface.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

The reverse is not true - many of our speed limits are arbitrary and are too low to reflect safe driving speeds. In all such cases, speeding is a victimless crime. Yet motorists are required by law to drive to speeds well below safe limits because the same downward flexibility required by law in the former case, is not reversed to include upward flexibility in the latter.

Not correct in my view. Just because driving at a certain speed does not result in injuries this does not make it a "victimless crime". If driving at a particular speed makes the roads feel dangerous for walking and cycling to the point that people stop doing it or stop their children doing it then the direct result is more traffic, traffic congestion and traffic jams.

Driving at unsuitable speeds - regardless of how "safe" it feels for the vehicle occupants - is a direct cause of traffic congestion - which has many victims (as does physical inactivity).

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

The reverse is not true - many of our speed limits are arbitrary and are too low to reflect safe driving speeds. In all such cases, speeding is a victimless crime. Yet motorists are required by law to drive to speeds well below safe limits because the same downward flexibility required by law in the former case, is not reversed to include upward flexibility in the latter.

They also do not reflect how cars have moved on substantially since the limits were first decided, most importantly the differences in braking performance now compared to the 70s or so.

expectationlost

It's a fallacy that speeding will really save you time
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-a-fallacy-that-speeding-will-really-save-you-time-31086770.html
Moyagh Murdock is the chief executive of the Road Safety Authority.

her take on the new guidelines

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not correct in my view. Just because driving at a certain speed does not result in injuries this does not make it a "victimless crime". If driving at a particular speed makes the roads feel dangerous for walking and cycling to the point that people stop doing it or stop their children doing it then the direct result is more traffic, traffic congestion and traffic jams.

Driving at unsuitable speeds - regardless of how "safe" it feels for the vehicle occupants - is a direct cause of traffic congestion - which has many victims (as does physical inactivity).

Yes, indeed. I must remember that next time I'm driving on a grade separated/HQDC with a speed limit of 30kph or 50kph, a "gateway zone" a mile into the countryside in all cases with no traffic congestion to speak of and even more often no/few other road users at all.

SeanW

Take a look at this road here and tell me what you see: https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.826453,-8.957254,3a,75y,263.29h,82.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srGQpGsJtRe_PGik7f8iVVw!2e0

That's right, a wide, straight, Type 1 Dual carriageway with a 50kph speed limit.

If a motorist drives down this at 60kph during the off peak hours for example, they're "speeding" ... but where is the victim? Be specific.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

Take a look at this road here and tell me what you see: https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.826453,-8.957254,3a,75y,263.29h,82.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srGQpGsJtRe_PGik7f8iVVw!2e0

That's right, a wide, straight, Type 1 Dual carriageway with a 50kph speed limit.

If a motorist drives down this at 60kph during the off peak hours for example, they're "speeding" ... but where is the victim? Be specific.

That looks like it should be 100km/h, or min 80km/h if there's some kind of issue?

In the Netherlands, the roads beside it which looks like a farm access road, would be a service road for all farm traffic, and people walking and cycling.