Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Dublin @30km

«13456712

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,781 ✭✭✭ Carawaystick


    On non-arterial residential roads only


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Excellent news. There really is no need to go above 30 in those areas. Hopefully a safer area for all people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭ Vic_08


    Another stupid speed law that will be ignored by the vast majority while providing easy pickings for Gardai here and there when they need to push up their numbers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    Another stupid speed law that will be ignored by the vast majority while providing easy pickings for Gardai here and there when they need to push up their numbers.

    Why do you think it's stupid? Do peoples lives not matter to you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭ Roadhawk


    On non-arterial residential roads only
    Like the Quays...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Like the Quays...

    It has already made them a safer place for pedestrians crossing at the bridges as it just takes one car to drive within the law to prevent others breaking it and possibly endangering others lives. Now to do something about the red light jumpers and amber gamblers. Maybe cameras could be installed too at the busier crossings.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,313 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dravokivich


    It has already made them a safer place for pedestrians crossing at the bridges as it just takes one car to drive within the law to prevent others breaking it and possibly endangering others lives. Now to do something about the red light jumpers and amber gamblers. Maybe cameras could be installed too at the busier crossings.

    Not really. They are more likely to put themselves at risk with the way a lot of people drive to close down on any space around them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Not really. They are more likely to put themselves at risk with the way a lot of people drive to close down on any space around them.

    At least they have a metal box to protect them rather than just flesh and bones. Cameras are great these days. They could even monitor those driving too close to others.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,472 ✭✭✭✭ loyatemu


    even if half of drivers obey it, the other half will be forced to obey it because they'll be stuck behind the slower cars.

    The AA are banging on about it being unenforceable, but that's not really the point, it will bring average speeds down and set a marker that city streets are shared spaces (I see the AA wanted limits on some city streets increased to 80 - really nailing their colours to the mast there...)


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,333 ✭✭✭✭ seamus


    Average speed within the affected areas is well below 30km/h anyway. People are cottoning onto the fact that doing 50km/h to rush from one set of lights to the next is pointless and you may as well just cruise around. I would say that driving in the city has certainly become more sedate. Even if people may not necessarily be driving at the lower limit, you're less likely to encounter people doing 80km/h down Clanbrassil street at 10pm.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭ Roadhawk


    It has already made them a safer place for pedestrians crossing at the bridges...

    I haven't seen any stats on comparison. Please post if you have.


  • Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭ Roadhawk


    seamus wrote: »
    Average speed within the affected areas is well below 30km/h anyway. People are cottoning onto the fact that doing 50km/h to rush from one set of lights to the next is pointless and you may as well just cruise around. I would say that driving in the city has certainly become more sedate. Even if people may not necessarily be driving at the lower limit, you're less likely to encounter people doing 80km/h down Clanbrassil street at 10pm.

    I agree.

    Also during the morning and evening rush hour traffic the only vehicles that really have the ability to do the current speed limits of 50/60km around the city are buses in the bus lanes (for the most part). I guess the majority of the bus system will be slower?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    loyatemu wrote: »
    even if half of drivers obey it, the other half will be forced to obey it because they'll be stuck behind the slower cars.
    as someone else posted here before, it's not necessarily going to need people to obey the law to have an effect.
    the sort of driver who will do 60 in a 50 zone is possibly the sort of driver who will do 45 in a 30 zone, so even if they don't obey the law, they may still shave some speed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭ atticu


    Deedsie wrote: »
    Well as long as people obey the law it won't be easy pickings for the Gardaí and it will improve the quality of life for residents in these areas.


    How will it improve the quality of life for the residents?

    Vehicles will take longer to pass though, so more noise pollution, more air pollution, etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ ThisRegard


    You'll hear a car go by your house at 60 more than you would at 30, that's not an issue.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    atticu wrote: »
    Vehicles will take longer to pass though, so more noise pollution, more air pollution, etc.
    does a car produce significantly more pollution per km at 30km/h than it does at 50km/h? i would assume 50km/h is more fuel efficient if you maintain a steady speed, but in a suburban environment which is a very stop/start environment, i suspect it's not so clear.
    and as ThisRegard mentions, i strongly suspect road noise is non-linear wrt speed. the extra half second a car is passing your house is probably more than offset by the falloff in tyre and engine noise. trying to quantify that at the moment, but it's proving difficult to find what the relationship is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,333 ✭✭✭✭ seamus


    atticu wrote: »
    How will it improve the quality of life for the residents?

    Vehicles will take longer to pass though, so more noise pollution, more air pollution, etc.
    Faster vehicles create more noise. I'm about 1km away from the M50 and on a clear morning I can hear it outside my house, when I can't even hear cars moving slowly down the road 20m away.

    There's also simple psychology - you feel less safe walking along a 100km/h dual carriageway than a 60km/h road. So if you step outside your door and the vehicles are moving slowly, you'll feel happier and safer going in and out of the house.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    The UKNA report states, "There is a measurable link between traffic noise and speed. In urban areas with speeds of between 20 and 35 mph, reducing speeds by 6 mph would cut noise levels by up to 40%,"
    http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/feature126199/


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I haven't seen any stats on comparison. Please post if you have.

    Well it's quite simple. The faster a car hits a pedestrian the more likely they will be seriously injured or die.

    Even from the abstract of the below study:
    "Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age. For example, the average risk of severe injury or death for a 70‐year‐old pedestrian struck by a car travelling at 25 mph is similar to the risk for a 30‐year‐old pedestrian struck at 35 mph."

    https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

    For reference:
    Mph Kph(rounded)
    23 - 37
    25 - 40
    31 - 50
    32 - 51
    35 - 56
    39 - 63
    42 - 68
    46 - 74
    50 - 80
    58 - 93


    So in conclusion the quays are therefore safer once motorists abide by the lower speed limit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,049 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005



    So in conclusion the quays are therefore safer once motorists abide by the lower speed limit.

    Anytime I've driven the quays the traffic has been doing more than 50 never mind 30, it's even difficult to find the start of the 30 zone. Even in 50 areas I regularly use cruise control and traffic disappears into the distance while I have the following traffic in my boot.

    The council can set the limit as low as they want but until there is enforcement it makes no difference. Yet we'll still have the speed traps on the N4 which is a 2 or 3 lane road with very little pedestrian access, while people can happily speed on the residential roads nearby.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭ Roadhawk


    Well it's quite simple. The faster a car hits a pedestrian the more likely they will be seriously injured or die.

    Even from the abstract of the below study:
    "Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age. For example, the average risk of severe injury or death for a 70‐year‐old pedestrian struck by a car travelling at 25 mph is similar to the risk for a 30‐year‐old pedestrian struck at 35 mph."

    https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

    For reference:
    Mph Kph(rounded)
    23 - 37
    25 - 40
    31 - 50
    32 - 51
    35 - 56
    39 - 63
    42 - 68
    46 - 74
    50 - 80
    58 - 93


    So in conclusion the quays are therefore safer once motorists abide by the lower speed limit.

    Yes im aware that higher speeds increases the risk of a fatality. I had misunderstood your initial post...I though you were saying that the quays are safer because of a lower speed limit in the sense that their would be less incidents as a result. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,406 ✭✭✭✭ Eric Cartman


    an absolute disgrace and totally un-necissary. the 50 limit was fine and is what I will continue to use.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭ The Pheasant2


    Nanny statery at its worst - Dublin already has safe roads relative to other EU capitals...just a box ticking exercise for Dublin city council; news laws just for the sake of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭ atticu


    seamus wrote: »
    Faster vehicles create more noise. I'm about 1km away from the M50 and on a clear morning I can hear it outside my house, when I can't even hear cars moving slowly down the road 20m away.

    There's also simple psychology - you feel less safe walking along a 100km/h dual carriageway than a 60km/h road. So if you step outside your door and the vehicles are moving slowly, you'll feel happier and safer going in and out of the house.


    Any links to studies that show people will feel happier?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Del2005 wrote: »
    Anytime I've driven the quays the traffic has been doing more than 50 never mind 30, it's even difficult to find the start of the 30 zone. Even in 50 areas I regularly use cruise control and traffic disappears into the distance while I have the following traffic in my boot.

    The council can set the limit as low as they want but until there is enforcement it makes no difference. Yet we'll still have the speed traps on the N4 which is a 2 or 3 lane road with very little pedestrian access, while people can happily speed on the residential roads nearby.

    :eek: Do you not see the signs on poles and the road markings?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    an absolute disgrace and totally un-necissary. the 50 limit was fine and is what I will continue to use.
    what part of the city do you drive through? have you read what is and more importantly, is not affected?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Yes im aware that higher speeds increases the risk of a fatality. I had misunderstood your initial post...I though you were saying that the quays are safer because of a lower speed limit in the sense that their would be less incidents as a result. ;)

    They are safer if you get hit. Wouldn't you rather be knocked down by a car at 30kph rather than 50kph? Also stopping speed is reduced so less chance of a vehicle not being able to stop before a collision.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,333 ✭✭✭✭ seamus


    atticu wrote: »
    Any links to studies that show people will feel happier?
    No, purely anecdotal. Though if you're going to argue that people feel just as safe with 50km/h traffic passing their door as they do with 30km/h traffic, then I'm not going to take you very seriously.


  • Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭ atticu


    Deedsie wrote: »
    Cars are louder the faster they are travelling... the make more noise the regardless if the additional 4 seconds it will take to pass a house.

    So, no improvement in the quality of life.

    Unless you can show me that less noise for longer improves your quality of life over more noise for a shorter time.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    atticu wrote: »
    So, no improvement in the quality of life.

    Unless you can show me that less noise for longer improves your quality of life over more noise for a shorter time.

    Quality of life only matters if you aren't dead. Less chance of getting hit by a car travelling at 30 rather than 50 as they can stop quicker.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement