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

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

Here's some examples of the possible benefits for you that I havrnt seen mentioned on the thread yet, there are loads of examples you will have to read back over the thread.

Lower max speed limit of 30km/h would reduce the chances of collisions. Think of the carnage one badly timed fender bender can have on traffic throughout the city at the wrong hour of the day.

support this with factual evidence , that a drop from 50 to 30 km would have any material difference

Longer journey times by car may encourage people to consider alternative transport options, bus, cycle, walk, alternative route etc but to be fair this will barely extend journey times at all.

at off peak times and when many of thise roads are not clogged it will extend journey times for no benefit

Better for the environment, low revs less fossil fuel burned. Less cars clogging up all areas of the city. Less noise pollution.

cars are far less efficient at this speeds especially in traffic, where constant gear changing will be necessary to keep the car moving and the tendency for many will be to drive in a lower gear and rev the engine = counterproductive

Obviously as mentioned several times in the thread, 30 Km/h max speed would reduce the chance of serious accident in the designated areas. Improve the lives of residents in the areas.etc etc

IN areas like housing estates where there is a risk of uncontrolled access by kids t the streets they live on , maybe , but in major thoroughfares there is no evidence they I have com across that such limits deliver materially different safety outcomes

This is the whole issue with the DCC proposal , its not based on science , but amor etc do with an anti-car fanaticism

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

BoatMad wrote: »

I said possible benefits, I have no evidence. Just my opinion based on daily commuting etc

Travelling at 30km/h less likely to try break a red light (hopefully)

It's not anti car fanaticism. I have a car and I like using it very much.

My only fanaticism is that space on our roads should be more evenly split. Cars have dominated Irish roads for decades. Planners have ruined towns and cities all over Ireland with their preference for cars over every other mode of transport. Good on Dublin City Council in trying to lead the way to correct the balance.

so a plan based on subjective "possible " benefits can be evaluated correctly ???

cars dominate our cities and especially Dublin , because Dublins mass transit systems are utterly terrible , especially mass transit rail and outside the capital the low population density means that other forms of transport are not practical

I didnt say you were the fanatic , I said DCC is

cerastes

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think - aside from reducing the force of impact - it's to try and have cars and bikes going at a more similar speed.

If you're able too match a vehicle for speed then it's safer and you're less likely to get caught out, cut out or forced out of the road.

Or they could just do it right and have seperate cycle lanes cordoned off by kerbs, like Copenhagen instead of tacking them onto the side of the nearside lane. Just another example in this country of shifting the responsibility and not dealing with a situation reasonably and effectively without tackling the problem.

BoatMad

Just another example in this country of shifting the responsibility and not dealing with a situation reasonably and effectively without tackling the problem.

naw , just being a cheap skate

NiallBoo

cerastes wrote: »

Or they could just do it right and have seperate cycle lanes cordoned off by kerbs, like Copenhagen instead of tacking them onto the side of the nearside lane. Just another example in this country of shifting the responsibility and not dealing with a situation reasonably and effectively without tackling the problem.

I would love to see that, it's a much nicer and less stressful experience.

It's not one or the other though. reduced speed limits are something that will improve things and is achievable in the short-term.

Personally i don't see a proper system developed any time soon. What's not even really being talked about is there'll be too much opposition to do it because it would require the almost complete removal of on-street parking.

BoatMad

reduced speed limits are something that will improve things

none has put forward a cogent argument that the DCC plan will have any material effect on safety

bpb101

Deedsie wrote: »

Where do you see a cyclist getting up to 31km/h in the areas affected by the the proposed scheme?

quays among many other places.

magicbastarder wrote: »

why?

NiallBoo wrote: »

There isn't a practical reason - a cyclist breaking the speed limit can't cause even 1/10th the amount of damage.

...but I still think it would be a good idea to put bikes on the same level to help get at least some good will from motorists and avoid "why just me? What about that guy? " type arguments.

Bikes cycle(or should cycle) to the left and close to path. They can easily hit somebody who is slightly overhanging on the path Their breaking time is a lot longer than cars , and could easily kill an early person at 30k. They are also a lot less lightly to be seen and heard than a car.
If we enforce a law, it has to be applied to everybody to uses the road.

Why dont we just enforce 30k to trucks and they would be the biggest risk....

not to go off topic , but they should have insurances and also a licenses, and have the same fines as cars for breaking speed limits and lights ect.

if we have a speed limit it has to be applied to all. Also with college green going down to 20k, bikes will easily get up to that speed.no?

gctest50

BoatMad wrote: »

none has put forward a cogent argument that the DCC plan will have any material effect on safety

The sensory abilities of people are only optimised for walking speed.


It can't make it any worse

30 km/h (or 20mph) speed limits:

– 50% road crashes, achieved in Switzerland

– 90% killed or severely injured, achieved in Kingston upon Hull


– 50% children killed or severely injured, achieved in London


+ 35% children allowed to play on the road, achieved in Edinburgh

BoatMad

the london study http://content.tfl.gov.uk/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

concluded with

"However, the vast majority of casualties take place on roads that are unsuitable for a 20 mph zone intervention. So any strategy based on 20 mph zones alone would have limited effect on casualty reduction in London as a whole"

NiallBoo

BoatMad wrote: »

the london study http://content.tfl.gov.uk/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

concluded with

"However, the vast majority of casualties take place on roads that are unsuitable for a 20 mph zone intervention. So any strategy based on 20 mph zones alone would have limited effect on casualty reduction in London as a whole"

Things don't have to be silver bullets - small steps are good too.

gctest50

BoatMad wrote: »

the london study http://content.tfl.gov.uk/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

concluded with

"However, the vast majority of casualties take place on roads that are unsuitable for a 20 mph zone intervention. So any strategy based on 20 mph zones alone would have limited effect on casualty reduction in London as a whole"

looks like a very worthwhile improvement from that yoke you quoted :

Cookie_Monster

NiallBoo wrote: »

There isn't a practical reason - a cyclist breaking the speed limit can't cause even 1/10th the amount of damage.

cyclist cannot break speed limits as they do not apply to them

deedsie wrote:

Where do you see a cyclist getting up to 31km/h in the areas affected by the the proposed scheme?

er, everywhere. 30kph + on a bike is not difficult

magicbastarder

bpb101 wrote: »

Bikes cycle(or should cycle) to the left and close to path. They can easily hit somebody who is slightly overhanging on the path Their breaking time is a lot longer than cars , and could easily kill an early person at 30k. They are also a lot less lightly to be seen and heard than a car.
If we enforce a law, it has to be applied to everybody to uses the road.

the last time a pedestrian died as a result of the actions of a cyclist in ireland was 14 years ago. the cyclist was cycling the wrong way up a one way street, so it's likely speed was not an issue.
regarding the laws being applied to everyone, cyclists are not currently bound by speed limit laws. speed limits apply to motorised vehicles.

the argument about the position a cyclist should take in a lane is another discussion also.

mirrorwall14

gctest50 wrote: »

looks like a very worthwhile improvement from that yoke you quoted :

That table covers way too big a year gap to be just the limits. There have been massive improvements in car safety measure since those stats started

LeChienMefiant

The major limitation to implementing speed limits for bicycles is the lack of speedometer on bikes. You can't prosecute someone if they don't know they're breaking the law.

magicbastarder

bpb101 wrote: »

not to go off topic , but they should have insurances and also a licenses, and have the same fines as cars for breaking speed limits and lights ect.

we should institute a kind of godwin award for this sort of comment.

monument

cerastes wrote: »

Or they could just do it right and have seperate cycle lanes cordoned off by kerbs, like Copenhagen instead of tacking them onto the side of the nearside lane. Just another example in this country of shifting the responsibility and not dealing with a situation reasonably and effectively without tackling the problem.

Copenhagen doesn't have segregated cycle paths on their equivalent residential streets as where 30km/h is to be applied in Dublin.

monument

bpb101 wrote: »

not to go off topic , but they should have insurances and also a licenses, and have the same fines as cars for breaking speed limits and lights ect.

Stick to the topic -- there's other threads for that.

-- moderator

NiallBoo

Deedsie wrote: »

30km/h is a very difficult speed to get up to and maintain in an urban area if the cyclist obeys all traffic lights and rules of the road etc. Also the majority of commuter cyclists are not race cyclists. I cycle everyday and I do obey the rules and lights, no way anyone could sustain 31km/h + in the areas affected by this proposal.

So I ask again, where in the areas affected by this scheme do you see cyclists moving at over 30km/h for a sustained period? Whilst obeying those pesky rules of the road

You know, it's really not an important point.

What you're saying is simply false though.

Long Time Lurker

30 kmh limits should be introduced in all residential areas immediately in my opinion. Safer all round.

Pinch Flat

NiallBoo wrote: »

There isn't a practical reason - a cyclist breaking the speed limit can't cause even 1/10th the amount of damage.

...but I still think it would be a good idea to put bikes on the same level to help get at least some good will from motorists and avoid "why just me? What about that guy? " type arguments.

When cyclists kill 166 and maim hundreds a year, perhaps they'll start looking at speed limits for cyclists. At the moment though, it's not an issue.

The whole point of maintaining 30kph limits is to make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Hitting someone at 30kph in a car, they have a better chance of surviving. At 50 - 60 kph, this decreases dramatically.

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Hitting someone at 30kph in a car, they have a better chance of surviving. At 50 - 60 kph, this decreases dramatically.

the benefits - in a specific scenario of someone stepping out in front of you when you're driving - are cumulative.
you have more time to react. if someone steps out 30m in front of you, you have 3.5 seconds to react at 30km/h, rather than 2.2s at 50km/h (that's assuming no slowdown from braking, i.e. continuing at the same speed)
as well as more time to react, you have shorter braking distance also, which is more than halved.
and then on top of that, you're travelling more slowly anyway, so if you do hit someone, you're likely to cause less serious injury.

magicbastarder

bpb101 wrote: »

Bikes ... breaking time is a lot longer than cars , and could easily kill an early person at 30k.

you have a source on this?
i'm finding it difficult to get a definitive statement on this regarding cycling stopping distances, but this site suggests a bike can emergency brake (including reaction time) from 25km/h in 12m:
https://rideonmagazine.com.au/stay-or-go/
which is the standard distance suggested by all sources for braking from 30km/h in a car. so not much difference really.

NiallBoo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

When cyclists kill 166 and maim hundreds a year, perhaps they'll start looking at speed limits for cyclists. At the moment though, it's not an issue.

The whole point of maintaining 30kph limits is to make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Hitting someone at 30kph in a car, they have a better chance of surviving. At 50 - 60 kph, this decreases dramatically.

I fully agree on the (lack of) risk from cyclist to other road users (or even to themselves compared to fatalities caused to cyclists by cars).

However, measures like this always face a lot of resistance from people who see it as a silly inconvenience (see above for examples).

It's all about perception, if people see that others are making some kind of concession then they're going to be more accepting of what they're being asked to do. It's silly and it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is. We have to work forward gradually from where we are, we can't just wave a magic wand and be Denmark (unfortunately).

magicbastarder

NiallBoo wrote: »

It's all about perception, if people see that others are making some kind of concession then they're going to be more accepting of what they're being asked to do. It's silly and it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is.

you're left with the problem that applying speed limits to cyclists would create a bigger problem than the one it is designed to address.

NiallBoo

Deedsie wrote: »

Prove me wrong so if you think what I am saying is false. It's a discussion forum, your argument "I'm right you're wrong" is a little bit juvenile really.

I cycle every day in these areas, I have a speedo on my bike and I am a fast cyclist. If you obey the rules of the road in the areas affected by this proposal a consistent speed of 30km/h on a bike is not really practical.

It's not juvenile, it's just that it's something that's difficult to provide evidence for so neither us can really bring the debate further. Ultimately it's probably gone as far as it can and we won't reach consensus - so be it.

Just to make sure we're on the same page though - I'm not talking about averages over the whole journey or even averages between lights*.
Once you get up to speed (60m+ maybe? ) i would consider 30kmh a fairly comfortable cruise speed and that most people could/would easily exceed this.

Anyway, practically speaking, I don't think it makes much difference.

*i also follow the rules and don't consider it a burden - how can one expect others to you don't yourself.

Pinch Flat

NiallBoo wrote: »

I fully agree on the (lack of) risk from cyclist to other road users (or even to themselves compared to fatalities caused to cyclists by cars).

However, measures like this always face a lot of resistance from people who see it as a silly inconvenience (see above for examples).

It's all about perception, if people see that others are making some kind of concession then they're going to be more accepting of what they're being asked to do. It's silly and it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is.

So, if the 30 kph limit applied to motorists and cyclists equally, it would be easily adopted by motorists and (more importantly) adhered to?

The reasons the motorists have to make a concession is that they're the problem. Putting it simply, they kill and injure more on the roads. Cyclists don't. There's also the added benefit of lower traffic noise and lower emissions as well.

NiallBoo wrote: »

We have to work forward gradually from where we are, we can't just wave a magic wand and be Denmark (unfortunately).

I agree. car culture has been ingrained so much in the current generation of motorists that any small contribution to improve road safety and make our cities more pleasant to live in is seen as an affront.

Incidentally Denmark, despite it's reputation for cycling, haven't adopted the 30 kph initiative.

NiallBoo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So, if the 30 kph limit applied to motorists and cyclists equally, it would be easily adopted by motorists and (more importantly) adhered to?

The reasons the motorists have to make a concession is that they're the problem. Putting it simply, they kill and injure more on the roads. Cyclists don't. There's also the added benefit of lower traffic noise and lower emissions as well.

The hope is that it would be a less bitter pill to swallow.

Your points are very rational. If people were rational then we wouldn't be having this debate. People don't like being told they're the problem. I'm not denying the facts, but many will and we risk polarizing opinions even further.

Having theoretical limits for cyclists won't fix this, but I think it might make this a little better, and that's good enough.
I think a genuine acceptance of the causes of danger will be easier if opinions become less polarised and there's more understanding amongst all road users.

2RockMountain

bpb101 wrote: »

Bikes cycle(or should cycle) to the left and close to path. They can easily hit somebody who is slightly overhanging on the path Their breaking time is a lot longer than cars , and could easily kill an early person at 30k.?

Interesting that a bike 'could easily kill', but yet, it is more than ten years since a bike has killed anyone in Ireland. Slight contradiction there, no?

Fian

bpb101 wrote: »

didnt see this thread before , but heard of the plans. its a mad idea really.

We need reasonable sensible and when you go over that speed limit , to have it enforced.

If its 30 , cyclist should have to obey this as well

I have a better idea. Let's introduce an exception to the speed limit for cars weighing less than 100 kg (including contents and passengers), as they are carrying less momentum and kinetic energy so don't pose a high risk to other road users.

win - win!

:P