A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

AndrewJRenko

Chips Lovell wrote: »

149 people were killed on the roads last year. For your assertion to be correct, drivers would need to be responsible for all road deaths.

Which road deaths last year didn't involve drivers killing people? I know of one such case, could have been early 2020 or late 2019, but maybe you know better?

Larbre34

yascaoimhin wrote: »

The proposed bylaw is not harsh or severe, it's mildly inconvenient for the purpose of ensuring fewer people are seriously injured or killed in built-up areas.

Honest to God, you'd swear someone was going to whip you if you got 31...
Please chill out for the love of

Accident stats on the urban roads of this City are low, very low, by any standard.

There will always be accidents and incidents, and the type of folk who do 80 in a 50 zone are just as likely to do 80 in a 30 zone. Enforcement has always been at issue.

There'll be no whips at 31 but there will be penalty points and fixed fines at 41, and thats absolute bull****.

It jeopardises people's employment, family responsibilities and financial wellbeing, especially those who can least afford it and end up in Court paying multiples of the FPN.

Whether by public pressure of this consultation or Court action, the main roads of this City, those regional and primary routes that we all use every day, will not have their limits lowered below 50km/h, thats a promise.

In fact, the very worst thing that could happen is that 30 could be introduced on those main routes, unlike any other urban area in the Country, and they are 100% ignored. Where would that leave the credibility of this City Council on any traffic matter?

There has to be consistency, appropriateness and indication of public backing to any law or byelaw in this State, or else whats the point of any?

Chips Lovell

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which road deaths last year didn't involve drivers killing people? I know of one such case, could have been early 2020 or late 2019, but maybe you know better?

There is no comprehensive record where blame is attributed for every accident. You'll have prosecutions and publicly reported inquests for a subset of fatalities. In short, the data doesn't exist to support your claim.

AndrewJRenko

Chips Lovell wrote: »

There is no comprehensive record where blame is attributed for every accident. You'll have prosecutions and publicly reported inquests for a subset of fatalities. In short, the data doesn't exist to support your claim.

I didn't mention blame or responsibility. I noted the simple statement of fact, that drivers are killing 2 or 3 people each week.

Most such deaths are drivers killing themselves, other drivers or passengers, so you'll find it hard to pin blame on anyone but motorists.

Chips Lovell

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't mention blame or responsibility. I noted the simple statement of fact, that drivers are killing 2 or 3 people each week.

You'll have to forgive me for assuming the verb "killing" inferred responsibility.

SeanW

The poster is not "inferring" anything. The phrasing makes it clear, and is designed to mislead.

CramCycle

Tea drinker wrote: »

Why wasn't the thing built correctly underground in the first place, then you have more space for all road users. There's many accidents between cyclists, pedestrians and the LUAS so it's not just a car issue. There wouldn't have even needed to be that many underground sections. The cost of consuming that road was never really subtracted from cost of putting it underground.
it sounds to me that you think your chosen transport is important to you, seems as everyone else.

The LUAS is a huge success, and building it over ground hasn't caused any major issues. The only issues with it are cars parking in yellow boxes. What they need is RLJ and traffic box cameras to issue fines. Sorry, two issues, it needs more trams, it needs to run through the night (at reduced frequency), and where possible it needs expansion. The extension out to Bray and the airport are prime examples.

ek motor wrote: »

Why not start advocating for cyclist training ? As far more vulnerable road users this should be mandated. Presently there are no controls of people who cycle. Many cyclists are completely feckless, wearing headphones whilst cycling, not looking, not signalling, breaking red lights. I cycled to work for about 4 years before getting a car. The number of cyclist has increased a lot. Time for mandatory cyclist training . Even a theory test would a start.

Why? I really can't see the issue you are trying to fix, deaths by dangerous cycling are minimal, they are barely a statistical blip. There aren't mentions once a week on the news of people being killed by errand cyclists and all this scare mongering is just that. The only thing that really needs to change are the punishments for dangerous driving and the enforcement.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Accident stats on the urban roads of this City are low, very low, by any standard.

There will always be accidents and incidents, and the type of folk who do 80 in a 50 zone are just as likely to do 80 in a 30 zone. Enforcement has always been at issue.

There'll be no whips at 31 but there will be penalty points and fixed fines at 41, and thats absolute bull****.

It jeopardises people's employment, family responsibilities and financial wellbeing, especially those who can least afford it and end up in Court paying multiples of the FPN.

Whether by public pressure of this consultation or Court action, the main roads of this City, those regional and primary routes that we all use every day, will not have their limits lowered below 50km/h, thats a promise.

In fact, the very worst thing that could happen is that 30 could be introduced on those main routes, unlike any other urban area in the Country, and they are 100% ignored. Where would that leave the credibility of this City Council on any traffic matter?

There has to be consistency, appropriateness and indication of public backing to any law or byelaw in this State, or else whats the point of any?

All of your issues here are enforcement only, I guarantee you if you start actually handing out fines to beat the band and siezing cars, compliance will sky rocket within 3 months. It doesn't jepordise anyones employment or family, only they can do that by breaking the rules. I drive a lot for work, this really wouldn't bother me at all. This whole idea that if someone loses their license for breaking the rules is the fault of someone else is ludicrous. It's as bad as those muppets who claim you can't safely drive under 30kmph. Most of the driving in Dublin CC is done at under 30kmph for about half the day.

ek motor

yascaoimhin wrote: »

What for? What would be the end goal?

Everyone who drives a car is licensed and has to pass a test to get behind a wheel but the overwhelming majority of them break the speed limit.

What difference would your mandatory test make other than to discourage new cyclists?

The overwhelming majority of the rules in the Rules of the Road were written specifically due to issues that have arisen because of motorised vehicles.

The end goal would be training to assist cyclists in becoming competent , safety-conscious road users . Similar to how drivers preparing to be tested would receive lessons.

I also believe there should be a practical test for cyclists to prove their competency , similar to how all other road users are tested.

I find it hard to believe that in every accident involving a motorist and a cyclist it was was entirely the drivers fault.

I worked as a bus driver in london years ago where a large number of cyclists died each year. Often the cause was cyclists undertaking the bus and ending up under the wheels, either being crushed to death or ending up paraplegic. Mandatory training of these cyclists to educate them on the grave danger of undertaking a bus or HGV may well have saved a few lives.

Thelonious Monk

The above would suggest we need training for people who walk too, lots of pedestrians get killed in Ireland by cars every year. Maybe they're walking incorrectly or in the wrong places.

Larbre34

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The above would suggest we need training for people who walk too, lots of pedestrians get killed in Ireland by cars every year. Maybe they're walking incorrectly or in the wrong places.

They do teach road sense for pedestrians to kids at school, remember?

There are just quite a few bellends that evidently were out that day.

Thelonious Monk

Larbre34 wrote: »

They do teach road sense for pedestrians to kids at school, remember?

There are just quite a few bellends that evidently were out that day.

So everyone in Ireland who jay walks you mean.

Alias G

cnocbui wrote: »

Less rainfall?



https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/33845~51381/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Dublin-and-Amsterdam

You haven't negated the point. It works out approx 740mm rainfall in Amsterdam per annum vs 760mm in Dublin and broadly similar climates. Ergo, Dublin is not singularly unsuitable for cycling due to adverse weather.

beauf

ek motor wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that in every accident involving a motorist and a cyclist it was was entirely the drivers fault. ...

You don't have to believe.
There a load of studies that all came to the same result.

ek motor

beauf wrote: »

You don't have to believe.
There a load of studies that all came to the same result.

I dont understand ?

AndrewJRenko

ek motor wrote: »

The end goal would be training to assist cyclists in becoming competent , safety-conscious road users . Similar to how drivers preparing to be tested would receive lessons.

I also believe there should be a practical test for cyclists to prove their competency , similar to how all other road users are tested.

I find it hard to believe that in every accident involving a motorist and a cyclist it was was entirely the drivers fault.

I worked as a bus driver in london years ago where a large number of cyclists died each year. Often the cause was cyclists undertaking the bus and ending up under the wheels, either being crushed to death or ending up paraplegic. Mandatory training of these cyclists to educate them on the grave danger of undertaking a bus or HGV may well have saved a few lives.

Any suggestions for training for SUV drivers to help them to put their phones away when driving?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/suvs-can-deliver-knock-out-punches-to-bantamweight-cars-judge-tells-court-1.4536254?mode=amp&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

AndrewJRenko

ek motor wrote: »

I dont understand ?

Research like the report mentioned here

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/cycling-collisions-should-drivers-be-held-legally-liable/8613858

or this;

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/598546231007162368

Why would you prioritise cyclists for training given their negligible relative significance in our road death and injury rates

jams100

yascaoimhin wrote: »

The proposed bylaw is not harsh or severe, it's mildly inconvenient for the purpose of ensuring fewer people are seriously injured or killed in built-up areas.

Honest to God, you'd swear someone was going to whip you if you got 31...
Please chill out for the love of

New bylaws aren't proportionate. We have one of the lowest proportion of road deaths of all countries in the EU. (Yes, I know there are other injuries too).
That's not to say that those figures can't be improved more, for example some of the segregated cycle lanes have been a good addition, for cyclists and drivers alike especially on the quays.
There are areas where 30km/h is appropriate (schools, busy streets, narrow streets etc.), generally where the 30km/h limits currently exist + a few new additions.
But, if your honestly suggesting that 30km on a straight road with a segregated cycling track (Chapelizod Road, as one example) is proportionate then your (imo) just anti car.

beauf

ek motor wrote: »

I dont understand ?

A study - a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.

beauf

jams100 wrote: »

New bylaws aren't proportionate. We have one of the lowest proportion of road deaths of all countries in the EU. (Yes, I know there are other injuries too).
That's not to say that those figures can't be improved more, for example some of the segregated cycle lanes have been a good addition, for cyclists and drivers alike especially on the quays.
There are areas where 30km/h is appropriate (schools, busy streets, narrow streets etc.), generally where the 30km/h limits currently exist + a few new additions.
But, if your honestly suggesting that 30km on a straight road with a segregated cycling track (Chapelizod Road, as one example) is proportionate then your (imo) just anti car.

They are trying to encourage people out of cars. Making its less convenient as in lowering speed limits even where there's no reason to is one way to encourage people away from that route.

yascaoimhin

Larbre34 wrote: »

It jeopardises people's employment, family responsibilities and financial wellbeing, especially those who can least afford it and end up in Court paying multiples of the FPN.

There's a simple solution. Stick to the speed limit. If you're incapable of doing so, don't drive.

I've never come across so much blatant exaggeration whenever it comes to changes to car users prioritisation on the roads. Every single time anyone suggests something that would cause someone who drives to have to alter their behaviour we hear all about the world ending reasons why they can't.

It's dull

yascaoimhin

jams100 wrote: »

But, if your honestly suggesting that 30km on a straight road with a segregated cycling track (Chapelizod Road, as one example) is proportionate then your (imo) just anti car.

Is every junction on Chaeplizod Road segregated?

AndrewJRenko

jams100 wrote: »

New bylaws aren't proportionate. We have one of the lowest proportion of road deaths of all countries in the EU. (Yes, I know there are other injuries too).

You're missing the shark infested swimming pool analogy from your analysis.

We've scared many people off our roads. We have more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling to school. Look at the difference in traffic this week vs last week, and you'll realise how many of our car journeys are school runs that could, in most cases, be easily done on foot or by bike, if parents had any reasonable degree of confidence in safety on the roads. Instead, we're setting our kids up for a lifetime of obesity, dependence, financial dependence.

CramCycle

jams100 wrote: »

New bylaws aren't proportionate. We have one of the lowest proportion of road deaths of all countries in the EU. (Yes, I know there are other injuries too).
That's not to say that those figures can't be improved more, for example some of the segregated cycle lanes have been a good addition, for cyclists and drivers alike especially on the quays.
There are areas where 30km/h is appropriate (schools, busy streets, narrow streets etc.), generally where the 30km/h limits currently exist + a few new additions.
But, if your honestly suggesting that 30km on a straight road with a segregated cycling track (Chapelizod Road, as one example) is proportionate then your (imo) just anti car.

Mortality is not a good metric but it is the one everyone is hung up on. Ask people why they don't cycle and you get a multitude of answers but ask a parent why they don't encourage their kids too and it is rare that the answer isn't, it is too dangerous. Why is it too dangerous? Cars driving too fast or on their phone and so on. What should we do about it? enforce speed limits? fine dangerous drivers? start popping motorists for phone usage and red light running? No, lets just ignore that. Its the same sh1t that happened when drink driving was rampant, and until they start popping people regularly and make it socially unacceptable. Christ of almighty, half the drivers on the N11 use their phones, a huge proportion run red lights and when it is clear enough many speed. Not to mention the bus lane usage by private vehicles is back to high levels from today. You will have people harping on "but no one died". No on died because most kids going to school don't cross the road when it is a green man, f*ck me the two lollipop people near Stillorgan have people drive through them daily. The traffic lights near my house, for crossing to the national school, you are lucky to get across on a green man because so many people run the red light. Ask anyone though and the answer is always, well no one has died. Coming through Shankill a few months back and a van went sraight through a red as a pram was being pushed out, what struck me was that it was the same spot a young kid died. So while not many die, some do but it doesn't actually seem to do anything because people are hung up on a speed limit that will make f*ck all difference.

Duckjob

Larbre34 wrote: »

If enacted as proposed, Dublin's residents, as well as visitors and commercial drivers will be subjected to wholly unnecessary and unfair limits on main routes, which will relieve them both of their hard earned money and eventually of their driving licences, which in some cases will remove their livelihood.

If only there was a simple, and some might say blindingly obvious way for people to avoid being relieved of their hard earned money and to protect their driving licences and their livelihoods..

Larbre34

Duckjob wrote: »

If only there was a simple, and some might say blindingly obvious way for people to avoid being relieved of their hard earned money and to protect their driving licences and their livelihoods..

There is of course, but 30 kph is neither practical nor appropriate for the main routes concerned. It won't be adhered to. And for that reason, either the 30 limit won't come in on main routes, or it will come in and will be removed very soon thereafter again due to lack of adherence. Another expensive public service experiment gone wrong is all it will be.

SeanW

Duckjob wrote: »

If only there was a simple, and some might say blindingly obvious way for people to avoid being relieved of their hard earned money and to protect their driving licences and their livelihoods..

They have exactly that in the People's Republic of China. The country is literally a totalitarian police state, with mass surveillance of everyone at all times in every aspect of life, and bad driving is one of things that can affect not only a citizen's "Social credit score" but also those of all their friends.

Yet more than 1/4 million people die as a result of traffic related collisions every year as opposed to 149 in Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Which would you prefer?

jams100

CramCycle wrote: »

Mortality is not a good metric but it is the one everyone is hung up on. Ask people why they don't cycle and you get a multitude of answers but ask a parent why they don't encourage their kids too and it is rare that the answer isn't, it is too dangerous. Why is it too dangerous? Cars driving too fast or on their phone and so on. What should we do about it? enforce speed limits? fine dangerous drivers? start popping motorists for phone usage and red light running? No, lets just ignore that. Its the same sh1t that happened when drink driving was rampant, and until they start popping people regularly and make it socially unacceptable. Christ of almighty, half the drivers on the N11 use their phones, a huge proportion run red lights and when it is clear enough many speed. Not to mention the bus lane usage by private vehicles is back to high levels from today. You will have people harping on "but no one died". No on died because most kids going to school don't cross the road when it is a green man, f*ck me the two lollipop people near Stillorgan have people drive through them daily. The traffic lights near my house, for crossing to the national school, you are lucky to get across on a green man because so many people run the red light. Ask anyone though and the answer is always, well no one has died. Coming through Shankill a few months back and a van went sraight through a red as a pram was being pushed out, what struck me was that it was the same spot a young kid died. So while not many die, some do but it doesn't actually seem to do anything because people are hung up on a speed limit that will make f*ck all difference.

I agree with everything you said until the last line...and as you said there's a decent proportion of people who don't obey current speed limits so why introduce lower limits rather than policing what's already there?
I never said deaths was a particularly good metric but its a metric that can be more easily used to compare road safety in a "general sense" to other countries.
I'd be happy if the current speed limits were enforced more as I basically never speed, but there's no way I could drive down a straight road with a segregated cycle lane at the same speed as a bike and anyone who suggests otherwise is talking out of their...

AndrewJRenko

jams100 wrote: »

I agree with everything you said until the last line...and as you said there's a decent proportion of people who don't obey current speed limits so why introduce lower limits rather than policing what's already there?
I never said deaths was a particularly good metric but its a metric that can be more easily used to compare road safety in a "general sense" to other countries.
I'd be happy if the current speed limits were enforced more as I basically never speed, but there's no way I could drive down a straight road with a segregated cycle lane at the same speed as a bike and anyone who suggests otherwise is talking out of their...

How do you manage to drive around car parks?

ek motor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Research like the report mentioned here

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/cycling-collisions-should-drivers-be-held-legally-liable/8613858

or this;

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/598546231007162368

Why would you prioritise cyclists for training given their negligible relative significance in our road death and injury rates

Two cherry picked studies. Not a refutation of my point either .

I'm advocating for cyclists being treated like grown ups. Prove your competence to be on the road by passing the necessary testing criteria, both theory and practical. Wear the L or R plates while training to alert other road users that you're either learning or a novice cyclist . Absolutely no reason all road users shouldn't be treated equally.

AndrewJRenko

ek motor wrote: »

Absolutely no reason all road users shouldn't be treated equally.

Interesting idea - you have a tachograph on your car right? And you've done your mandatory one day CPD training this year, right?

Because if all road users are to be treated equally, then the requirements for HGV drivers will apply to all car drivers.

Btw, the reason why all road users shouldn't be treated equally is because the risk and danger of a 10-20kg bike doing 10-30 kmph is a long way off equal to the risk and danger of a 1-4 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph. This is clearly obvious from the data showing that drivers kill 2 or 3 people each week while cyclists kill 1 person each decade.