Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

LordSutch

As the title says, ever tried it?

I had a go in our estate tonight and I couldn't get out of 1st gear.

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

force eleven

I walk faster.

Dog of Tears

Tried it today coming home in our estate.

Think it's a bit slow tbh.

Would fully agree with 30kph being implemented though.

jamo2oo9

My sperm moves faster than you...

The_Valeyard

Are we going to see speed vans in estates now?

Stheno

Its ok in an automatic but horrible in a manual

FloatingVoter

LordSutch wrote: »

As the title says, ever tried it?

I had a go in our estate tonight and I couldn't get out of 1st gear.

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

Stop stealing bicycles from young children.

RebelSoul

20 is plenty

LordSutch

As I have already said, 20km/h = 12 mph which equals 1st gear all the way

Crazy.

The_Valeyard

RebelSoul wrote: »

20 is plenty

It won't be enforced and people will not stick to it.

Greenmachine

The_Valeyard wrote: »

It won't be enforced and people will not stick to it.

Don't think my speedo registers speed less than 20kph.

RebelSoul

The_Valeyard wrote: »

It won't be enforced and people will not stick to it.

Grand sure

Just a little Samba

LordSutch wrote: »

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

The_Valeyard

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Hard to get around estate corners at 80.

*rolls eyes*

Pinch Flat

They seem to be able to do this in continental europe handy enough, are the cars here different or something?

mada82

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Have you got the stats to back up less accidents at 20?

the_syco

Firstly, you'll spend more time looking at your speedometer than out the front window, and secondly, people will more likely walk across the road in front of you thinking that they have more time than they actually do, to cross the road.

Keith186

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Sure ban cars altogether and have zero fatalities.
Or go with 30km/h which more drivers are more likely to respect than a pathetic limit of 20km/h.

My name is URL

I've seen funeral processions move faster than that

UCDVet

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

Just a little Samba

mada82 wrote: »

Have you got the stats to back up less accidents at 20?

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

LordSutch

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a resendential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Doing 20 km/h is the same as a fast walk or a slow jog. Its not realistic, its not practical, and its on the cusp of 2nd gear in many cars, which has your engine revving too high.

30 km/h would make perfect sense IMO.

Pinch Flat

mada82 wrote: »

Have you got the stats to back up less accidents at 20?

Id say less severity of the outcome at 20kph rather than less accidents per se.something to do with mass and speed that fella newton was banging on about in the 1600's

Just a little Samba

UCDVet wrote: »

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

They aren't running free in the street, they are playing on green areas in residential areas. Or Walking to the park with the parents, or bolting out the front door when their mum turns her back for 4 seconds.

We don't live in some ideal world where nobody slips up and lets a toddler get out of their control for a few seconds. Nobody can claim they have had 100% control of a toddlers movements at all times, anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

pablo128

"Oh Holly, and Herbert, remember I said to look both ways when crossing the road? Well now there's a new speed limit and you can dart across the road if you like, as all those cars can stop in plenty of time now. Off you go, out to play now."

kneemos

Do we have many accidents in housing estates?

My name is URL

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

That page goes on to refute the claim and figures stated

Señor Fancy Pants

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

If a child is not on the road they have almost 100% chance of not being hit by a vehicle.

AlekSmart

UCDVet wrote: »

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

Many years ago,I drove mini-buses on a hail'n ride Local Bus Service Network.

The almost universal lack of comprehension,interest or concern of a great many adults for infants/toddlers in their care is beyond belief.

It was not only a few,it was the majority of adults,who in live-traffic situations were fully comfortable with allowing tiny children to wander freely onto the roadways and hide between parked cars as buses drove by.

On the occasions where myself or any colleagues,were sufficently concerned to intervene and attempt to interest the "responsible adults",the responses were almost always aggressive,confrontational and at times physical...eventually,the services had to be removed from the estates due to the dangers posed by the combination of unregulated car parking and roaming children.

There's little point in pointing to what European Countries do in these situations,as it usually bears little resemblance to what WE do...:mad:

UCDVet

Just a little Samba wrote: »

They aren't running free in the street, they are playing on green areas in residential areas. Or Walking to the park with the parents, or bolting out the front door when their mum turns her back for 4 seconds.

We don't live in some ideal world where nobody slips up and lets a toddler get out of their control for a few seconds. Nobody can claim they have had 100% control of a toddlers movements at all times, anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

If we expect pet owners to do it, why can't we expect the same from children owners?

I own a dog. I don't let it play in the grass near a road because, it will go into the road. I don't ever let outside of my control - EVERY SINGLE TIME I take my dog outside it is completely contained. If that means people need a leash on their small children, then that's what they should do. If that means only letting them play in areas far away from a road, then that seems like a prudent thing for adults to ensure.

My dog is always either in a contained area I control, or on a leash. And my dog is bigger, faster, stronger and less intelligent than a toddler. If I can control my dog - why can we not expect parents to control their children?

Harry Palmr

Teach Your Children and stop blaming others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

The Backwards Man

I never use first gear, except for taking off. I'd go so far as to make it 10 kph in estates if I had my way, absolutely no need for driving any faster than that in a residential street.

darkpagandeath

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Nah I would go with maybe not letting a toddler play on the road unattended .

Dog of Tears

Truffle Pig wrote: »

If a child is not on the road they have almost 100% chance of not being hit by a vehicle.

It's also helpful if there isn't an areshole behind the wheel of the car thinking they are more important than children in a residential estate setting I reckon.

G_R

My name is URL wrote: »

That page goes on to refute the claim and figures stated

It's also worth noting that those figures are in mph. 20mph would be closer to 30km/h

Dog of Tears

UCDVet wrote: »

If we expect pet owners to do it, why can't we expect the same from children owners?

You should have gone down to the Dail today, - you could have told that to the mother who watched her 3 year old die in her arms.


Or is it easier from behind a computer screen?

NomadicGray

AlekSmart wrote: »

e majority of adults,who in live-traffic situations were fully comfortable with allowing tiny children to wander freely onto the roadways and hide between parked cars as buses drove by.

You'd probably save more by banning on street parking & A 30Km/h limit than this 20km/h. Seeing potential incidents would be more valuable to the driver than a lower speed

jjbrien

Wonder will the speed vans be ticketing people on bikes for going over that limit lol

LordSutch

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I never use first gear, except for taking off.

Well if this bill goes through, you will be using 1st gear every time you enter an estate @ 12 mph.

pablo128

Who is going to operate speed checks in estates? Go-Safe are not going to send their vans into Some kip of an estate in Tallaght or Ballymun I can assure you.

The Backwards Man

LordSutch wrote: »

Well if this bill goes through, you will be using 1st gear every time you enter an estate @ 12 mph.

I don't drive a Bugatti

MythicalMadMan

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

They should just ban cars from estates altogether or if you really want to park your car at your house youve to push it once in the estate

SeanW

pablo128 wrote: »

"Oh Holly, and Herbert, remember I said to look both ways when crossing the road? Well now there's a new speed limit and you can dart across the road if you like, as all those cars can stop in plenty of time now. Off you go, out to play now."

Seems to me to be a good question - if you cut speed limits how do you prevent pedestrians/cyclists from taking it as a license to behave irresponsibly?

darkpagandeath

SeanW wrote: »

Seems to me to be a good question - if you cut speed limits how do you prevent pedestrians/cyclists from taking it as a license to behave irresponsibly?

Ban legs and bikes. :pac::pac:

My name is URL

NomadicGray wrote: »

You'd probably save more by banning on street parking & A 30Km/h limit than this 20km/h. Seeing potential incidents would be more valuable to the driver than a lower speed

Dunno about that.

There was some woman on the radio (Right Hook I think) last week saying that most pedestrians and cyclists hit in estates are hit by people reversing out of their driveways.

Just a little Samba

My name is URL wrote: »

That page goes on to refute the claim and figures stated

It goes on to make a half arsed argument whit no actual facts to back it up.

Anyway here's the original DOT comissioned report with actual evidence and figures, in full with breakdows for people aged 0-14 years, 15-59 years and 60 years +

http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf

LordSutch

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I don't drive a Bugatti

I drive a Renault Scenic diesel, which is typical of many I guess, and I can't get into 2nd gear (comfortably) unless I break 12 mph (20 km/h).

NomadicGray

My name is URL wrote: »

Dunno about that.

There was some woman on the radio (Right Hook I think) last week saying that most pedestrians and cyclists hit in estates are hit by people reversing out of their driveways.

Yeah, that doesnt surprise me actually.

darkpagandeath

Just a little Samba wrote: »

It goes on to make a half arsed argument whit no actual facts to back it up.

Anyway here's the original DOT comissioned report with actual evidence and figures, in full with breakdows for people aged 0-14 years, 15-59 years and 60 years +

http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf

Cba looking at random Pdf, Does it include who was at fault or just speed.

Just a little Samba

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Cba looking at random Pdf, Does it include who was at fault or just speed.

Who's at fault is irrelevant to be quite frank, if lives can be saved by slightly inconveniencing people then it should happen. Leave your house 45 seconds earlier and get over it.

darkpagandeath

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Who's at fault is irrelevant to be quite frank, if lives can be saved by slightly inconveniencing people then it should happen. Leave your house 45 seconds earlier and get over it.

No it's not.