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

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

following that line of logic, all traffic rules should be modified for the best case scenario. the road outside my house could take traffic at 100km/h at the dead of night, but the speed limits have to allow for the fact that it's a busy route through dublin suburbs with lots of pedestrian traffic during the day.

Pinch Flat

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

No, but I've cycled and walked in the current 30kph zone and been passed by cars doing well over the 30kph limit. It's not pleasant. I was in a taxi one morning heading towards heuston - the driver seemed to think 70 - 80 kph on Aston / Wellington Quay was ok, I asked him to slow down.

If motorists don't obey these limits, how can you expect cyclists to respect red lights, particularly when there's no traffic about. Same thing, no?

Roadhawk wrote: »

If this limit was to be implemented correctly there should be an analysis of traffic on particular roads to establish which ones would warrant a 30km limit within certain times. I would agree with a blanket 30km limit in all residential areas but not across the majority of the city?

I agree, it's not a blanket limit currently - it extends to residential areas only, and most of these have been on request of the local residents. The quays have turned into a fast moving dual carriageway (when they're not clogged with traffic). I would like to see the limits maintained here - the existing limits are largely ignored anyway, with on 10% of motorists observed obeying them.

galwaycyclist

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No, but I've cycled and walked in the current 30kph zone and been passed by cars doing well over the 30kph limit. It's not pleasant. I was in a taxi one morning heading towards heuston - the driver seemed to think 70 - 80 kph on Aston / Wellington Quay was ok, I asked him to slow down.

Ideally there should be something in the Taxi regulations to say that the driver forfeits the fare if they break the speed limit.

magicbastarder

how would you enforce that though?

galwaycyclist

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you enforce that though?

I would start by advertising it widely to the public that the journey is free if the driver breaks the speed limit.

I would require a prominent speedometer on both sides of the dash I am sure that nowadays could be arranged when fitting the meter.

If needs be the passengers could take picture on their phones.

It would then be the drivers word against the passengers.

Thinking about it - if Taxi drivers felt vulnerable to false allegations of speeding they could fit certified tachometers to the cars.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you enforce that though?

Perhaps the meter can reset to zero if they break the limit?

galwaycyclist

Roadhawk wrote: »

Perhaps the meter can reset to zero if they break the limit?

Much more elegant - like it

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you enforce that though?

In fairness, it was my only point of reference, I've never driven down the quays at that speed and someone was bound to come on here questioning how I knew cars travelled so fast in the current 30 kph zone.

Given my experience of the speed he was doing (and other cars too), it's pretty representative of the speeds achieved within the current 30 kph zone.

NiallBoo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ideally there should be something in the Taxi regulations to say that the driver forfeits the fare if they break the speed limit.

This is all a tad off-topic but I'd love to see things like CPDs and regular retesting for taxis.

There's CPDs for HGV drivers, and while taxis don't have the increased risk you get from a truck, their risk is still high because of the sheer amount of time spent on the road. They also have financial inventive to break the rules and it would help too curb this.

In general I think it's reasonable to expect higher standards from professional drivers.

gctest50

Deedsie wrote: »

Well the driving standards of an unacceptably large number of taxi drivers in Dublin and the rest of Ireland leave a lot to be desired. Professional drivers and they never indicate when changing lanes. Never practice anything close to a 1.5 metre overtaking distance when passing cyclists. General assholery seems the best word to describe their attitude to road safety and other road users.

soon ....


http://www.wired.co.uk/article/driverless-autonomous-cars-london

monument

On topic please -- veering towards enforcement of speed limits and a mode of transport is ok, but genral about types of road user behaviour is off-topic.

This applies to taxis as much as bicycles.

-- moderator

bpb101

Carawaystick wrote: »

So we should get rid of motorways and allow Hgvs drive on footpaths?

Thee is no law restricting the speed anyone can cycle at, nor run at not ride a horse at
So these road users are complying with the law that applies to them

2RockMountain wrote: »

So the lower speed limit for HGVs on motorways, should that limit apply to everybody now? And the tachograph that restricts the driving time for HGV drivers - we should have tachos now, to avoid any discrimination?

Or perhaps, the penny might be dropping for you, and you're starting to see that it makes absolute perfect sense to have different laws for different levels of risk?

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit. Lets start applying speed limits to them.

Motorways are designed so that you have several lanes. with no turning.
If a car is turning left on the quays at 30km , and a bike is running down the left hand side at 40km, Your going to have problems here. Bikes will be undertaking cars, which is dangerous

2RockMountain

bpb101 wrote: »

If a car is turning left on the quays at 30km , and a bike is running down the left hand side at 40km, Your going to have problems here. Bikes will be undertaking cars, which is dangerous

Bikes undertake cars all the time in heavy traffic. It doesn't seem to be a major problem.

magicbastarder

bpb101 wrote: »

Lets start applying speed limits to them.

why?

Carawaystick

bpb101 wrote: »

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit. Lets start applying speed limits to them. [\quote]
Cyclists can't break a speed limit, as no limit applies to them
What problem would it solve if I could only go at 80 kmh down a road instead of 83? The speed limit for mechanically propelled vehicles is 80 on the road.

bpb101 wrote: »

If a car is turning left on the quays at 30km , and a bike is running down the left hand side at 40km, Your going to have problems here. Bikes will be undertaking cars, which is dangerous

How much danger is there when you have heavy busses undertaking cars?

None of the new limits apply on the quays anyway

endagibson

bpb101 wrote: »

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit.

No they don't. I suggest you study the applicable regulations further.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

why?

just to explain my reasoning a bit.
if, on my bicycle, i increase my speed from 30km/h to 50km/h, my kinetic energy goes from approx. 3,500 joules to approx. 9,600 joules.
if, in my car, i increase my speed from 30km/h to 50km/h, my kinetic energy goes from approx. 52,000 joules to approx. 145,000 joules.
that's based on the assumption that the combined weight of me and my bike is 100KG, and the combined weight of me and my car is 1,500KG. and the assumption that i can reach 50km/h on my bike (i can, but only going down a good long hill).

you can see that a cyclist 'speeding' carries a small fraction of the kinetic energy of a car, which would clearly result in a much lesser capacity to cause damage.
we apply speed limits to cars precisely because they're big and heavy and capable of travelling at high speed.

magicbastarder

and because i know you're dying to know - if i wanted to match the kinetic energy of my car, when it's doing 30km/h, while on my bike, i'd have to hit 116km/h.

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

and because i know you're dying to know - if i wanted to match the kinetic energy of my car, when it's doing 30km/h, while on my bike, i'd have to hit 116km/h.

Seán Kelly did that. What's your excuse?

Pinch Flat

bpb101 wrote: »

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit. Lets start applying speed limits to them.

When bikes start killing close to 200 and maiming hundreds annually, I guess they'll review speed limits for bikes. At the moment though, it's not an issue so much more pressing things regarding road safety to be considered.

magicbastarder

endagibson wrote: »

What's your excuse?

my excuse is 'i'm not sean kelly'.

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

my excuse is 'i'm not sean kelly'.

As excuses go, it's one of the better ones.

bpb101

The area marked as new 30k is not causing road traffic deaths at 50km. Why does it need to be lowered.... its all a crock of shíte

LeChienMefiant

bpb101 wrote: »

The area marked as new 30k is not causing road traffic deaths at 50km. Why does it need to be lowered.... its all a crock of shíte

For the quality of life of people living in those areas.

galwaycyclist

bpb101 wrote: »

The area marked as new 30k is not causing road traffic deaths at 50km. Why does it need to be lowered.... its all a crock of shíte

Because the number of "deaths" is not an appropriate indicator of how safe a road is.

gctest50

bpb101 wrote: »

The area marked as new 30k is not causing road traffic deaths at 50km. Why does it need to be lowered.... its all a crock of shíte

Test your reactions here and post it up :

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

shootermacg

Fastest 190ms, average 210 ms

bpb101

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Because the number of "deaths" is not an appropriate indicator of how safe a road is.

so people are saying dont apply the speed limits to cyclist because they dont kill people , but yet deaths on the road is not an appropriate indicator of how safe roads are.?

And to answer the reaction time question , 230ms, but i dont see how that has to do with speed limits...reaction time is the same

my point here all alone is simple, dont reduce speed limits to unrealistic rates which will cause more harm, but rather enforce the speed limits.If you bring in these speed limits, they wont be obeyed as people will actually find it difficult to drive at these speeds. They will set up a speed van , just to make money....

one of my point why it should be apply to cyclists is because if a cyclist is on the left and a car is turning left, if the cyclist is going faster, they are going to undertake the car.A lot of the time they are going to be in the blindspot of the driver. its going to cause more accidents.

Who here has actually driven through town?



People think this is only going to effect town,

Have a look at the purposed map of dublin for 30km
Try and drive from crumlin to rahney at 30km

This is just madness? Can nobody else see it???

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/speed-limits-to-be-reduced-to-30km-h-across-dublin-1.2653820

LeChienMefiant

bpb101 wrote: »

so people are saying dont apply the speed limits to cyclist because they dont kill people , but yet deaths on the road is not an appropriate indicator of how safe roads are.?

Killed or injured the risks are lower for a bicycle.

bpb101 wrote: »

Who here has actually driven through town?

Regularly, and I find it (among other things) ridiculous that the quickest route across town on the eastern side is through the Stephen's Green, Dawson St, Pearse St, Tara St, Gardiners St corridor. Right through the centre. It's too easy to drive through town. We've only recently closed off College Green to through traffic and even then people couldn't understand why. Traffic is destroying the city and it will only get worse unless it's nipped in the bud. Not to mention the inner suburbs.

Thankfully Dublin is ahead of the curve in some respects.
Sydney residents are in uproar about this...
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-transformation/george-street
Brisbane is too far gone...
http://www.news.com.au/opinion/brisbane-concrete-examples-of-aesthetic-failures/story-e6frfs99-1225818668437

magicbastarder

bpb101 wrote: »

one of my point why it should be apply to cyclists is because if a cyclist is on the left and a car is turning left, if the cyclist is going faster, they are going to undertake the car.A lot of the time they are going to be in the blindspot of the driver. its going to cause more accidents.

you do realise the sequence of events - which are necessary for the above to become relevant based on lowering the speed limit for motorists only - is a little absurd? cars do not corner in suburban areas at 50km/h.

a left hook is usually caused by a cyclist being overtaken by a driver who then turns left quickly on top of them. if cars cannot go fast enough to overtake the cyclists in this new scenario, you would expect left hooks to fall in number, not rise.