Dublin Go Slow from Midnight

goz83

Just saw this on the news. I personally think it's absolutely ridiculous to turn all of the Dublin City areas into 30km zones. They talk about reducing fatalities, but are the fatalities not very low in Dublin compared to other counties? I smell revenue generation here. It's a stupidly low limit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/0530/879059-speed-limits/

punisher5112

All I can say is from what I see it causes more to chance stepping out or running in front of traffic.

30km/h absolutely ridiculous to be honest.

colm_mcm

18mph in old money.

Wibbs

I'd love to read the "surveys" actual questions and how they are framed...

revenue generation? Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to point the finger at wooly headed "conclusions" drawn by nanny state muppets with access to powerpoint and government's ear. And most of those ears are made of cloth. One more step to severely reducing and then banning cars within certain Dublin City limits.

And yes, 30KPH is daft. What's that in old money? 20 MPH? Jesus.

In before the High Horse, Speed kills, thinking about the children brigade.

Guy:Incognito

colm_mcm wrote: »

18mph in old money.

16.2 knots.

punisher5112

colm_mcm wrote: »

18mph in old money.

Its nuts especially with more newer cars with better brakes(tyres also better unless fitted with ditch finders)

Its something always gets to me also look at n11 @ 60km/h which is 37mph. They go all out after you at 65-70km/h but is extremely little amount over.

Who are these fools that come up with this sh1t as it is always against st the motorist.

I drive all around the city daily and its getting harder and now passed out by push bikes all the time.

Wibbs

colm_mcm wrote: »

18mph in old money.

Jayzuz, I'll be hard pressed to get out of first without my engine dogging.

Atlantic Dawn

Wonder will any cyclists be done breaking it?

Marcusm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd love to read the "surveys" actual questions and how they are framed...

revenue generation? Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to point the finger at wooly headed "conclusions" drawn by nanny state muppets with access to powerpoint and government's ear. And most of those ears are made of cloth. One more step to severely reducing and then banning cars within certain Dublin City limits.

And yes, 30KPH is daft. What's that in old money? 20 MPH? Jesus.

In before the High Horse, Speed kills, thinking about the children brigade.

A lot of inner London boroughs have moved to 20mph but they haven't recalibrate the speed cameras so not revenue generating. There are more speed camera on 3 miles of my former commute in London than there are in all of Dublin. However, limited enforcement and generally not necessary or suited to the road. I would have thought gut there were greater issues with people travelling at 80kph in 50kph zones in Dublin than in reducing the speed to 30kph for all roads between the canals. The quays 30kph zone is probably correct as would be the case on other roads with high foot traffic and lots of random crossings. Application across the zone will likely mean no enfircement but lots of frustration.

goz83

Marcusm wrote: »

A lot of inner London boroughs have moved to 20mph but they haven't recalibrate the speed cameras so not revenue generating. There are more speed camera on 3 miles of my former commute in London than there are in all of Dublin. However, limited enforcement and generally not necessary or suited to the road. I would have thought gut there were greater issues with people travelling at 80kph in 50kph zones in Dublin than in reducing the speed to 30kph for all roads between the canals. The quays 30kph zone is probably correct as would be the case on other roads with high foot traffic and lots of random crossings. Application across the zone will likely mean no enfircement but lots of frustration.

I was just chatting with the OH and she mentioned driving through England (which we did in March) and how unnatural it was with all the speed cameras. Then you get into Wales and it's so much better. England are a pure Nanny state.

cython

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Wonder will any cyclists be done breaking it?

Not explicitly for breaking it, because speed limits to not apply to bicycles

In theory someone going over the limit for mechanically propelled vehicles on a bike in these areas could be done for cycling without "reasonably consideration", however, though a Garda could also deem this for cycling at said limit.

Doltanian

Just increase motor tax and be done with it, speeding is no joke and it wrecks your insurance. Imagine caught "speeding" doing 35km/h. This is just another cynical revenue raising exercise under the liberal flag of safety. A sick joke is what it is.

Del2005

Driving down the quays last week during the late evening and not a single vehicle was observing the speed limit, and it's the same any time I've driven in the 30 zone.

In the years they've had the lower limit fatalities have fallen but the speed hasn't,t therefore something else is causing the reduction but the people in charge don't know what it is. But they are still pushing for the lower limit to be extended and usually use examples where the 50 limit was greatly exceeded as justification.

bazz26

Game on so outside the Pale.

cython

cython wrote: »

Not explicitly for breaking it, because speed limits to not apply to bicycles

Are you sure? I am pretty sure it's a speed limit and not a car limit?

Theoretically, a pedestrian could be done for exceeding it, too, no?

ThisRegard

goz83 wrote: »

to turn all of the Dublin City areas into 30km zones.

They haven't?


And this had been discussed for mouths.

ThisRegard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you sure? I am pretty sure it's a speed limit and not a car limit?

Theoretically, a pedestrian could be done for exceeding it, too, no?

No, they theoretically can't

MaceFace

While I agree that this is crazy and potentially more dangerous, I can't see how this could be called a revenue raising exercise.

The amount of money raised vs the cost of enforcement would hardly make it worthwhile. Assuming they were to catch 100 people every day, and fine each €80, that's under €3m a year.
Besides the cost of enforcing, do Dublin City Council (who I assume brought in this rule) get any of this money?

Vicxas

Its mostly residential estates in this phase, but they want to review to bring it in for all Arterial roads into the city. If i had to drive 30 Km all along the Quays i'd want to climb a clock tower.

jimmii

A lot of Edinburgh has gone to 20mph now and its £100 and 3 points for speeding it can be very frustrating, especially at night, when there is no one around at all and you're crawling along. It cost them £2 million to change it too!

Leroy42

Del2005 wrote: »

Driving down the quays last week during the late evening and not a single vehicle was observing the speed limit, and it's the same any time I've driven in the 30 zone.

In the years they've had the lower limit fatalities have fallen but the speed hasn't,t therefore something else is causing the reduction but the people in charge don't know what it is. But they are still pushing for the lower limit to be extended and usually use examples where the 50 limit was greatly exceeded as justification.

So in the 1st part you state nobody sticks to the speed limit and then go on to wonder why fatalities haven't declined despite lower speed limits.

30k is ,IMO, too low but its is a fact that speed limits are taken as a minimum, so 50k limit results in 55 or 60.

So by setting the limit so low, in reality it will be at best 40k actual. Its more about changing the attitude.

jamesthepeach

I overheard a councillor at the weekend pontificating about how he was the main driving force behind this and the he won't stop until firtball soles limits inside the M50 are 30kph and secondly there is a congestion like charge in dublin city.

ectoraige

Del2005 wrote: »

Driving down the quays last week during the late evening and not a single vehicle was observing the speed limit, and it's the same any time I've driven in the 30 zone.

In the years they've had the lower limit fatalities have fallen but the speed hasn't,t therefore something else is causing the reduction but the people in charge don't know what it is. But they are still pushing for the lower limit to be extended and usually use examples where the 50 limit was greatly exceeded as justification.

I always know when I'll driving at the limit on any road because of the steady stream of traffic going around 10kph faster than me. When the limit was 50kph on the quays they'd be doing 55-60kph. Now they'll be doing 35-40kph. Still a drop of 20kph which is a big drop in the force of any collision.

ectoraige

Wibbs wrote: »

Jayzuz, I'll be hard pressed to get out of first without my engine dogging.

You might need to have your mechanic check that out.

Del2005

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in the 1st part you state nobody sticks to the speed limit and then go on to wonder why fatalities haven't declined despite lower speed limits.

30k is ,IMO, too low but its is a fact that speed limits are taken as a minimum, so 50k limit results in 55 or 60.

So by setting the limit so low, in reality it will be at best 40k actual. Its more about changing the attitude.

No I said that they don't know why fatalities are dropping as they claim its the lower limit when it's being routinely ignored. They use examples of people exceeding the 50 limit as a reason for the 30 limit.

Call me old fashioned but a limit is a limit and should be the speed traffic is expected to be at. If they want vehicles at 30 set a 30 limit. But they should be evidence based and targeted, like the 30 outside school during school hours, with correct enforcement. Now I'm far from an angel on 80+ roads but I do believe in lower limits in areas that require them but they should be justified and enforced, otherwise it's like the fella from the AA says drivers will just ignore them.

Leroy42

It is precisely because drivers ignore them that they keep having to be lower. 50k is taken as the lowest speed, so inevitably people end up at 55 or 60k.

So to get people focused on the speed a really low limit is introduced in order to get people to realise that the speed needs to drop.

Of course lack of enforcement has a huge part to play, but so too does individual driver behaviour. People know what the limit is, know the possible consequences of speeding beyond that limit yet will continue to do so. To blame an individuals decision to ignore the safety concerns of others based on "there is nobody checking" is a cop out.

And no you are not old fashioned, just wrong. Speed limits are just that, the maximum that you are permitted under law to drive at. There is no minimum, save for the arbitrary judgement of holding up traffic. Traffic should be at whatever speed, under the limit, that the conditions allow for.

fancy pigeon

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is precisely because drivers ignore them that they keep having to be lower. 50k is taken as the lowest speed, so inevitably people end up at 55 or 60k.

So to get people focused on the speed a really low limit is introduced in order to get people to realise that the speed needs to drop.

Of course lack of enforcement has a huge part to play, but so too does individual driver behaviour. People know what the limit is, know the possible consequences of speeding beyond that limit yet will continue to do so. To blame an individuals decision to ignore the safety concerns of others based on "there is nobody checking" is a cop out.

And no you are not old fashioned, just wrong. Speed limits are just that, the maximum that you are permitted under law to drive at. There is no minimum, save for the arbitrary judgement of holding up traffic. Traffic should be at whatever speed, under the limit, that the conditions allow for.

When you see idiots overtaking on the likes of the clontarf road and approaching corners on the wrong side of the recently narrowed road where a lot of people walk and cycle in their SUV's and MPV's (yes, full family wagons of offspring with a wagon behind the wheel I've seen all too often overtaking on this stretch both as a pedestrian and driver) I can see why a limit of 30kmh is needed. Badly

If more common sense was used these measures wouldn't be resorted to... Or would they?

punisher5112

Overtaking dangerously overtaking hasn't anything to do with speed limit its down to dangerous driving and poor road reading skills.

If dangerous manoeuvres were enforced then that would start a change.

They are going after speed as its the easiest option for revenue income as they don't need a person to see it the equipment does it for them.

jamesthepeach

There's a speed van right now opposite McGowan's pub. No doubt making a pretty penny.

Micky 32

Doltanian wrote: »

Just increase motor tax and be done with it, speeding is no joke and it wrecks your insurance. Imagine caught "speeding" doing 35km/h. This is just another cynical revenue raising exercise under the liberal flag of safety. A sick joke is what it is.

Was just thinking there out loud to myself. Going back to the go slow day last Friday. 226 people caught going over the limit so that's 80 euro a pop. So for the day that's 18k a day , a potential 6.5 million euro a year if my maths are correct. That's why we'll never see a " Catch the c***t coming out my back window day with my money and personal belongings go slow day" ..

Leroy42

Micky 32 wrote: »

Was just thinking there out loud to myself. Going back to the go slow day last Friday. 226 people caught going over the limit so that's 80 euro a pop. So for the day that's 18k a day , a potential 6.5 million euro a year if my maths are correct. That's why we'll never see a " Catch the c***t coming out my back window day with my money and personal belongings go slow day" ..

The other take from that is that even after all the campaigns speeding is still a major issue.

Micky 32

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other take from that is that even after all the campaigns speeding is still a major issue.

But not the major cause of collisions. Most crashes the cars weren't over the limit. Biggest killer is head on collisions.

Leroy42

Micky 32 wrote: »

But not the major cause of collisions.

So what is? Speed obviously plays a part, I mean if everything was stopped nothing would ever collide, but I would agree that in many instances 'speed' is used as the catch all when it is many other factors as well. But what are they?

Micky 32 wrote: »

Most crashes the cars weren't over the limit.

I'm not aware of the statistics on this, but even if true one or other of the vehicles involved was unable to stop in time to avoid the collission and therefore speed was a factor.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Biggest killer is head on collisions.

Again, I don't have the stats to know the validity of this.

Del2005

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other take from that is that even after all the campaigns speeding is still a major issue.

But are the speed limits appropriate? My drive to work is on a good 2 way rural road with 60 limits, where my parents are from worse roads have 80 limits. Doing 70 on my road to work is relatively safe while doing 70 on the roads where my parents are from is dangerous, yet you will get penalised on the safer road while travelling at a safer speed.

ectoraige

punisher5112 wrote: »

They are going after speed as its the easiest option for revenue income as they don't need a person to see it the equipment does it for them.

You do know it costs the state around €10m net per annum to run the go-safe scheme, don't you?

randomname2005

punisher5112 wrote: »

Overtaking dangerously overtaking hasn't anything to do with speed limit its down to dangerous driving and poor road reading skills.

If dangerous manoeuvres were enforced then that would start a change.

They are going after speed as its the easiest option for revenue income as they don't need a person to see it the equipment does it for them.

It is factual, no opinion. Car was over limit or not. There is no argument about what one person defines as dangerous and another person not

ScumLord

Bring on driverless cars! At this rate I won't be able to leave my diesel car in gear or it will break the speed limit idling.

Another move to cover incompetent drivers and make them even more incompetent through lack of experience.

Leroy42

ScumLord wrote: »

Bring on driverless cars! At this rate I won't be able to leave my diesel car in gear or it will break the speed limit idling.

Another move to cover incompetent drivers and make them even more incompetent through lack of experience.

Or just get an automatic.

Experience is now based on how fast you can go or how many gears you change?

ScumLord

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or just get an automatic.

Experience is now based on how fast you can go or how many gears you change?

We have no real driver training in this country, it's not much better than showing you how the car works and letting you on your merry way. Most drivers have a very basic understanding of driving.

Many slow drivers are afraid of their car, they go slow because the car basically runs on magic and they don't understand what to do in any other situation but driving in a straight line. They keep getting slower and slower but they're not getting safer. I think people are driving slower, assuming they're driving safely and letting their attention wander onto other things. Telling people to drive slower doesn't make them safer drivers, it just reduces the harm they're incompetence can cause.

If anything out of the ordinary happens they're completely lost, they don't know how to react and will more often than not do the wrong thing at the wrong time. The cars are filling in the gap these days, without all the safety aids modern cars have there would be a hell of a lot more crashes every day.

The government is great at pointing the finger at anybody and everybody else but they ignore the fact our roads are often in a terrible state, traffic management is a joke, and they don't do effective training. All these advertising campaigns that say slow down are as much effort as they're willing to do, they just avoid responsibility and do the very least they can do.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

At this rate I won't be able to leave my diesel car in gear or it will break the speed limit idling.

I almost never go to Dublin city centre, so have never had to drive in a 30kph limit, but the way these muppets are spreading this nonsense further out...

Earlier I was driving suburban back roads and bugger me it's not easy to keep my car at 30Kph. In second gear it's revving too high for comfort(and burning petrol), in third it's revving too low for comfort. It's a very uncomfortable speed to sustain for the car(and me as the concentration levels go up just checking the speedo). By comparison 40Kph is fine in third and "safer" as I wouldn't be gurning at the bloody speedo. I doubt I'd be alone in this.

Fine if you're driving an auto or a hearse. It would depend on the auto too I'd imagine. 30Kph is more a speed the engine/gearbox goes through to a higher speed, not a speed to be maintained. I could see some gearboxes getting arsey about it because it's an "in between" speed. I suppose the safety nannies in their asthmatic Tesco Trollies powered by high horse dung are happy.

Bring on driverless cars!

Could well be a factor alright.

hinault

Remember this hare brained idea speed limit idea when councillors come knocking at your door seeking re-election to the various councils throughout Dublin.

Del2005

ScumLord wrote: »

Many slow drivers are afraid of their car, they go slow because the car basically runs on magic and they don't understand what to do in any other situation but driving in a straight line. They keep getting slower and slower but they're not getting safer. I think people are driving slower, assuming they're driving safely and letting their attention wander onto other things. Telling people to drive slower doesn't make them safer drivers, it just reduces the harm they're incompetence can cause.

All these advertising campaigns that say slow down are as much effort as they're willing to do, they just avoid responsibility and do the very least they can do.

I've notice that a lot of the people who do 80 on higher rated roads do the same 80 on lower rated roads. They where told that "Speed Kills" so don't go fast but they also don't slow down for lower limits.

The government, RSA, can spend as much as they like on advertising about it being a limit not a target. But in my interactions with the government on the road it's been a target and I failed a car and artic test for not hitting the limit. So either change the test or change the advertising as they are contradicting themselves.

goz83

Del2005 wrote: »

I've notice that a lot of the people who do 80 on higher rated roads do the same 80 on lower rated roads. They where told that "Speed Kills" so don't go fast but they also don't slow down for lower limits.

The government, RSA, can spend as much as they like on advertising about it being a limit not a target. But in my interactions with the government on the road it's been a target and I failed a car and artic test for not hitting the limit. So either change the test or change the advertising as they are contradicting themselves.

+1

I passed my driving test about 10 years ago. I did a pre-test and the instructor told me to go 5-10klms over the limit, as it shows confidence.

I had failed twice before when I drove perfectly fine and they got me on "progress on the straight"!!

I blindly took the advice and I broke the speed limit. After 5 minutes, I was asked to return to the centre. I was fully sure I had failed for speeding and was ready to blow the lid at the instructor. But no, I passed! I was both thrilled and bemused.

punisher5112

ectoraige wrote: »

You do know it costs the state around €10m net per annum to run the go-safe scheme, don't you?

Get it right... Tax payer is paying a private company to do the job of the gardai which in turn makes this private company a lot of our tax money to get even wealthier.

ScumLord

Del2005 wrote: »

I've notice that a lot of the people who do 80 on higher rated roads do the same 80 on lower rated roads. They where told that "Speed Kills" so don't go fast but they also don't slow down for lower limits.

I've noticed that a lot, they're not being safe they're just doing the speed they feel comfortable doing.

fxotoole

MaceFace wrote: »

While I agree that this is crazy and potentially more dangerous, I can't see how this could be called a revenue raising exercise.

The amount of money raised vs the cost of enforcement would hardly make it worthwhile. Assuming they were to catch 100 people every day, and fine each €80, that's under €3m a year.
Besides the cost of enforcing, do Dublin City Council (who I assume brought in this rule) get any of this money?

It's not a revenue raising exercise, it's a political exercise first and foremost, and an awareness raising exercise as a very distant second.

ThisRegard

Wibbs wrote: »

Earlier I was driving suburban back roads and bugger me it's not easy to keep my car at 30Kph. In second gear it's revving too high for comfort(and burning petrol), in third it's revving too low for comfort. It's a very uncomfortable speed to sustain for the car(and me as the concentration levels go up just checking the speedo). .

Maybe further driver training is the answer, for those who struggle with their car and are unable to control its speed and glance at the speedo.

It's such a ridiculous argument.

Arcade_Tryer

As someone who generally detests the amount of cars in the city centre, 30kph seems slightly overzealous.

If it's enforced, it's going to create even more resentment among drivers when they see cyclists whizzing by! You could argue the drivers would be encouraged to ditch the car and hop on a bike, but a lot of people do genuinely need to use cars in the city centre.

Wibbs

ThisRegard wrote: »

Maybe further driver training is the answer, for those who struggle with their car and are unable to control its speed and glance at the speedo.

Ah would you go away with that supercilious nonsense. I can pretty much guarantee I've driven more miles in more types of cars and most certainly more miles in the car I referenced than you have. And not one single accident in all those years.

It's such a ridiculous argument.

Only if one doesn't have a clue about how cars, engines and gearing work at a very basic level. There is an optimum balance of revs/torque/gearing. It's why the internal combustion engined car has gears in the first place* for god's sake. Anyone with even a basic mechanical knowledge(and sympathy) knows this.

Go into fifth gear at 10kph and see what happens(unless you're running a car with monster torque). Could you with your apparently fantastic car control skills drive your car comfortably at 10Kph in top gear? No, you couldn't. The engine would be at best lugging and likely on the verge of cutting out. Could you with your apparently fantastic car control skills drive your car comfortably at 100Kph in first gear? No, you couldn't. Not without seriously stressing the engine/gearbox.

So now we've fleshed that out, what gear would be comfortable for the engine and box to run at 30kph? This will vary with different cars. This is a fact. However before this 30Kph stuff came along, manufacturers designed cars to drive comfortably and sustainably at average speed limits like 50kph/100Kph. Indeed those two speeds are how manufacturers usually measure petrol consumption in official figures for urban/extra urban driving. Until recently sustained driving at 18 miles per hour in old money wasn't on the table. Unless for hearses.

As I pointed out my car is not comfortable at driving at a sustained 30Kph. That speed lays in a no man's land between 2nd and 3rd gear and it quite simply requires more concentration to drive at that speed(I'd love you to try it. I'd sell tickets to that). And as I also said, I suspect I'd not be alone in that.



*Electric motor(or steam powered) cars don't require the same kind of gearbox as their torque is linear and present from zero RPM

TallGlass

Wibbs wrote: »

I almost never go to Dublin city centre, so have never had to drive in a 30kph limit, but the way these muppets are spreading this nonsense further out...

Well, I was in there yesterday and have to say, I don't think anyone was doing 30 and if the traffic was doing 30 it was down to the incompetence of DCC to manage traffic.

Driving at 30 makes me feel very uncomfortable and requires more effort, which is diverting my attention away from more important things like hazard awareness, so for that reason I drive somewhere in between 30/50 still.

Leroy42

Your car isn't comfortable at 30k? What does that mean? Either it is reving too high or too low but can't see a problem more than that?

I will admit I am no mechanic, but I am pretty sure I have driven my car at various speeds and haven't had anything untoward happen.

Are you sure it isn't you that is no comfortable. I would be amazed if there were actually serious mechanical issues with cars being driven at 30kph