New proposed 30km/h speed limits-"Consultation"?

stasha

Is anyone aware of the process of providing feedback/ inputs into the latest Dublin City public consultation on proposed expansion of the 30km/h speed limit? There is no feedback form available on the Dublin City website except the one-sided statistics and recommendations.

If this is passed, it will mostly affect those of us who have no option of using DART or LUAS (or any other good quality public transport).
AA's Conor Faughnan disagrees with the proposed measures; so do 75% of the road users (according to the Irish Times' poll yesterday).
They say "if London has it then we have to have it too" - no reference to the first class London public transport.

As usual, the "save the children" card being played. No reference or attempt is made to educate "vulnerable road users" (pedestrians and push bikers) about the basic road rules. I use the Quays every day on my commute to work as a motorcyclist and I can witness that car drivers are obeying rules of the road much more than most of the pedestrians or Dublin Bike users.

Who is lobbying on behalf of us forced to use motor vehicles commuting to city centre, as no viable public transport is available? Who should we contact?

PS: No surprise to see this proposal is put forward during the holiday season when the expected push back is much lower

LXFlyer

Whatever about the speed limits - the city centre is the one place there are viable public transport options from all across the city, unless of course you need the car for work.

The consultation has a large area for you to make comments on from what I can see:
https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/proposed-special-speed-byelaws-submission/consultation/subpage.2016-07-07.5342212011/view

magicbastarder

i fail to see how lowering the speed limit will make much difference to average commute times through the city, which are noticeably slower than the 50kph speed limit anyway.
that said, you're on a motorbike which would presumably fare better than a car in traffic.

stasha

Thanks for the link, I failed to find it yesterday.
PS: By "viable public transport" I am referring to the one where it takes less than hour to cover 15km - not much to ask, is it?

LXFlyer

stasha wrote: »

Thanks for the link, I failed to find it yesterday.
PS: By "viable public transport" I am referring to the one where it takes less than hour to cover 15km - not much to ask, is it?

What's the trip you're making?

work

"I use the Quays every day on my commute to work as a motorcyclist and I can witness that car drivers are obeying rules of the road much more than most of the pedestrians or Dublin Bike users."

I do not think they are talking about changing the speed limits on the main roads like the quays....however I could be wrong. If a car was to hit you at 30km your chances of survival are increased from 50Km (no evidence....but I would think this is easy to find)

I use all forms of transport and can as such have a view on each. However 90% of the time I cycle.

You are correct that cars drivers obey the rules more than pedestrians/cyclists however they are still appalling. It is just that the other groups are so bad that one might think they are doing OK. There are obedient and disobedient road users in all categories and no single person should ever feel singled out when their form of transport is referenced.

If a car breaks the rules of the road and collides with pedestrians/cyclists then they are the ones that suffer significant morbidity and possibly death. This is why it is so important cars obey the rules absolutely. I saw a car doing approx 100km in a 50km zone yesterday...No pedestrians/cyclists can put life in danger that way. If a child runs out yes they are to blame also but do they deserve to die....Nobody would say yes...however the person driving at 100km didnt care. If this area was 30km the driver would really struggle to reach the speed they were at.

I do however believe, in the interest of safety and fairness, all road users (cars/pedestrians/cyclists) should be subject to the same rules and our biggest problem is a complete lack of policing on the roads.......Ther are almost no guards.....There seems to be no real deterrent to obeying the rules (look at all the cases that go through the courts...these are the worst offenders and almost nothing happens).

There is also no reason cyclists (especially) and pedestrians should not receive fines for not obeying the rules. Nothing is ever done.

In summary I agree with the 30km zone. The average commute in these areas is probably only 10-20km already. The real issue is a lack of policing and evn when there is policing there seems to be no apatite to chastise the offender. Really high and enforced fines would be the way to go. Make this a really effective revenue making exercise....why not?

stasha

magicbastarder wrote: »

i fail to see how lowering the speed limit will make much difference to average commute times through the city, which are noticeably slower than the 50kph speed limit anyway.
that said, you're on a motorbike which would presumably fare better than a car in traffic.

You just nailed it - the 30km/h would not affect most of the road users (cars, buses) that crawl in the rush hour. It would however affect those of us who at the moment can move faster than that (which is only motorcyclists and push bikes).

It's a "farcical" and "absurd" measure, as AA's Conor Faughnan has put it.
Outside of the rush hour, the 30km/h would be used as a money making scheme- give "speeding" motorists points that get translated to higher insurance premiums by the cash-strapped motor insurers.
As a motorcyclist (and a vulnerable road user) I'll only get more cars tailgating/ dangerously overtaking me as I'm obeying rules of the road by doing the 30km/h. This measure can only put my life in danger. And please don't say this would not happen as everyone would be driving 30 - it is a farcical measure and people will not obey the rule (unless they see a speed camera ahead).

magicbastarder

work wrote: »

I do not think they are talking about changing the speed limits on the main roads like the quays....however I could be wrong.

you are not wrong. the speed limit on the quays will not be changed; as the speed limit on the quays is already at 30kph.

LXFlyer

Getting into a one group is better than another group with regard to obeying our road legislation is pointless. It just descends into stupid arguments.

All groups are guilty of not abiding by our road legislation and until people recognise that, and stop blaming one group or several other groups, and we actually start as a society to adjust our behaviour it's not going to change.

stasha

lxflyer wrote: »

What's the trip you're making?

Lucan to East Point

LXFlyer

stasha wrote: »

Lucan to East Point

Well first off that's a cross city trip - East Point is not in the city centre.

You can't expect public transport to seamlessly cover every combination of cross-city trips.

But having said that depending upon where you're coming from in Lucan the 151 should do that trip in an hour or so?

magicbastarder

to put it in perspective - expecting to reach an average speed of 30kph would be like expecting to be able to drive from DCU to UCD, and back again, in less than one hour (it's approx. 14km each way).

what determines how long you take is not how fast you can go on the fast bits, but how slow you go on the slow bits. the main difference between being able to do 30kph and 50kph is that 50 will simply allow you to catch up with the car in front ever so slightly sooner.

suggesting that lowering the speed limit will increase commute times is akin to suggesting that if we raised city centre speed limits to 80kph, that traffic would flow more freely.

cgcsb

I don't see it making a difference really. Any update on the re-organisation of bus routes, liffey cycleway? ya know general things that'll actually have an effect on commutes.

Mary63

Its an insane proposal,its almost impossible in my car to drive at 30 km per hour and I don't speed and have no penalty points.

It isn't just the 30 km per hour,its proposed that the Stillorgan dual carriageway be 60 km all the way,this is ridiculous,its perfectly safe to drive at 80 kms per hour safely on most of this road.

How is this going to affect taxi prices if its going to take you all day and night to get from A to B.Half the country is going to be off the road with penalty points if this goes through.

I can understand the argument about making safety a priority with children but parents have a responsibility too to ensure their children are not too young to be playing outdoors unsupervised too.

magicbastarder

Mary63 wrote: »

its almost impossible in my car to drive at 30 km per hour

i'm sorry? is there a mechanical fault with your car?

Mary63

no,its a big car and its really hard work keeping the speed to 30 kms,you would be quicker walking to wherever you are going.

Cars are not designed to move at thirty km per hour,if you want to go at that speed get yourself a tricycle.

These speed limits will be put in place regardless of the time you are driving so if you are on an empty road from midnight on you will still have to drive at 30 kms per hour.If you get points its three at a time and twelve points will put you off the road.

Who are these numptys.They are making it more and more difficult to bring your car into the city centre and this will make life even for difficult for people with disabilities who need their cars to be independent,has anyone thought about this while we try and force everyone onto bikes.The city centre will become dead while everyone is queueing up to get into Dundrum.

Its proposed to bring the new speed limits up to the county borders,this means you will be driving at thirty kms per hour in places as far from the city centre as Raheny.

magicbastarder

Mary63 wrote: »

It isn't nay the 30 km per hour,its proposed that the Stillorgan dual carriageway be 60 km all the way,this is ridiculous,its perfectly safe to drive at 80 kms per hour safely on most of this road.

from what i can tell, there's a 60km/h limit on the N11 north of foxrock church.
assuming it's 80km/h south of this section - from foxrock church to the roundabout at st. columcille's is 4.6km.

the fastest you could theoretically drive this stretch with the 80km/h limit - assuming all green lights, no traffic - is three and a half minutes.
with a limit of 60km/h, the fastest possible time is four minutes and 36 seconds.

in reality, the difference will be less than one minute, because you will spend time at lights.

plodder

work wrote: »

This is why it is so important cars obey the rules absolutely. I saw a car doing approx 100km in a 50km zone yesterday...No pedestrians/cyclists can put life in danger that way. If a child runs out yes they are to blame also but do they deserve to die....Nobody would say yes...however the person driving at 100km didnt care. If this area was 30km the driver would really struggle to reach the speed they were at.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think the above is true. That driver will do 100km even if the speed limit is 30. As you say below, the lack of enforcement means that only law-abiding types are affected by these rules. Personally, I would like to see high levels of enforcement and compliance with the existing limits first, and then we look at whether they need to be reduced. The standard reaction here to lack of compliance with rules, is just to make the rules stricter, which is crazy really.

I do however believe, in the interest of safety and fairness, all road users (cars/pedestrians/cyclists) should be subject to the same rules and our biggest problem is a complete lack of policing on the roads.......Ther are almost no guards.....There seems to be no real deterrent to obeying the rules (look at all the cases that go through the courts...these are the worst offenders and almost nothing happens).

There is also no reason cyclists (especially) and pedestrians should not receive fines for not obeying the rules. Nothing is ever done.

In summary I agree with the 30km zone. The average commute in these areas is probably only 10-20km already. The real issue is a lack of policing and evn when there is policing there seems to be no apatite to chastise the offender. Really high and enforced fines would be the way to go. Make this a really effective revenue making exercise....why not?

stasha

lxflyer wrote: »

Well first off that's a cross city trip - East Point is not in the city centre.

You can't expect public transport to seamlessly cover every combination of cross-city trips.

But having said that depending upon where you're coming from in Lucan the 151 should do that trip in an hour or so?

When I worked in city centre I occasionally used 25a/25b - it takes an hour on average to cover the 14/15km.
You are correct 151 does to the Point, but in rush hour it takes 1-1.5 hours.
How long does it take to commute the same distances in London - 10 minutes? As I understand London is referred to by the supporters of the speed reduction proposal.

>You can't expect public transport to seamlessly cover every combination of cross-city trips.
And why not? I lived in few cities that have public transport that does effectively cover most of the cross-city routes. That is the best way of greatly reducing number of private vehicles entering city centre. No private vehicles-> no accidents:) Problem solved

Interesting to note so far there's been no comments on the pedestrians'/ Dublin bike users' behavior in the traffic and recommendations to improve it???!
I guess being a "vulnerable road user" absolves one of all the responsibilities

magicbastarder

Mary63 wrote: »

no,its a big car and its really hard work keeping the speed to 30 kms

'i have a big car so i should be able to drive faster'?
seriously?

magicbastarder

stasha wrote: »

Interesting to note so far there's been no comments on the pedestrians'/ Dublin bike users' behavior in the traffic and recommendations to improve it???!

maybe we're just trying to stay on topic!???!!!

Mary63

I said personally speaking it is very hard to drive at thirty km per hour in a car with a bigger engine.

I am not saying I want to drive at 100 km per hour when the speed limit is fifty for safety.Driving at fifty km per hour is safe and most people would drive even slower in housing estates.There is no need though to drive at thirty km per hour on roads outside estates and even within estates children should not be playing outside without supervision until the age of seven or eight.They don't have the road sense under this age and if they are going to run out without knowing road safety they shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

cgcsb

[QUOTE=stasha;100352656
How long does it take to commute the same distances in London - 10 minutes? As I understand London is referred to by the supporters of the speed reduction proposal.
[/QUOTE]

In London, if you are not living and working near the same underground line, it can easily take an hour to cover that distance. London shouldn't be the model though, public transport there is actually quite poor relative to it's size.

stasha

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe we're just trying to stay on topic!???!!!

The topic is "save lives":)
Funny how defensive push bikers get when faces with their own failing to follow the rules...

endagibson

stasha wrote: »

As usual, the "save the children" card being played.

I know, it's shocking. Imagine not wanting to run over kids in your car or wanting others to do so.

LXFlyer

stasha wrote: »

The topic is "save lives":)
Funny how defensive push bikers get when faces with their own failing to follow the rules...

Again - you keep trying to focus on one group.

All road users - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are frankly as bad as each other with regard to complying with road legislation.

Trying to blame one group over another is pointless.

TheExile1878

lxflyer wrote: »

Again - you keep trying to focus on one group.

All road users - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are frankly as bad as each other with regard to complying with road legislation.

Trying to blame one group over another is pointless.

Critcize cyclists though and their prerecorded message is "cars are worse".

You can't get a decent discussion going.

endagibson

stasha wrote: »

The topic is "save lives":)
Funny how defensive push bikers get when faces with their own failing to follow the rules...

Great stuff. Let's do this. I'm onboard. Fully committed. Let's save some lives!
Where are these people getting killed by dastardly push bike riders again?

LXFlyer

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Critcize cyclists though and their prerecorded message is "cars are worse".

You can't get a decent discussion going.

With respect - it works identically if people blame drivers or pedestrians. It's just turns into a pointless point scoring exercise.

This is an issue with society as a whole and we all need to improve our behaviour - as cyclists, drivers or pedestrians.

TheExile1878

endagibson wrote: »

Great stuff. Let's do this. I'm onboard. Fully committed. Let's save some lives!
Where are these people getting killed by dastardly push bike riders again?

Told you.

"Bikes good. Cars bad. Ug"

endagibson

TheExile1878 wrote: »

You can't get a decent discussion going.

I wonder why that is. :rolleyes:

TheExile1878 wrote: »

No I don't cycle.

I have a brain.

magicbastarder

Mary63 wrote: »

I said personally speaking it is very hard to drive at thirty km per hour in a car with a bigger engine.

again, if you're blaming your car on not being able to adhere to rules of the road, you should reconsider the car. or get more practice.

magicbastarder

stasha wrote: »

The topic is "save lives":)
Funny how defensive push bikers get when faces with their own failing to follow the rules...

i thought the topic was the proposed speed limit and its effects. since speed limits don't apply to cyclists or pedestrians, they're outside the scope of the topic.

my own 2c - i don't think the change in speed limit will have the effect people claim it will; neither the benefit that people will claim in terms of increasing safety, nor the drawbacks of people who claim it will slow traffic down considerably.

however, if you did want to bring cyclists into the discussion, i don't think a 30kph limit would affect them either - it's relatively unusual to get much above 30km/h on a bicycle in the city.

Captain Chaos

Ever try and drive at 30km/h in the city centre. I had to as part of my EDTs, some years back all the general traffic was gone as they don't have to obey the limit and I was left crawling along at 30 while the whole world stepped out infront of me jay walking.

30k is far too slow and dangerous as people just take you as fair game, at least if I was doing 50 next to no one would be casually walking out infront of me.

endagibson

Mary63 wrote: »

no,its a big car and its really hard work keeping the speed to 30 kms,you would be quicker walking to wherever you are going.

I can drive at under 30km/h, even under 20km/h, quite easily. Drop down the gearbox and keep the revs low. How do you get out of your driveway safely? Average walking speed is 4 - 5 km/h. If you can walk at faster than 30 km/h, you should contact the Irish Olympic Council.

Mary63 wrote: »

Cars are not designed to move at thirty km per hour,if you want to go at that speed get yourself a tricycle.

They certainly can.

Mary63 wrote: »

These speed limits will be put in place regardless of the time you are driving so if you are on an empty road from midnight on you will still have to drive at 30 kms per hour.If you get points its three at a time and twelve points will put you off the road.

Yes, you'll also need to have a license, tax and insurance. The laws remain in effect at night.

Mary63 wrote: »

Who are these numptys.They are making it more and more difficult to bring your car into the city centre and this will make life even for difficult for people with disabilities who need their cars to be independent,has anyone thought about this while we try and force everyone onto bikes.The city centre will become dead while everyone is queueing up to get into Dundrum.

Sending more and more cars into the city is unsustainable. People with disabilities will probably get an exemption of some sort. The city centre will not die unless Dublin is a unique place that works completely differently to other cities in Europe. Research has shown that cyclists spend more per person than drivers, probably because they have to fuel themselves. The city won't die because cities are all about people, not cars.

Mary63 wrote: »

Its proposed to bring the new speed limits up to the county borders,this means you will be driving at thirty kms per hour in places as far from the city centre as Raheny.

If it's a residential area, then I've no problem with that. Driving a lot faster doesn't necessarily get you to your destination any faster, but it does introduce extra risk and most of that is external to the car.

hmmm

I try and obey the speed limits, but if this was ever implemented I'd end up ignoring it like everyone else. Silly speed limits bring the whole thing into disrepute, and pretty much force responsible drivers to join the ranks of the irresponsible.

galwaycyclist

hmmm wrote: »

I try and obey the speed limits, but if this was ever implemented I'd end up ignoring it like everyone else. Silly speed limits bring the whole thing into disrepute, and pretty much force responsible drivers to join the ranks of the irresponsible.

So let me see if I have this right. You think its "responsible" to drive at 50kph around schools, on residential streets and in housing estates?

Cookie_Monster

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So let me see if I have this right. You think its "responsible" to drive at 50kph around schools, on residential streets and in housing estates?

Entirely so.

beauf

I think inappropriate speed has become normalised. So 30kph, seems very slow.

monument

With the city council plan for 30km/h, exactly which roads or streets do people have an issue with the limit being lowered?

endagibson

Captain Chaos wrote: »

all the general traffic was gone as they don't have to obey the limit

That's not true. The limit was there for everyone. You're just admitting and providing evidence that the limit itself is worthless without enforcement. Your enforcement just happened to be sitting in your passenger seat rather than mounted on top of a pole or locked in a transit van.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

jay walking.

There's no such thing as jay walking in this country. Legally it doesn't exist, which is fitting as it's a made up term from the american auto lobby.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

30k is far too slow and dangerous as people just take you as fair game, at least if I was doing 50 next to no one would be casually walking out infront of me.

You're saying that you need to drive faster so that you intimidate other people off the road and out of your way. Not very nice. 30 km/h is not too slow for streets with pedestrians that are likely to cross and it's not dangerous. Unless the driver isn't paying attention of course.

hmmm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So let me see if I have this right. You think its "responsible" to drive at 50kph around schools, on residential streets and in housing estates?

This speed limit is not being limited to schools or playgrounds or whereever. It's a blanket limit covering a swath of the city centre, and it's being presented under a guise of "saving lives".

As other people have said, having someone waving a red flag in front of a car will also save lives, why not bring that in? What about other measures - will we be penalising jaywalkers? Will we be arresting cyclists cycling in a way that puts them at risk?

A balance has to be struck between the needs of millions of individual journeys, versus the increased risk of accidents. "If it saves one child..." is not an argument, it's an attempt to deflect by appealing to emotions.

beauf

Be interesting to read how effective they are.

http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/news-and-insights/20mph-speed-limits-and-their-effectiveness

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that reducing vehicle speeds results in fewer and less severe collisions, particularly for vulnerable road users. However, whilst 20mph zones have been successful at reducing speeds by using physical traffic calming measures, limited resources and relaxed regulations mean that signed-only 20mph limits are now preferred. These tend to achieve smaller decreases in vehicle speeds and therefore smaller improvements in road safety.

The challenge is therefore to find ways to achieve larger reductions in speeds in signed-only 20mph limits, so that road safety benefits are maximised. Enforcement is required, but this is only a partial solution. The key to achieving sustained and meaningful speed reductions is to change drivers’ attitudes to urban driving speeds. This suggests that supporting measures that foster cultural change need to be an integral part of all 20mph schemes.

Another study here

http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216736/muarc276.pdf

blackwhite

endagibson wrote: »

Great stuff. Let's do this. I'm onboard. Fully committed. Let's save some lives!
Where are these people getting killed by dastardly push bike riders again?

endagibson wrote: »

I know, it's shocking. Imagine not wanting to run over kids in your car or wanting others to do so.

If you're playing that game - how many children have been killed by motorists on any of the roads where limit changes are proposed over the past 5 years?


BTW - I agree with the 30km/h limit in the core of the city centre - just as usual some of the arguments being volunteered to support it or condemn seem to be more grounded in a hatred of other road users than anything else.

beauf

blackwhite wrote: »

If you're playing that game - how many children have been killed by motorists on any of the roads where limit changes are proposed over the past 5 years?


BTW - I agree with the 30km/h limit in the core of the city centre - just as usual some of the arguments being volunteered to support it or condemn seem to be more grounded in a hatred of other road users than anything else.

Why don't you find some to support your own position.

http://www.thejournal.ie/children-road-safety-2-2027009-Apr2015/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/road-deaths-rise-for-second-year-in-a-row-figures-show-1.2052097

The southern region accounted for the largest proportion of road deaths. Dublin recorded the biggest increase in fatalities (47 per cent) in 2014.

According to a recent RSA study into child road deaths, the most dangerous time for children on our roads is between 4 and 6 pm daily.
Children are most likely to be killed during the months April through August when over half (51%) of children were killed during the report’s time-range. Friday was the most dangerous day of the week.
The vast majority of such fatalities happen unsurprisingly in Dublin and Cork, with 15% and 10% respectively of all such fatal accidents occurring in those counties over the relevant period.

In total, 14 children under the age of 15 died on Irish roads last year, fully 36.7% of all child deaths of any kind in Ireland as a whole.
This marks our roads out as the worst offender here when it comes to the deaths of children.
Of those 14 killed, seven were pedestrians and seven were passengers.
Most upsetting of all, last year saw a five-fold increase in the numbers of children killed on our roads since 2012, when fatalities were at a record low of just three.

blackwhite

beauf wrote: »

Why don't you find some to support your own position.

http://www.thejournal.ie/children-road-safety-2-2027009-Apr2015/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/road-deaths-rise-for-second-year-in-a-row-figures-show-1.2052097

How many of those were on the roads where these changes are proposed for?

The 30km/h changes are predominantly designed to improve the safety of commuter cyclists. I've no problem with that.

I've a problem with people spouting emotive lies trying to claim "it's the children"

galwaycyclist

hmmm wrote: »

This speed limit is not being limited to schools or playgrounds or whereever. It's a blanket limit covering a swath of the city centre, and it's being presented under a guise of "saving lives".

As other people have said, having someone waving a red flag in front of a car will also save lives, why not bring that in? What about other measures - will we be penalising jaywalkers? Will we be arresting cyclists cycling in a way that puts them at risk?

A balance has to be struck between the needs of millions of individual journeys, versus the increased risk of accidents. "If it saves one child..." is not an argument, it's an attempt to deflect by appealing to emotions.

At the end of the 1990's this country had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe. Other countries in Europe fixed the issue through the use of 30kph zones and also thousands of home zones or living streets where a speed limit of walking speed applies.

The Irish state did effectively nothing except teach children a nursery rhyme about crossing the road.

Irish parents fixed the problem by eliminating independent travel for a large cohort of Irish children - whether going to school, or to training, or to visit friends many Irish children have to be driven in cars.

Many of the "millions of individual (car) journeys" that you refer to are not in fact "needed". They have been created by failures of state policy - including a failure to adopt and enforce a credible speed limit policy.

Roadhawk

I believe there are a number of countries that have a 30km speed limit in urban areas like Vatican, Ethiopia, Samoa and Panama. Is this really necessary for Ireland? I really cannot see any sense in reducing the speed limit. Even the 30km limit currently on the quays (speed van at Guinness) has just been a revenue raising operation with no other added value. Extending this limit around Dublin is completely ridiculous and counter productive. I cant help but to feel that the implementation of this limit is to drive the the campaigns of increasing cycling and the use of public transport at the expense of the private motorist.

I do agree with the limit to be implemented around pedestrianised streets (Grafton/Henry/etc) as there is usually more pedestrians moving about. Also school areas and residential areas should have the 30km limit.

_Kaiser_

It's a moronic decision that will be as ignored as the existing 30 km/h limits are now.

There are times when it's not safe/appropriate/possible to exceed 30 km/h, but a blanket ban to the entire DCC area is stupidity. I for one rarely venture into the city centre anymore anyway but moves like this will ensure that I actively avoid doing so (for shopping, business or pleasure). I've already told recruitment agencies in the past that I wouldn't be interested in jobs in town because of the parking/costs/traffic. This will only exacerbate the situation I reckon.

When you have an unreliable and ever more expensive public transport system and a situation where people have been priced further and further out of the city from an accommodation standpoint, cars are pretty much essential if you need to get anywhere effectively

LeChienMefiant

blackwhite wrote: »

How many of those were on the roads where these changes are proposed for?

The 30km/h changes are predominantly designed to improve the safety of commuter cyclists. I've no problem with that.

I've a problem with people spouting emotive lies trying to claim "it's the children"

It's also about quality of life for families. I shouldn't have to be constantly on edge for maniacal driving in my residential area. Speeding in residential streets, reversing at speed down narrow cul de sacs, failure to yield at pavements and junctions, driving the wrong way down one way streets. Not to mention threatening vulnerable road users with vehicles. All of these behaviours are a regular occurrence by commuters and delivery drivers. They have no concept that people are living in these areas.

I have submitted to the council wholeheartedly in support of the plan and have actually advocated blocking off some of these streets to through traffic as it's just not possible to enforce these laws. The proposal for quietways is coming down the line and I will be supporting this also.

The dominance of motor vehicles in the city needs to be challenged and will decrease over time. It's a recent phenomenon and for part of that time it was limited by economic means. It's just not appropriate to have unfettered access to towns and cities.

I'm aware that this is a minority view, like on many issues. But I'll take a principled approach and state my case and won't be bullied out of it.

monument

hmmm wrote: »

This speed limit is not being limited to schools or playgrounds or whereever. It's a blanket limit covering a swath of the city centre, and it's being presented under a guise of "saving lives".

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

There are times when it's not safe/appropriate/possible to exceed 30 km/h, but a blanket ban to the entire DCC area is stupidity

There's no evidence of a "blanket limit" -- main routes are excluded, so please refrain from that phrase.

Posters here posting long posts can take the time to check the map on the city council's website rather than relying on sources which are not accurate.

-- moderator