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

expectationlost

New Speed Limit Sign for Minor Local Roads with RSA video ad http://rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Rural-Speed-Limits/

RSA citing the Vienna convention

This new sign is a ‘black circle with diagonal which is in use internationally under the Vienna signage convention

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

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

what about colour? blue is motorway and regulatory signs? while yellow is warning

expectationlost

So the Statutory Instrument for these signs hasn't been published yet?

the stripe sign Sign No. RUS 041 is from 2014 S.I. No. 488/2014 - Road Traffic (Speed Limit - Traffic Signs) (Local Roads) Regulations 2014. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/si/0488.html

kinda wierd that the 80km sign has the same number http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/si/0010.html I know they mean the same thing but I though they'd call it RUS 041 b or something

what about the other new sign?




does anyone know where the Sign No. W 142 children crossing is in law can't find it http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Why the need for the new sign?

You are meant to adjust your speed appropriate to the road conditions (no matter what the speed limit).
A waste of tax payers money IMHO and will under no circumstances lead to fewer road deaths.

Money would be better spent on road safety campaigns in schools which has been lacking in recent years.

If they money had to be spent on 'adverting', I'd prefer they spent it on more important road safety campaigns. ala "Indicators: Use them!", "Roundabouts: How to?" etc. etc.

I'd agree with lower the speed limit past schools as they do in other countries. e.g. Australia. Speed trap at each school could bring in much needed funding directly to the school too, while lower the average speed outside the gates.

SeanW

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.

So far, it seems, galwaycyclist has been unable to answer the point. Because to do so would require proving that there's no such thing as a speed limit that's too low, and that breaking a speed limit is a crime with a victim in every single case.

One question that I don't think has been asked here - why was a 6 year old child rambling around the streets on his own?

Money would be better spent on road safety campaigns in schools which has been lacking in recent years.

Are you suggesting that children should be taught how to use the roads safely? Don't you know that according to modern thinking, expecting people to use the roads safely is "victim blaming" the only solution to these kinds of problems is to go on witch hunts for motorists! After all, cars are killing machines according to some, and maximum speed limits should be set on the basis that drivers are stupid, tired, drunk and/or not familiar with the roads they're on.

You are meant to adjust your speed appropriate to the road conditions (no matter what the speed limit).

That's not entirely true. You're supposed to drive at a speed appropriate to the road conditions, or the maximum speed limit, whichever is LOWER. So if the prevailing conditions dictate that a speed above the posted limit would be safe and proportionate, given visibility and other conditions, then not only must you disregard the proportionate/safe speed limit in favour of the posted limit (this applies to about 5-10% of our roads in my view and that number will increase), but you can be nearly sure there will be a speed trap somewhere at some point.

I'd agree with lower the speed limit past schools as they do in other countries.

I'd agree with this too, but only on a timed basis. Speeds around schools should be different between, (for example) the time children are arriving/leaving and when the building is shut for the night.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

So far, it seems, galwaycyclist has been unable to answer the point. Because to do so would require proving that there's no such thing as a speed limit that's too low, and that breaking a speed limit is a crime with a victim in every single case.

A low response time on boards may simply indicate that the respondent has a job

What exactly is your point? It is not clear - you are using a discussion about housing estates to launch into complaint about a particular speed limit on a rural dual carriageway?

Why should anyone answer you in a thread about housing estates?

It is a common tactic in boards to accuse people of saying things they haven't when you are losing an argument.

In this case I did not phrase my point about the victims of unsuitable speeds with reference to any particular speed limits. The point is that there are many many speed limits that are too high. So attempting to define the ill-effects of unsuitable speeds as confined to breaking "speed limits" is a ridiculous argument in my view.

monument

expectationlost wrote: »

does anyone know where the Sign No. W 142 children crossing is in law can't find it http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

It's just a warning sign, so requires no legal backing other than it being in the Traffic Signs Manual.

expectationlost

monument wrote: »

It's just a warning sign, so requires no legal backing other than it being in the Traffic Signs Manual.

right 2010 version then
http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/publications/roads/english/traffic-signs-manual-2010/traffic-signs-manual-2010-chapter-6-warning-signs.pdf

Sign W 142, Children Crossing, may be used to alertdrivers to the danger of children crossing roads in residential areas other than at schools and playgrounds. The sign should be provided only in
towns and villages, on roads of a primarily residential character with continuous housing frontage. The sign may also be provided at the
entrances to housing estates from main traffic routes.

so the new sign won't be in law or SI either? can't find the reference number for it though

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What exactly is your point? It is not clear - you are using a discussion about housing estates to launch into complaint about a particular speed limit on a rural dual carriageway?

I'm suggesting that not all speed limits are good guides to safe and considerate driving. Like the one I mentioned, though I can think of at least a dozen others just off the top of my head. Breaking such limits is IMO a victimless crime.

You seem to believe that is not the case - if so I am curious why.

The point is that there are many many speed limits that are too high. So attempting to define the ill-effects of unsuitable speeds as confined to breaking "speed limits" is a ridiculous argument in my view.

A speed limit that is too high has no legal effect, due to the fact that you cannot safely drive at it without creating danger, yes there may be 50kph speed limits in housing estates all over the place but if you did that speed and were involved in an accident you'd be done for dangerous driving and pointing to the speed sign would be zero defense.

A speed limit that is too low on the other hand applies even in spite of evidence it shouldn't: "I was driving safely and according to the conditions" is no defence if you're caught breaking a disproportionately low limit.

Let me be clear: I do not suggest that anyone drive at an inappropriate speed. Ever. End of. I'm simply questioning the assumption that if there's a number in a red circle, it should be treated as if it were placed there by God himself.

Pie Eater

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.

Agreed. There was an article last week in the Indo which stated:

"The romantic picture of meandering narrow roads in isolated rural areas is tempered by the fact that few if any are suitable for walking or cycling on."

That's back-to-front thinking. Almost all roads are perfectly fine for walking and cycling on and that's what they were designed for. However, they may not be suitable for driving on.

SeanW

Pie Eater wrote: »

That's back-to-front thinking. Almost all roads are perfectly fine for walking and cycling on and that's what they were designed for.

You're absolutely right.

Most of our roads, having been designed in the 19th century and before, were indeed designed for walking, I think before bicycles were even invented. If you were rich, you could use the roads with a horse and if you were stupidly rich, two horses and a carriage! Cars only came on the scene around the turn of the 19th and 20th century and they were also the preserve of the rich.

Rickets, scurvy, TB were common diseases, as was death by starvation. The average lifespan was in the region of 45. Long distance travel was rare except for emigration, as you generally could not travel faster than 4 miles per hour by any means except sailing ship (which depended on the wind) and railway, and at that an expensive, often dangerous undertaking. Accommodation was small, cold and basic, most people would be happy to have a personal living space the same size as an average car today!

Of course in this environment roads were not designed for cars per se, because life prior to the 20th century sucked, and the lack of cars among the general populace was one of the many reasons that it sucked. So, yes, lots of local and regional roads have been effectively repurposed for cars. That's how it should be because cars are more useful in remote areas, especially when the distance to be covered during the journey is greater than a couple of miles.

So please feel free to remind us all how roads were not designed for cars prior to 1900, just don't be surprised when someone reminds you that this isn't really saying very much.

expectationlost

Ireland lags way behind Europe on road safety http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-lags-way-behind-europe-on-road-safety-31086763.html Indepedent.ie

Ireland is "lagging behind" the rest of Europe in providing so-called "safe zones" in towns and cities where an upper speed limit of 30kph applies.

ETA: para-phrasing the RSA CEO I think, on use of safe zones or home zones

---

"Shared Space, Shared Surfaces and Home Zones from a Universal Design Approach for the Urban Environment in Ireland" 2012
http://universaldesign.ie/Built-Environment/Shared-Space/Shared-Space-Full-Report.pdf
Figure 12.11: Adamstown Home Zone pg 152

says there are already 'home zones' in Adamstown with 10kmh speed limit...
photo from report > http://dublinstreams.com/temp/adamstownhomezone.png same scene in street view https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.336758,-6.461811,3a,75y,65.74h,79.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKn3pS5PBOEdYQ2_l6WBhWw!2e0 home zone plan in Adamstown from 2006 annual report http://www.sdcc.ie/sites/default/files/publications/adamstown-strategic-development-zone-annual-report-2006.pdf

difference there is, the signs seemed to be used in the manner they are meant to be, have to find where that sign is officially in Adamstowns / SDCC rules and what the specifications are

ADAMSTOWN STREET DESIGN GUIDE http://www.sdcc.ie/sites/default/files/publications/adamstown-street-design-guide-feb-10-final-net-version2-reduced-size.pdf

3.1.7 Where Back Streets are designed as homezones they should have a design
speed of 10kph. They should be fully finished with robust surface materials
such as stone or concrete paving. The carriageway width should be no
wider than 4.8 metres.

but no sign

http://www.sdcc.ie/sites/default/files/publications//adamstown-strategic-development-zone-annual-report-2007.pdf general description of shared space home zone on page 9

home zones suggested for pedestrianisation of Sligo City centre but not sure if that was implemented http://www.sligococo.ie/Publications/ContactSummer06/Pedestrianisation/

and suggest for residential street in dublin docklands http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/publications/docs/20071023035444_eastwallaap2004.0003.pdf

and references to a Home Zone in Merlin Park, Galway, where weaving streets were used rather then speed bumps. in Ballybane? nearby https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Merlin+Park+Regional+Hospital,+Co.+Galway/@53.2820716,-9.0018399,389m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x485b9124a01f0a71:0x4970e4320ad1647a

Photo shared surface street at Furry Hill, Dun Laoghaire http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,19216,en.pdf page 57

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

We cannot say we are lagging way behind Europe. I think that headline is misleading.

Take the most extreme measure of Road Safety - road deaths, Ireland is well below the EU average per capita. In the last ten years, deaths have decreased by approx. 50%. Something must be working.

Although, what drove the decrease? Education? Better Roads? Better vehicles? Legislation? A mix bag of this and that?

I'll read that report later this evening. It's 217 pages!

galwaycyclist

Tate Bald Signboard wrote: »

We cannot say we are lagging way behind Europe. I think that headline is misleading.

Take the most extreme measure of Road Safety - road deaths, Ireland is well below the EU average per capita. In the last ten years, deaths have decreased by approx. 50%. Something must be working.

Although, what drove the decrease? Education? Better Roads? Better vehicles? Legislation? A mix bag of this and that?

I'll read that report later this evening. It's 217 pages!

There are two well recognised factors that have long been associated internationally with falls in road deaths.

They are:

1. Fuel prices
2. Unemployment rates

We have just come through a sustained period of high fuel prices. At the same time we have had a sustained period of high-unemployment - particularly among the under 25s - who are the most dangerous drivers.

It was the state of theeconomy that probably had a lot to do with it.

Pie Eater

SeanW wrote: »

You're absolutely right.

Most of our roads, having been designed in the 19th century and before, were indeed designed for walking, I think before bicycles were even invented. If you were rich, you could use the roads with a horse and if you were stupidly rich, two horses and a carriage! Cars only came on the scene around the turn of the 19th and 20th century and they were also the preserve of the rich.

Rickets, scurvy, TB were common diseases, as was death by starvation. The average lifespan was in the region of 45. Long distance travel was rare except for emigration, as you generally could not travel faster than 4 miles per hour by any means except sailing ship (which depended on the wind) and railway, and at that an expensive, often dangerous undertaking. Accommodation was small, cold and basic, most people would be happy to have a personal living space the same size as an average car today!

Of course in this environment roads were not designed for cars per se, because life prior to the 20th century sucked, and the lack of cars among the general populace was one of the many reasons that it sucked. So, yes, lots of local and regional roads have been effectively repurposed for cars. That's how it should be because cars are more useful in remote areas, especially when the distance to be covered during the journey is greater than a couple of miles.

So please feel free to remind us all how roads were not designed for cars prior to 1900, just don't be surprised when someone reminds you that this isn't really saying very much.

My point is that people should not feel unsafe or be discouraged in any way from using this roads either on foot or on a bicycle because a car somehow is seen as the primary mode of use for the road. If you can't drive your car along the road without colliding with people or creating the impression that you're going to collide with people, then you shouldn't be driving your car on that road.

SeanW wrote: »

A speed limit that is too high has no legal effect, due to the fact that you cannot safely drive at it without creating danger

What danger are you referring to here?

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

I'm suggesting that not all speed limits are good guides to safe and considerate driving. Like the one I mentioned, though I can think of at least a dozen others just off the top of my head. Breaking such limits is IMO a victimless crime.

You seem to believe that is not the case - if so I am curious why.

I am not concerned with speed limits per se - I am concerned with threatening behaviour - that behaviour may involve waving a gun in some ones face or some other behaviour involving a car. The issue is not whether the behaviour actually results in injury but whether the victims of that behaviour feel endangered.

Speed limits are relevant primarily in that where they are too high they act to encourage threatening behaviour.

SeanW wrote: »

A speed limit that is too high has no legal effect, due to the fact that you cannot safely drive at it without creating danger, yes there may be 50kph speed limits in housing estates all over the place but if you did that speed and were involved in an accident you'd be done for dangerous driving and pointing to the speed sign would be zero defense.

My main concern is with actual effects. In your model people are free to drive at unsuitable speeds in housing estates because they will be subject to the law in the event that they have a crash. That is too late. Many people in cars are quite happy to drive at unsuitable speeds because they have, seat belts , airbags, rollover protection and crumple zones. The danger they create is mainly imposed on those outside cars.

The point is that many people are quite happy to drive at dangerous speeds on the basis that they are only going a few km over a 50km speed limit that is already too high. Accidents are rare events loads of people are happy to take the chance when the danger to themselves is also low.

The net effect is to create generations of victims who have to modify their behaviour in response to "legal" driving behaviour.

SeanW wrote: »

A speed limit that is too low on the other hand applies even in spite of evidence it shouldn't: "I was driving safely and according to the conditions" is no defence if you're caught breaking a disproportionately low limit.

The point is who decides what is too low? The person whose children are being threatened in a housing estate or the driver who is threatening them?

SeanW wrote: »

Let me be clear: I do not suggest that anyone drive at an inappropriate speed. Ever. End of. I'm simply questioning the assumption that if there's a number in a red circle, it should be treated as if it were placed there by God himself.

In this we are in agreement.

Pie Eater

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Many people in cars are quite happy to drive at unsuitable speeds because they have, seat belts , airbags, rollover protection and crumple zones. The danger they create is mainly imposed on those outside cars.

The effects of risk compensation need to be reversed.

Tragedy

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are two well recognised factors that have long been associated internationally with falls in road deaths.

They are:

1. Fuel prices
2. Unemployment rates

We have just come through a sustained period of high fuel prices. At the same time we have had a sustained period of high-unemployment - particularly among the under 25s - who are the most dangerous drivers.

It was the state of theeconomy that probably had a lot to do with it.

Citation needed.

Especially as the rate of decrease in road deaths didn't accelerate during the recession (indeed, they tapered off - and note that the statistics aren't per 100,000km travelled or any other usefully comparable yoy statistic)



Please don't spread lies.

galwaycyclist

Tragedy wrote: »

Citation needed.

Especially as the rate of decrease in road deaths didn't accelerate during the recession (indeed, they tapered off - and note that the statistics aren't per 100,000km travelled or any other usefully comparable yoy statistic)



Please don't spread lies.

Replied in new thread

SeanW

Pie Eater wrote: »

My point is that people should not feel unsafe or be discouraged in any way from using this roads either on foot or on a bicycle because a car somehow is seen as the primary mode of use for the road.

You seem to have a weird fascination with cyclists/pedestrians on rural L roads, which simply has no basis in reality. You say thar rural L roads were designed for pedestrians, cyclists and horses etc. But all three modes are obsolete in remote settings. Cars are not "somehow seen as the primary mode of use" for rural L roads they ARE, not just the primary but the near-exclusive mode of travel on such roads.

I've driven rural L-roads extensively over the past decade and have seen a cyclist on any exactly once in that time.

If you are under the impression that there are hordes of cyclists just itching to take to every back road 10 miles from villages in the middle of nowhere that are being scared off by all those horrible evil motorists, then you're simply not on the same planet as the rest of us. I'm sorry there's no nice way to say it - the whole idea is simply delusional.

What danger are you referring to here?

Motorists should choose speeds with great care. My general rules are:

1. The predominant factor should be the legal standard of "drive as fast as you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear"
2. Consider the environment you're driving. You should take it easy in housing estates, maybe a little faster in other urban areas, only get lead-footed on motorways, N roads and good rural roads.
3. Speeds should be adjusted for any prevailing conditions that cause additional dangers not normally evident. The weather would be the main one, ice and snow could create danger while not affecting visibility, other conditions like fog, a bad angle towards the sun would limit visibility in ways not connected to the engineering of the road.
4. Adjust your speed downwards for any impairment. Tiredness is a source of danger, but one that is not illegal, difficult to judge and sometimes unavoidable, you should avoid unnecessary driving if you're not feeling you best, but if you must, then assume that your reaction times will not be that great and drive accordingly. Handsfree mobile kits are not illegal, but are a source of danger. I don't make or take calls in my car by any mechanism, but if I had to use a handsfree kit, I'd do so with extreme caution.
5. Consider any other factors, such as traffic or the presence of children, cyclists, motorcyclists, defects in the road, diversions etc.
6. Having determined a proportionate limit using rules 1-5 above, your speed will usually match or be under the posted limit, but in IMO 5-10% cases it will be above. This would normally occur on grade separated dual carriageways, "urban gateway" zones (i.e. town centre speed limits miles into the countryside) and ex-N roads that went from 100kph to 80kph overnight for no reason other than the altered colours of the signage. In these cases, frankly the "crime" of "speeding" is victimless, and should only be regarded in as far as there is the likelyhood of a speed trap.

Pie Eater wrote: »

The effects of risk compensation need to be reversed.

They already are. We have "strict liability" by the backdoor.

expectationlost

speed limits dot ie has some content now http://speedlimits.ie ....which seems to be just the press release

galwaycyclist

Story running on the new road sign here


http://www.galwaycycling.org/jakes-legacy-update-law-or-drop-confusing-and-contradictory-road-sign/

expectationlost

https://www.facebook.com/jakeslegacy/posts/928496727200886 This is a copy of the short film Roseann done with the RSA about the speed limits in residential areas and the effect it has had on her life loosing Jake.

https://vimeo.com/mediacoop/review/123742701/604afbc1a8 PASSWORD IS RSA IN CAPITALS although i can't get it to work

ah here it is on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLi8nqrsVU6hs0WHgHynDArNTcvCqpV9-P&v=W6mgV7Jr50w RSA focusing on 30kph, so a women campaigning for 20kph is in an ad for 30kph, but still i guess that better then 50kph

Greenmachine

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Story running on the new road sign here


http://www.galwaycycling.org/jakes-legacy-update-law-or-drop-confusing-and-contradictory-road-sign/

Definitely creating a mixing message there by using an established sign. Not sure what the right approach to take is. Don't believe a roadway is an appropriate place to play unimpeded, which appears to be the Irish legal position. Enforcement is going to be the issue, no doubt.

expectationlost

2013 Speed Limits Review

pg 23 In looking at signs,a number of key principlesneed to be kept in mind:
-
Signs should be easily understood and recognisable,
-
Any solution should be consistent with normal practice and,in particular,with the UN (Vienna) Convention on Road Signs and Signals (1968),
-
Deployment and maintenance costs should be minimised.

pg 60 Although Ireland has not signed the convention it is still desirable to adopt its signage where possible.
http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/publications/roads/english/speed-limit-review-2013/final-report.pdf

expectationlost

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/117890/342556.jpg

in response to pointing out the above 'children crossing' sign was what had been proposed

Jason Taylor @JTUrbanDesign Urban Designer with a particular interest in the design of streets. Principal author of the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets
@lostexpectation Never liked that sign. Suggests fast moving traffic with people having to dash across the road. Exactly what we don't want

its a warning sign, for motorist, a very apt warning unfortunately isn't that what warnings signs are for not something that paints a calm appearance for something thats not the law.

http://dublinstreams.com/temp/Page-2-Image-3.jpg

expectationlost

Speech by Paschal Donohoe TD, Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport Road Traffic (Amendment Bill) 2015 – Second Stage

Tuesday 17 February 2015 in response to Private Members Bill Introduced by Deputy Dessie Ellis

HOMEZONES

In 2013, my Department completed a Speed Limits Review.

This was a comprehensive review which was conducted in consultation with stakeholders including local authorities, An Garda Síochána, the RSA, NRA and AA. The process lasted well over a year, and arrived at many valuable conclusions and recommendations.

Section 4.3.5 of the Speed Limits Review Report sets out, as Action 15, part 2, proposals for what are referred to as Urban Shared Spaces, or Homezones. The concept of Homezones refers to an overall urban design approach aimed at minimising demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, often by removing features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs and regulations.

Typically used on narrower streets within the urban core and as part of living streets within residential areas, the approach exists in many forms in a number of other countries.

‘Homezone’, under this recommendation, would become a formal designation under the Roads Act and would allow for a lower default and maximum Speed Limit. The Review notes however that this approach is often opposed by organisations such as those representing the blind or partially sighted.

The Review suggested that more detailed proposals should be developed during 2015. It also suggested a 30 km/h or possibly a 20 km/h speed limit in Homezones.

I appreciate that what is proposed in this Bill is somewhat different. The Homezone idea would refer, ideally, to residential areas designed from the outset to a particular model. What the Bill is dealing with – and what realistically the law must deal with – is the issue of residential zones which were not designed to the fairly exacting standards of Homezones.

The Bill would in effect create a mandatory 20 km/h speed limit for housing estates and residential zones, and also provide for a special speed limit of 20 km/h. By contrast, the lowest special speed limit in the current legislation is 30 km/h. I should be clear that the Speed Limit Review, while very comprehensive, did not make any proposal for a 20 km/h speed limit.

http://www.dttas.ie/speeches/2015/speech-paschal-donohoe-td-minister-transport-tourism-and-sport-road-traffic-amendment

expectationlost

2013 Speed Review http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/publications/roads/english/speed-limit-review-2013/final-report.pdf 2.

Urban Shared Space (Homezones)
Shared space is an urban design approach which seeks to minimise demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, often by removing features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs and regulations.
Typically used on narrower streets within the urban core and as part of living streets within residential areas, the approach exists in many forms in many countries such
as Woonerf (Netherlands) or Home Zones (UK).
Like Rural Lanes ,it could be a formal designation under the Roads Act and would a llow for a lower Default and Maximum Speed Limit as well as the possibility of other measures such as changing the hierarchy of use. It should be noted that the approach is often opposed by organisations such as those representing the blind or partially sighted. In Ireland, the National Disability Authority (NDA) has sponsored research in this area.
As an aid to allow more appropriate Speed Limits on Rural (Quiet) Lanes and Urban Shared Spaces,it is recommended that further research and
trials be carried out by DTTAS and the NDA with a view to
implementation, including legislation based on the results.

on page 62 is this sign, is this their 2013 version of a woonerf sign mixed with 30kph speed limit sign that we now have?

you can barely make out road lines

galwaycyclist

The manner in which the Minister and his officials are trying to characterise the Woonerf/Home Zone concept suggests that they do not understand it or are being "economical" in the aspects that they address.

Overall they seem to be choosing to treat it as an road engineering/speed limit issue rather than an issue of granting legal priority to pedestrians.

If they are trying to argue that a woonerf involves the removal of traffic regulations then that argument is false. Woonerfs are covered by very specific regulations. Likewise with more general shared spaces in places like the Netherlands, France or Germany - very specific regulations apply such as drivers always yielding to traffic entering on your side of the road.

Just because we in Ireland have not chosen to have these regulations it does not mean there are no regulations at work in other countries.

_Kaiser_

Section 4.3.5 of the Speed Limits Review Report sets out, as Action 15, part 2, proposals for what are referred to as Urban Shared Spaces, or Homezones. The concept of Homezones refers to an overall urban design approach aimed at minimising demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, often by removing features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs and regulations.

Ah so like the mess that is O'Connell Street in Dublin then? That's great fun on a dark wet day! :rolleyes:

That's absolutely moronic.. what's needed here is a bit of cop on, to stop trying to shift the onus of personal responsibility to someone else and most importantly.. stop trying to ape every idea some staffer read on the Internet, but then mess it up anyway by adding the essential "Irish twist" that defeats the whole objective of the original idea!

We have plenty of existing legislation to deal with careless/dangerous driving, speeding and such without dreaming up more. What's needed is enforcement of that legislation AND education of both drivers and pedestrians about how to behave responsibly in a shared environment.