Dublin @30km

Victor

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm doing something wrong - all those links bring me to the same screen, which seems to be an intro screen. do i need to log in? or do i need to use a specific browser?

Works for me across Chrome and IE. No log in needed.

If the screen looks like this, click on the speed limits map and zoom to / search (magnifying glass) for the relevant location

blackwhite

magicbastarder wrote: »

quite simple. retracting bollards at traffic lights. you want to run a red, you total your car.

Or more sensibly, red light cameras.

Less chance of blocking emergency vehicles for one thing.

magicbastarder

oh, that wasn't meant to be sensible, it was a suggestion based on the post immediately before it.

spatchco

i happen to live in one of the new designated speed areas they were set up without any consultation with the people that live in the area ,i think its a joke who will enforce it today walking around the area still speeding no change,, we have some schools in the area so parents dropping off children use the estate as a short cut so as long as this happens nothing will change speed limit my aaaa,, ps its d11 , will i observe the walking pace for driving my car , no

Victor

spatchco wrote: »

i happen to live in one of the new designated speed areas they were set up without any consultation with the people that live in the area

There was a public consultation where 550 submissions were received.

will i observe the walking pace for driving my car , no

So, you bemoan rat-running, but are going to willingly speed in a traffic-calmed* housing estate?

* This is a map of the speed ramps in the area: http://url.ie/11te2

magicbastarder

one bit of that area which does need extra traffic calming is pappin's road where it meets ballymun road; you regularly see people gunning through amber and red lights to get out onto ballymun road.

NUTLEY BOY

What next ?

Will DCC be conferred some day with the legal right to impose, collect or otherwise prosecute speeding charges and fines ? I can see it now, fixed speed cameras everywhere. Just watch that cash roll in.......

We live close to Sandymount. We often nip down there for some shopping as it is handy. We have sensible and practical alternatives available to us and will probably give Sandymount the miss for fear of going over 30 in a brief moment of inadvertence as we engage second gear.

I went through the lower part of Ailesbury Road where it approaches the railway at about 33 kph last Monday. Coming from Ailesbury Road proper you would be pressed to see the 30 kph sign the way it is aligned behind another sign ( and probably overhanging branches within the next few weeks). Good job I was only on a bicycle.

Some of the roads now subject to 30kph just do not justify it's imposition and it is senseless. In relation to the shared space argument would it be an impertinence to point out that roads and streets are just that and not playgrounds.

Who is actually responsible for passing these limits in to law ? Was this an executive function of DCC or had it to be voted in to law by the councillors ? If the latter, I would like to know the identities of the councillors who voted in favour of this so that we can forget them at the next local elections around 2 years from now. Mind you they will have reviewed the scheme before then and probably made the arterial roads 30 kph as well......

magicbastarder

according to google maps, to drive down serpentine avenue, from ballsbridge, onto tritonville road to irishtown, will take you 4 minutes in a car in current traffic, and it's 1.2km. which is an average of 18km/h. which suggests the considerable majority of that trip is spent noticeably below 50km/h anyway. it might cost you one minute of your time to stick to below 30km/h.

_Kaiser_

Whatever about housing estates and schools (during school times), I've yet to see one valid reason for reducing speed limits on main roads to 30 km/h 24x7 that doesn't involve hysterical "think of the children" reasoning and strawmanning, or pandering to those who refuse to accept any form of personal responsibility for their own safety and interactions with other traffic.

I rarely have cause to go into town these days anyway, but I'll continue to drive in traffic as I always have - mindful of the conditions around me (traffic, pedestrian volume, road/weather/visibility conditions etc) than obsessing about potentially being a few km over a limit that's usually either too high or too low for those aforementioned conditions anyway.

Provide a quality, connected, reliable and cheap public transport alternative that goes where people need to at times/frequencies they want (rather than what suits the operators), and then DCC can proceed with what seems to be a set agenda to ultimately restrict all private car traffic from the city centre and surrounding streets. Until then it's just another measure that will cause unnecessary frustration, and be largely ignored by both those on the roads and those supposed to enforce it - but at least the Council can say they "did something" come election time, which I think is what the objective REALLY is.

I love Sean nos

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've yet to see one valid reason for reducing speed limits on main roads to 30 km/h 24x7

1. Reduce noise.
2. Make the area more pleasant.
3. Allow other road users to use the road in safety.

That took me a moment. I'm surprised you couldn't think of any of them.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

pandering to those who refuse to accept any form of personal responsibility for their own safety and interactions with other traffic.

Roughly translates to "all people not in cars should get out of my way".

I love Sean nos

Deedsie wrote: »

Many people would not consider these perfectly valid examples as in anyway valid unless they benefit from them personally.

They'd benefit from the 3rd as soon as they get out of their car.

monument

Deedsie wrote: »

Many people would not consider these perfectly valid examples as in anyway valid unless they benefit from them personally.

As I cycle down Leeson Street in the morning it's scary the speed some drivers consider it to be safe to drive at. This is a 30km/h zone, totally ignored by 90% of drivers of course.

Not only do people live along this street, there are language schools etc along it.

Leeson Street, as it is currently designed, is not suitable for 30km/h.

Victor

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

What next ?

DLR epects to implement its 30 km/h areas over the summer.

Several councils will then do reviews. In Phase 3, Dublin City is likely to add more areas, similar to those in Phase 2 (the suburban expansion).

Will DCC be conferred some day with the legal right to impose, collect or otherwise prosecute speeding charges and fines ?

There has been no suggestion of this. The council doesn't receive a penny from speeding fines. The city benefits from having a nicer place to live and fewer casualties.

We live close to Sandymount. We often nip down there for some shopping as it is handy. We have sensible and practical alternatives available to us and will probably give Sandymount the miss for fear of going over 30 in a brief moment of inadvertence as we engage second gear.

Why paranoia about 30 km/h, when there isn't the same paranoia about 50 km/h. Is it really just fear of change?

Coming from Ailesbury Road proper you would be pressed to see the 30 kph sign the way it is aligned behind another sign ( and probably overhanging branches within the next few weeks).

Can you report this?

Some of the roads now subject to 30kph just do not justify it's imposition and it is senseless.

Then make a submission at the net consultation.

In relation to the shared space argument would it be an impertinence to point out that roads and streets are just that and not playgrounds.

"Shared space" is a specific term. During delivery hours, Grafton Street and Henry Street are shared spaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space#/media/File:New_Road,_Brighton_-_shared_space.jpg

Who is actually responsible for passing these limits in to law ? Was this an executive function of DCC or had it to be voted in to law by the councillors ?

Ultimate decision on bye-laws is down to a vote of the full council. A road works speed limit order can be done by council management.

If the latter, I would like to know the identities of the councillors who voted in favour of this

I get the impression most voted for and a small few abstained. Check the council minutes for, I think, November 2016.

Mind you they will have reviewed the scheme before then and probably made the arterial roads 30 kph as well......

Realise that such schemes have about 80% approval.

Victor

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

pandering to those who refuse to accept any form of personal responsibility for their own safety and interactions with other traffic.

What about vehicle users accepting personal responsibility for the hazards they bring to others?

Provide a quality, connected, reliable and cheap public transport alternative that goes where people need to at times/frequencies they want (rather than what suits the operators), and then DCC can proceed with what seems to be a set agenda to ultimately restrict all private car traffic from the city centre and surrounding streets.

Are you just diverting?

monument wrote: »

Leeson Street, as it is currently designed, is not suitable for 30km/h.

But certainly the way the Earlsfort Terrace end is used (schools, shops, hotels, offices, narrow footpaths, bus stops, large pedestrian flows), it needs 30 km/h.

Dravokivich

Victor wrote: »

What about vehicle users accepting personal responsibility for the hazards they bring to others?

I dare say anyone making use of a roadway needs to be responsible for their use of it. I can't stand this petty Pedestrian / Driver / Cyclists / Motorbike / bus driver / white van driver / Taxis crap.

We all see it every day by a range of people from any and all of those groupings.

_Kaiser_

Victor wrote: »

What about vehicle users accepting personal responsibility for the hazards they bring to others?

Dis I suggest they shouldn't? But equally other road users need to accept that they too have a role and responsibility in keeping themselves and others safe when interacting with different forms of traffic.

The amount of cyclists and motorbikes weaving between traffic, pedestrians dashing across the road regardless I see every week is ridiculous and dangerous - and it's all based on the assumption that its the motorist's responsibility to stop/watch out for them and their idiocy.

I'll put it this way... if a pedestrian is hit by a car because that car jumped the lights or didn't stop on a red then absolutely is the driver at fault. However, if it's because the pedestrian made a dash across the road without waiting for their own green light (or walked out randomly) and misjudged the timing that's a very different matter.

Are you just diverting?

Nope.. just pointing out that until there IS a practical, affordable and reliable alternative, motorists will use the one that's available to them now (the car) and there's no point in complaining about it.

We ALL have to get places and regardless of how much ye dislike it, buses/bikes don't work for everyone... especially not in a city which is actively pricing more and more people further out through a housing/rent crisis.

Dravokivich

Deedsie wrote: »

As the most dangerous road user you have never said motorists should take a larger amount of responsibility for other road users. It would difficult for a pedestrian or cyclist to maim or kill any other road user. Motorists do it daily.

Of course everyone must behave responsibly but as far as I can see motorists are verifiably and factually the most dangerous road user there is.

That's not entirely fair. There could be no malicious intent and a motorist can find themselves in a fatal accident due to a non-motorist, but it was the motorist that's considered dangerous?

Victor

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's not entirely fair. There could be no malicious intent and a motorist can find themselves in a fatal accident due to a non-motorist, but it was the motorist that's considered dangerous?

Studies have shown motorists to be responsible for 80% of motorist-cyclist collisions.

Dravokivich

Victor wrote: »

Studies have shown motorists to be responsible for 80% of motorist-cyclist collisions.

80% of a low number of motorists involved in accidents with cyclists. So all motorists are dangerous?

HivemindXX

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's not entirely fair. There could be no malicious intent and a motorist can find themselves in a fatal accident due to a non-motorist, but it was the motorist that's considered dangerous?

Malicious intent is what makes the difference between a murderer and a dangerous driver. You can absolutely be a dangerous driver even if you didn't intend to drive your car over someone. I find it difficult to understand how someone cannot see that.

If someone runs out in front of your car and there was nothing you could do then you are not found at fault and are not considered dangerous. If someone runs out in front of your car and you couldn't avoid the collision because you were going too fast or not paying attention then you are guilty of dangerous driving, regardless of whether the pedestrian was in the wrong.

Dravokivich

HivemindXX wrote: »

Malicious intent is what makes the difference between a murderer and a dangerous driver. You can absolutely be a dangerous driver even if you didn't intend to drive your car over someone. I find it difficult to understand how someone cannot see that.

If someone runs out in front of your car and there was nothing you could do then you are not found at fault and are not considered dangerous. If someone runs out in front of your car and you couldn't avoid the collision because you were going too fast or not paying attention then you are guilty of dangerous driving, regardless of whether the pedestrian was in the wrong.

The premise I challenged is that every motorist is dangerous. I'm not interested in getting into hypothetical scenarios because for the most part they act solely as a distraction.

I didn't deny the existence of a dangerous motorist. I don't agree with a flat out assumption that all motorists are dangerous solely because there is potential for a greater injury/fatality to a non-motorist.

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

Ill be cycling home at 19:00 this evening and I predict at least 5 cars will change lanes in front of me without indicating or looking. The bus gate hours should be extended to 21:00. Its dangerous the way some people drive in the bus lane after 19:00. Especially on rainy evenings.

They should be 24hour. There is absolutely no reason to open them upto general traffic at all.

I love Sean nos

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

it's all based on the assumption that its the motorist's responsibility to stop/watch out for them

That's because it is.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

However, if it's because the pedestrian made a dash across the road without waiting for their own green light (or walked out randomly) and misjudged the timing that's a very different matter.

It doesn't matter that much what the pedestrian does, you're still not supposed to drive your car over them.

magicbastarder

happened a friend of mine. he was driving when someone fell out into the road a few feet in front of him. the gardai - and the victim's family - decided he was blameless.

I love Sean nos

Deedsie wrote: »

You are being slightly unreasonable there. Sometimes there is nothing a motorist can do. Some people do act complete morons crossing the road. Just cross at the pedestrian crossing. Safer and sounder to other road users

Am I now?

Do motorists not have a responsibility to watch out for other road users, especially pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists?

Are motorists allowed to collide with pedestrians if they don't observe the RotR?

_Kaiser_

CramCycle wrote: »

They should be 24hour. There is absolutely no reason to open them upto general traffic at all.

Sure... let's have 24 hour bus lanes in a city without a 24 hour bus service and restrict roads unnecessarily. Makes just as much sense as 30 km/h limits at times when there's no one around.

Arguments like this do the cycling lobby no favours - there's more than just ye on the roads you know! (and no that's not to excuse idiotic driving like pulling in on someone without looking, but it happens to me - as a motorist - every so often too)

_Kaiser_

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Am I now?

Do motorists not have a responsibility to watch out for other road users, especially pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists?

Are motorists allowed to collide with pedestrians if they don't observe the RotR?

No-one is "allowed" collide with anyone, but if a pedestrian is unfortunately hit by a car/bike/whatever because of their own stupidity/recklessness/drunkenness then they have only themselves to blame TBH

It's like that RSA ad a while back with the grieving mother recounting how her son was killed on the roads when he stumbled out in front of a car after a few drinks.

Tragic yes of course, but hardly the motorist's fault.. even though I'm sure they'll live with the pain for the rest of their lives as well.

I love Sean nos

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Arguments like this do the cycling lobby no favours - there's more than just ye on the roads you know!

What cycling lobby are you referring to? We're all well aware that there's more than people on bicycles on the roads; that's why these restrictions are being brought in.

cython

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Sure... let's have 24 hour bus lanes in a city without a 24 hour bus service and restrict roads unnecessarily. Makes just as much sense as 30 km/h limits at times when there's no one around.

Arguments like this do the cycling lobby no favours - there's more than just ye on the roads you know! (and no that's not to excuse idiotic driving like pulling in on someone without looking, but it happens to me - as a motorist - every so often too)

As has been stated ad nauseam, there are are a number of bus services operating 24 hour a day in Dublin. Just because Dublin Bus do not operate them, and they do not run on all corridors as a result, does not mean that they do not exist. And that is before considering the other groups (taxis and cyclists) that can use the lanes.

monument

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Arguments like this do the cycling lobby no favours - there's more than just ye on the roads you know! (and no that's not to excuse idiotic driving like pulling in on someone without looking, but it happens to me - as a motorist - every so often too)

You know the rules -- play the ball and not the man.

-- moderator