A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

gctest50

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting idea - you have a tachograph on your car right? ........

That should be brought in, it would make the biggest improvement

Start with those drivers who have ploughed into a pedeatrian, cyclist or another car

ek motor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I can certainly see an argument in favour of one day per year mandatory training for all road users , cars and cyclists included.

The point still stands , cyclists are the only road users who are not mandated to prove even the most basic level of competence . Not even required to prove they have decent enough eyesight to be a safe road user. Its astonishing how little regulation there is of cyclists.

PeadarCo

ek motor wrote: »

I can certainly see an argument in favour of one day per year mandatory training for all road users , cars and cyclists included.

The point still stands , cyclists are the only road users who are not mandated to prove even the most basic level of competence . Not even required to prove they have decent enough eyesight to be a safe road user. Its astonishing how little regulation there is of cyclists.

Why is it astonishing?


Bikes are not the only road users that have to prove competence, pedestrians are in the exact same situation.


Why do cyclists and pedestrians not have to take any tests? Its simple phyics. Pedestrians and cyclists weigh very little and as a result do relatively little damage when the fall/crash. Also if they fall/crash they are very likely to end up injured or worse. For example the last death in a pedestrain cyclist collision was the unfortunate cyclist.


Cars and motor vehicles in general weigh a large amount and can go relatively quickly and can cause massive damage in collisions which the passengers of the vehicle are more protected from. An extreme example of this can be seen in how cars have been used in terrorist incidents to kill people. Bikes thankfully cannot be repurposed to the same effect. Given the very potenial dangers associated with large motorised vehicles its natural that there would be some sort of licencing system for them specifically.



The 30km/hr speed limit even if enforced will make very little difference in Dublin to journey times. With all the traffic lights most journeys within Dublin city have an average speed slower than that if there is any sort of traffic never mind rush hour.

yascaoimhin

SeanW wrote: »

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?

Jesus Christ... It's a slightly lower speed limit. I'm literally begging you to cop on

AndrewJRenko

ek motor wrote: »

I can certainly see an argument in favour of one day per year mandatory training for all road users , cars and cyclists included.

The point still stands , cyclists are the only road users who are not mandated to prove even the most basic level of competence . Not even required to prove they have decent enough eyesight to be a safe road user. Its astonishing how little regulation there is of cyclists.

I'm confused now - are you still saying that there is "absolutely no reason all road users shouldn't be treated equally"? Or are you accepting that there are good reasons to have different laws for different types of road users depending on the risk and danger involved?

You can't have it both ways.

jams100

yascaoimhin wrote: »

Jesus Christ... It's a slightly lower speed limit. I'm literally begging you to cop on

It's a 20 - 50% reduction actually (with the majority being a 40% reduction). At the risk of sounding pedantic it's a bit more than a "slight" reduction.

ek motor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm confused now - are you still saying that there is "absolutely no reason all road users shouldn't be treated equally"? Or are you accepting that there are good reasons to have different laws for different types of road users depending on the risk and danger involved?

You can't have it both ways.

You referenced HGVs and tachographs in your previous post. What do car drivers , HGV drivers, and Bus drivers have in common ? They have all proven a minimum level of competence at both theory and practical level . I'm advocating that cyclists face this same prerequisite to be allowed on the road. Makes perfect sense they undergo training to a required standard , particularly given their inherent vulnerability.

SeanW

yascaoimhin wrote: »

Jesus Christ... It's a slightly lower speed limit. I'm literally begging you to cop on

Firstly, the reduction is not "slightly lower." It is quite radical, especially on peripheral, suburban arterial routes. Dare I say it, in some cases, disproportionate.

And there is a common view promoted by some here - mostly cyclists - that Ireland could be some mythical utopia where there are no road fatalities ever, if there were extreme laws and extreme levels of enforcement. Yet in countries that have such laws and enforcement, road fatality levels are actually higher than Ireland.

CramCycle

ek motor wrote: »

You referenced HGVs and tachographs in your previous post. What do car drivers , HGV drivers, and Bus drivers have in common ? They have all proven a minimum level of competence at both theory and practical level . I'm advocating that cyclists face this same prerequisite to be allowed on the road. Makes perfect sense they undergo training to a required standard , particularly given their inherent vulnerability.

I almost sh1t myself laughing. Really, that's your view. That is so far detached from reality it is incredible. What it shows is that for one day, for less than an hour, they managed to follow directions. Absolutely nothing else. I done the same in my LC German exam, do you think that makes me competent in German 20+ years late, does it f*ck.

Most of the skills i learned for driving I learned from my father, very few of them were applicable in the test, most of them are ignored daily by other motorised road users.

As for my cycling, I learned from about the age of 3 from observance, funnily enough, as a vulnerable road user, I didn't need a test or training to quickly learn what stupid sh1t I shouldn't do.

I agree with you though, just to turn this on its head, I mean once we sort out all motorised traffic with the far greater potential to do damage and the number of injuries and fatalities plummets to a level that is either a statistical blip or lower than that caused by either pedestrians or cyclists, then we should go after cyclists. Focus on the big thing first, then go after the little things. But until the death and injury rates caused by pedestrians is a major concern, then it is not where we should funnel money for improvements.

Larbre34

yascaoimhin wrote: »

Jesus Christ... It's a slightly lower speed limit. I'm literally begging you to cop on

Nothing slight about it.

Probably time you considered copping on to reality.

beauf

jams100 wrote: »

I ...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...

Generally it's quicker on a bike across town than in a car. So you've most probably already been driving at the same speed or slower than bicycles on the same route.

beauf

ek motor wrote: »

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

So L drivers and cyclists should be allowed on motorways. Same speed limits for buses and trucks and cars on motorways. Cyclists can cycle center lane as long as they want. Etc....

beauf

ek motor wrote: »

You referenced HGVs and tachographs in your previous post. What do car drivers , HGV drivers, and Bus drivers have in common ? They have all proven a minimum level of competence at both theory and practical level . I'm advocating that cyclists face this same prerequisite to be allowed on the road. Makes perfect sense they undergo training to a required standard , particularly given their inherent vulnerability.

Let's do that...and at the same time widen the 30 zone.

AndrewJRenko

ek motor wrote: »

You referenced HGVs and tachographs in your previous post. What do car drivers , HGV drivers, and Bus drivers have in common ? They have all proven a minimum level of competence at both theory and practical level . I'm advocating that cyclists face this same prerequisite to be allowed on the road. Makes perfect sense they undergo training to a required standard , particularly given their inherent vulnerability.

So you've moved on from your "absolutely no reason all road users shouldn't be treated equally" position now, correct?

What all those groups have in common, along with motorcyclists, is a heavy vehicle doing heavy speed.

Grassey

ek motor wrote:

The point still stands , cyclists are the only road users who are not mandated to prove even the most basic level of competence . Not even required to prove they have decent enough eyesight to be a safe road user. Its astonishing how little regulation there is of cyclists.

Won't someone think of the poor horses!

Beta Ray Bill

Admins

Can we get a sticky to the public consultation on the DCC website added to the first post on this thread? (Along with a note in the thread title)

The link is this:
https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/30km-h-survey/consultation/intro/

For what its worth I think it, and the 40km/h M50 speed limit proposed by the Greens to be a poor idea.
I think 15km/h in housing estates and 50km/h or 60km/h everywhere else.

Larbre34

15 km/h?

Would you ever have a word with yourself. Side roads an estates at 30 are absolutely fine.

The sheer concentration required to keep a modern vehicle with high torque at 15 (9 mph!) would be far more a distraction for drivers from the road in front of them than the benefit of such a funereal speed.

AndrewJRenko

Larbre34 wrote: »

15 km/h?

Would you ever have a word with yourself. Side roads an estates at 30 are absolutely fine.

The sheer concentration required to keep a modern vehicle with high torque at 15 (9 mph!) would be far more a distraction for drivers from the road in front of them than the benefit of such a funereal speed.

Do you find this "sheer concentration" to be challenging when you are driving around car parks?

Dick Turnip

SeanW wrote: »

there is a common view promoted by some here - mostly cyclists - that Ireland could be some mythical utopia where there are no road fatalities ever, if there were extreme laws and extreme levels of enforcement. Yet in countries that have such laws and enforcement, road fatality levels are actually higher than Ireland.

Show me one person here saying Ireland could be some mythical utopia with no road fatalities ever. Again though, much like any statistic you need to get in to the detail on it to see what it's telling you.

In 2018, Netherlands had 228 cyclist deaths on a population of ~17M. In the same year there were 9 cyclist fatalities in Ireland out of a population of ~5M. Looking at that, one would think Netherlands must be a dystopian hellhole for cyclists right? But this shows how ridiculous using a metric like deaths alone as is being done here is.

Ireland only 7% of people cycle once a week or more (https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nts/nationaltravelsurvey2019/cycling/)

Netherlands - 25% of ALL journeys are made by bike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

But aside from that, encouraging more people to cycle and on to public transport is better for drivers too. More people on bikes and buses and trams, means less on the road.

In order to do that though, we need to make the city safer to cycle and walk around.

We also need to prioritise PT over general traffic so that a bus isn't stuck in traffic along with the rest, or a luas isn't stopped at a junction for 5 mins in order to give the general traffic priority.

Here's a study on traffic congestion on cities and towns around the world. If you filter by Ireland, Netherlands & Denmark, guess what happens...the 3 Irish cities studied take the top 3 places for most congested. I can only imagine how high Galway would rank if it was included!

Having better and safer cycling infrastructure encourages more people to cycle but also have the added benefit to make the car journey better for those that need or want to drive still.

https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/ranking/?country=DK,IE,NL

Just think of how crazy traffic gets the week the schools reopen vs how they are on holidays for example. You cannot tell me that those school trips are necessary in the vast majority of cases. The only valid reason for most is that they won't let kids cycle to school, because the roads are too dangerous for them. We need to change that.

Dick Turnip

ek motor wrote: »

The point still stands , cyclists are the only road users who are not mandated to prove even the most basic level of competence . Not even required to prove they have decent enough eyesight to be a safe road user. Its astonishing how little regulation there is of cyclists.

Pedestrians are road users too, you can legally walk along a road that isn't a motorway. Do you think that pedestrians should have to prove competence to use the road too?

Dick Turnip

Also, for what it's worth, I do think the 30KPH within the canals should be enforced. Outside of that, a blanket 30KPM for the rest of the area under DCC, I'm not 100% on.

However, some people pulling Conyngham Rd as an example saying it's completely unenforceable to have as 30KPH. I get what the poster is saying in such an example. Perhaps a blanket 30KPH apart from a few well marked designated roads that would be 50KPH could be a solution.

Beta Ray Bill

Larbre34 wrote: »

15 km/h?

Would you ever have a word with yourself. Side roads an estates at 30 are absolutely fine.

The sheer concentration required to keep a modern vehicle with high torque at 15 (9 mph!) would be far more a distraction for drivers from the road in front of them than the benefit of such a funereal speed.

Just small children running out from behind parked cars etc, and having no time to react.

It's a housing estate so realistically should only account for the beginning and end of your journey ya know? So it isn't really a a big deal. (An extra 30 seconds on each end)

ek motor

Dick Turnip wrote: »

Pedestrians are road users too, you can legally walk along a road that isn't a motorway. Do you think that pedestrians should have to prove competence to use the road too?

No ,for all drivers of vehicles with a minimum of one wheel.

AndrewJRenko

ek motor wrote: »

No ,for all drivers of vehicles with a minimum of one wheel.

That "absolutely no reason all road users shouldn't be treated equally" isn't really holding up for you, is it?

Why would you think that training for cyclists is a priority issue in the light of the current death and serious injury statistics?

Chips Lovell

"Minimum of one wheel" is a rather arbitrary qualification. Surely it should be based on the ability to cause damage. Horse riders could deal out more damage than a cyclist or pedestrian. Also you're faced with giving small children theory and practical tests, which is kind of ridiculous.

Larbre34

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Just small children running out from behind parked cars etc, and having no time to react.

I assumed thats what you meant.

My biggest concern however, is that extreme measures like that give some false sense of security to residents and guardians of children when it comes to road safety.

The fact is, even if I'm doing 15 km/h and, say, a toddler emerges from between two parked cars right as I pass by and my car impacts their skull before I'm even aware they are there, they will still likely be killed.

My concern is, people in charge of kids might become more lax about watching the movement of them, if they believe there is next to no danger. I'd much rather they took the attitude that vehicles are likely to pass by at 100 km/h and act accordingly.

There will always be accidents unfortunately, its in the nature of things. Fortunately the current stats are extremely low for Dublin as a whole, even with the speed limits we have now.

Thankfully too, the Road Traffic legislation for the Country as a whole does not provide for a 15 km/h limit so its impossible to enact one on a public road, as any limit must credibility and be appropriate.

Thats why I believe a default urban speed limit of 50 km/h, with special limits of 30 km/h for those residential streets and narrow congested or poorly sighted areas, including school zones, are absolutely appropriate to continue with.

Thelonious Monk

I would be looking at why parents need to be concerned about their kids playing on the streets. It says to me there are far too many cars around and things like low traffic neighbourhoods and one way streets are required in housing estates. Where I grew up the roads would always be full of kids playing football and squares. Now everything is just covered in cars. That's not good for society.

Dick Turnip

Larbre34 wrote: »

The fact is, even if I'm doing 15 km/h and, say, a toddler emerges from between two parked cars right as I pass by and my car impacts their skull before I'm even aware they are there, they will still likely be killed.

My concern is, people in charge of kids might become more lax about watching the movement of them, if they believe there is next to no danger. I'd much rather they took the attitude that vehicles are likely to pass by at 100 km/h and act accordingly.

Ah come on...I STRONGLY disagree with your stance on the Sandymount cycle lane, but I can understand frustration or some opposition to a blanket 30KPH limit across the city.

This is a crazy line of thinking though. You chose one very particular example (where there's zero time to react regardless of speed) and just disregard anything else. As an example, the braking distance between a car at 20mph & one at 40mph is 78ft (40 vs 118). That's a lot of distance in a place like a housing estate and very much can make the difference.

Phuket, let's use your logic and just increase the speed limit in housing estates to 100kph just so the kids & parents really know there's a danger there! Maybe we could add blades to the edge of the kerb so that the kids really know to stay away from the road, because you know, once they cross that rubicon there's nothing anyone can control.

Surely, the best would be for kids to feel safe outside their homes and in estates and for the safety to be actually real?

Larbre34

At the end of the day lads, they are still streets, not playing fields. Lets deal with the reality on the ground, not some utterly unachievable nostalgic scenario.

I don't mind older kids from 8 or 9 upwards taking chances playing a bit of ball or cycling around on residential roads, they see you and you see them and act accordingly, but when it comes to envisaging a playground for smallies, its just irresponsible. Safety cannot be assured and there must be no soft confidence suggested about it.

Thelonious Monk

They were playing fields until quite recently. Now everyone drives everywhere when they dont need to and it has made the streets dangerous.