A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

Chips Lovell

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

This is a pretty perverse way of thinking. The reason parents want low speed limits is not so that they can become lax about watching their kids, it's because in the rare cases when your kid breaks free, or ignores you, your attention is momentarily distracted by one of your other kids acting up, you want to minimise the risk of their being killed.

Dick Turnip

There's nothing nostalgic about it but if you want to talk about days gone past - streets were built long before cars. So many streets were not built for modern traffic in mind, yet that's exactly who gets priority. Look at Merrion Row off Stephens Green as an example. The footpaths are around 2ft wide on a street with very heavy footfall and yet there's two lanes of traffic going one way given all the space. It's a mindset replicated all across the city and country, and now that there's a small bit of action to address the balance a bit more fairly, people get up in arms about any bit of inconvenience put upon them, even if the changes will benefit greater numbers of people.

I'd wager those are the exact ages of kids that people here are thinking of when calling for low speed limits in housing estates and residential streets. People don't think a toddler fresh out of nappies should be given free reign of the road.

I'm not saying all roads with houses be reduced to 15kph. You just have a strong fixation of giving priority to the people in cars above all others. I don't get it.

begbysback

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Been doing the 100 days of walking since Jan 1. Loved it so much I'm now in day 103 . 5km plus at 7am before I sit at my desk for a days work.

Anyway my own anecdotal evidence that in 100 days of walking at 7am, only one day did I need full rain gear on i.e. leggings. Other days it rained a little.

Dublin is amazingly dry an a perfect city for walking and cycling. The bad weather thing is a pure myth.

A few days of dry weather and now we’re lanzarote :rolleyes:

Lockheed

I don't know if anyone saw the video of the guy being pushed off his bike in the Wicklow Mountains earlier but that is exactly the reason why we need a 30k limit. Cyclists are terrified to share the road with motorists. Even that poor fella that went out in the country thinking he'd avoid the beeps and jeers and close passes you get when cycling in the city got unfairly attacked by a motorist. It's time we remove the priority given to motor traffic which is so instilled into our culture (which doesn't even make any sense, we don't have a motor industry to support.)

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

For someone who is usually quite articulate and good at making their point, the above is such a load of toss! :rolleyes:
You are effectively saying that because a kid might be killed at 15km/h there is no point in making drivers slow down to that speed.
I'm not sure I'd make the call for such a low speed (I'd rather a strictly enforced 30km/h limit was in place) but to suggest what you are suggesting is off the wall!

PeadarCo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

For someone who is usually quite articulate and good at making their point, the above is such a load of toss! :rolleyes:
You are effectively saying that because a kid might be killed at 15km/h there is no point in making drivers slow down to that speed.
I'm not sure I'd make the call for such a low speed (I'd rather a strictly enforced 30km/h limit was in place) but to suggest what you are suggesting is off the wall!

The biggest point is that the 30km/hr speed limit even if enforced would make very little difference to journey times. At most points during the day you will struggle to average 30km/hr as it is in Dublin. All the speed limit will do is to limit the max speed a car can go for a few seconds between traffic lights where it'll inevitably have to stop.

Patrick2010

PeadarCo wrote: »

The biggest point is that the 30km/hr speed limit even if enforced would make very little difference to journey times. At most points during the day you will struggle to average 30km/hr as it is in Dublin. All the speed limit will do is to limit the max speed a car can go for a few seconds between traffic lights where it'll inevitably have to stop.

The only places you can only do 30 Km/hr in Dublin is around the city centre and certain housing estates. For most of the city 50 km/hr would be what people drive at.

Seth Brundle

PeadarCo wrote: »

The biggest point is that the 30km/hr speed limit even if enforced would make very little difference to journey times. At most points during the day you will struggle to average 30km/hr as it is in Dublin. All the speed limit will do is to limit the max speed a car can go for a few seconds between traffic lights where it'll inevitably have to stop.

Yes but I used the word enforced. A proper level of enforcement will make drivers slow down. We saw it when penalty points first came out. When people realised after a number of months that there was no enforcement then they were back to their usual (myself included if I'm to be honest).

jams100

Lockheed wrote: »

I don't know if anyone saw the video of the guy being pushed off his bike in the Wicklow Mountains earlier but that is exactly the reason why we need a 30k limit. Cyclists are terrified to share the road with motorists. Even that poor fella that went out in the country thinking he'd avoid the beeps and jeers and close passes you get when cycling in the city got unfairly attacked by a motorist. It's time we remove the priority given to motor traffic which is so instilled into our culture (which doesn't even make any sense, we don't have a motor industry to support.)

Your probably looking for a different thread haha...WTF Difference does that make to a 30km/h or 50km/h speed limit???
If some s***bags are going to do something like like that then a speed limit will make f**k all difference.

So if someone punches someone to death in the city should we all have to walk around with our hands tied up to prevent something similar happening in the future?

beauf

They should also not plan estates with main feeder routes through them and not enough parking so everyone parks roadside.

PeadarCo

Patrick2010 wrote: »

The only places you can only do 30 Km/hr in Dublin is around the city centre and certain housing estates. For most of the city 50 km/hr would be what people drive at.

The word is average. Yes you might be able to get up to 50 plus km/hr for a few seconds/minute or two but you are back down to 0 once you hit a traffic light. So if( I know that's a big if) the 30km/hr was enforced it would make very little difference to travel times and at busy times of the day no difference. At the moment as it is its not unusual for bikes to have quicker journey times than cars especially through areas with more traffic lights due to bike lanes.

cnocbui

What is it with this rush hour being the only meaningful metric? Don't people go anywhere at any other time? Most times I have been in Dublin have thankfully not been rush hour and 50kph would have bee readily achievable.

Congestion at non-rush hour times would increase substantially due to lower system throughput.

Tea drinker

Lockheed wrote: »

I don't know if anyone saw the video of the guy being pushed off his bike in the Wicklow Mountains earlier but that is exactly the reason why we need a 30k limit. Cyclists are terrified to share the road with motorists. Even that poor fella that went out in the country thinking he'd avoid the beeps and jeers and close passes you get when cycling in the city got unfairly attacked by a motorist. It's time we remove the priority given to motor traffic which is so instilled into our culture (which doesn't even make any sense, we don't have a motor industry to support.)

i didn't see it so can't comment to it, maybe you could link it here or PM ? but i do accept there's a lot of poor behaviour by motorists to the extent that i wouldn't cycle in Dublin.
Seth mentions enforcement of laws around speeding, shouldn't enforcing the existing laws around overtaking bikes be enforced as a first step?
better bike lanes, take bikes and motor traffic away from one another where possible? Greenways are a great idea as I enjoy the nature, and it looks there will be a greenway extending most of the way to my work... so maybe I will buy a bike and cycle in Dublin after all.

But your second point framing things as priority for motorists... well they should have priority in some cases (as any road user) but obviously I didn't get your point, can you expand

Dick Turnip

Tea drinker wrote: »

But your second point framing things as priority for motorists... well they should have priority in some cases (as any road user) but obviously I didn't get your point, can you expand

An example of priority for motorists, that may not appear so blatant at first look, is the sequencing of traffic lights and the heavy priority given to keeping motorists moving above all else.

There are numerous junctions where there will be a few rotations of red/green lights for motorists before there will be a green light given to pedestrians, and then usually for no more than 10 seconds - two junctions of the top of my head that are very bad for wait times as a pedestrian are the junction of Grand Canal Street and Clanwilliam Place and also the junction of Leeson St & Wilton Terrace.

Sometimes you might be waiting close to 5 minutes before getting a green light to cross as a pedestrian.

Another example is the lack of junctions/crossroads where there are ped. crossings on all 4 sides. Some that have 4 crossings, will never have a sequence of lights where all traffic has a red and all 4 pedestrians lights are green, allowing someone to cross the junction diagonally (if that makes sense!).

It's things like that, where it's not a question of taking road space away, the motorists still have priority but just making things a bit more equitable.

This is in Galway but highlights it in the extreme. Person waiting 12 minutes for a green light to cross.
https://twitter.com/josephmcginley/status/1373922133030625280

Lockheed

Tea drinker wrote: »

i didn't see it so can't comment to it, maybe you could link it here or PM ? but i do accept there's a lot of poor behaviour by motorists to the extent that i wouldn't cycle in Dublin.
Seth mentions enforcement of laws around speeding, shouldn't enforcing the existing laws around overtaking bikes be enforced as a first step?
better bike lanes, take bikes and motor traffic away from one another where possible? Greenways are a great idea as I enjoy the nature, and it looks there will be a greenway extending most of the way to my work... so maybe I will buy a bike and cycle in Dublin after all.

But your second point framing things as priority for motorists... well they should have priority in some cases (as any road user) but obviously I didn't get your point, can you expand

Countries like Germany and the USA invest hugely in road infastructure because they have huge motor industries (GM, Mercedes, Volkswagen etc). Ireland has no motor industry to support so it really makes no sense how much street space and investment is used here for private motor vehicles. Things like the M3 being built instead of the rail line to Navan, or god forbid both - ridiculous project only made to line the pockets of a private interest.

We have the only city in Europe without a decent enjoyable public square - something that would hugely benefit local businesses. Cars don't shop, people do, and thats why they should always be the priority. Pedestrian crossings etc are very unfriendly here.

Here's the video in question of cyclist being attacked
https://twitter.com/i/status/1382311718274142210

Lockheed

jams100 wrote: »

Your probably looking for a different thread haha...WTF Difference does that make to a 30km/h or 50km/h speed limit???
If some s***bags are going to do something like like that then a speed limit will make f**k all difference.

So if someone punches someone to death in the city should we all have to walk around with our hands tied up to prevent something similar happening in the future?

I think it proves my point how the vast majority of drivers have the least regard for cyclists, pedestrians and anyone else that gets in their way.

It's constant microaggressions and impatience, beeping, revving and inconsiderate overtaking that culminates in serious injury for the one that's not in a 2 ton death machine on wheels. What difference will 20km/h make to your journey time? Is your ease of getting where you need to go by private vehicle worth some other poor bastard's life?

Larbre34

The accident stats say you're talking absolute nonsense Lockheed.

Also, to suggest a correlation between the argument for a 30 km/h urban limit and a premeditated assault perpetrated by some sick bastards that took place on a random rural road, is off the scale of wrong and disingenuous.

cnocbui

Lockheed wrote: »

I think it proves my point how the vast majority of drivers have the least regard for cyclists, pedestrians and anyone else that gets in their way.

It's constant microaggressions and impatience, beeping, revving and inconsiderate overtaking that culminates in serious injury for the one that's not in a 2 ton death machine on wheels. What difference will 20km/h make to your journey time? Is your ease of getting where you need to go by private vehicle worth some other poor bastard's life?

Could you please spare us the usual emotive Irish tripe of think of the children or think of the dead and wounded. Fatal accidents are exceedingly rare. For Ireland. I believe the figure is somwhere around one death per 300 million killometers travelled. It's a very low number and it's been achieved at existing speeds, this bollocks about people's journey times taking longer to save precious lives is precious nonsense.

I have been driving vehicles at prevailing speeds for 40 years and havent come close to killing anyone or causing an injury. Your guff about it being inconsiderate of people to not want to go 20 kph slower to protect or benefit other road users is just risible nonsense.

riclad

it might make sense if it was 30mph between 8am and 7pm,
monday to friday.
it wont have much effect on accident rates,
it might cause more pollution as cars will be going at 30mph on empty roads at 8pm, journey times will be longer.
it wont make much difference as anywhere near the city centre you,d be lucky to go 30mph before you have to stop at traffic lights between 8am-7pm.
imagine getting a ticket on an empty road driving at 9pm.
Apart from sunday when most offices are closed.
you cant pass laws based on the behavior of one bad driver .
there has to some logic and balance as to how most people will react
and is there any benefit to society or the environment.
i think most accidents are caused by careless drivers or maybe people driving over the limit.eg drink driving.
or maybe getting distracted by phone calls.
this law makes no sense to me at all.
maybe its to generate extra revenue

AndrewJRenko

riclad wrote: »

it might make sense if it was 30mph between 8am and 7pm,
monday to friday.
it wont have much effect on accident rates,
it might cause more pollution as cars will be going at 30mph on empty roads at 8pm, journey times will be longer.
it wont make much difference as anywhere near the city centre you,d be lucky to go 30mph before you have to stop at traffic lights between 8am-7pm.
imagine getting a ticket on an empty road driving at 9pm.
Apart from sunday when most offices are closed.
you cant pass laws based on the behavior of one bad driver .
there has to some logic and balance as to how most people will react
and is there any benefit to society or the environment.
i think most accidents are caused by careless drivers or maybe people driving over the limit.eg drink driving.
or maybe getting distracted by phone calls.
this law makes no sense to me at all.
maybe its to generate extra revenue

Interesting to see how many people have sudden interest in pollution levels when it comes to this issue.

CramCycle

I am being openly facetious here but I would love if there was a law whereby if you stated you were unfit to drive, your license could be taken off you and your car seized. And this was all just a fishing for idiots exercise. People saying they can't drive below 30kmph because their car can't handle it, seized. Claiming that a speed limit is dangerous because they would have to not look at the road and focus on their speedo, seized. If nothing else, this thread and others like it have really made it crystal clear that there are a number of drivers who clearly aren't competent to be behind the wheel.

Hamsterchops

Approximates.

20 km/h = 12 mph
30 km/h = 18 mph

40 km/h = 25 mph
50 km/h = 30 mph

dmakc

The people categorizing all drivers as one for the clowns pushing the cyclist in Wicklow need to get off boards and go out for some fresh air.

The world isn't out to get you.

Grassey

dmakc wrote:

The people categorizing all drivers as one for the clowns pushing the cyclist in Wicklow need to get off boards and go out for some fresh air.

Sure isn't that the other side of the coin for "all cyclists need training/highvis/insurance/registration/get off the road because this one time somebody spotted one do something"

I thought lumping everyone into a singular category based on transport mode and actions of outliers was how we decided transport strategy and laws

Seth Brundle

dmakc wrote: »

The people categorizing all drivers as one for the clowns pushing the cyclist in Wicklow need to get off boards and go out for some fresh air.

The world isn't out to get you.

I'm not sure who posted it but I assume it doesn't require such a defensive post from yourself.
Whilst I acknowledge your point that categorising all drivers as one is unfair, how would you categorise them when it comes to road safety? I take it for granted that you categorise all cyclists together.

To address your snide comment about people getting out for air and how he world isn't out to get us (and bringing the thread back on topic), the reality is that many people do not feel the roads are safe enough to cycle on.
This is why so few children cycle to school.
Why don't more adults cycle to work? To the shops? etc.
In a country that has an obesity problem there is a need for more people to engage in active travel and other forms of exercise. Instead we are happy to engage in a car dependent culture which, for decades, has contributed to urban sprawl and therefore higher property prices.
Our car based culture has become extremely protective of the control it has managed to take over the years. Towns and cities have been designed around keeping cars moving. Anyone other than a driver has been put into second place.

This culture has prevailed so much that, there is a belief that anyone not in a car shouldn't be on the roads. This in turn has led to drivers being protective of what they percieve as their space - in general, when a driver comes up behind a cyclist they will only tolerate it for a moment before they want to pass. Agressive overtaking, blasting of the horn, etc have become incredibly common. Pointless overtaking where absolutely no thought is given for the vulnerable road user is common e.g. https://streamable.com/60jq90 (language NSFW)
I've loads of these unfortunately, many of which I've given to the gardai. None of which are my doing. This fella either saw my and didn't give a crap or didn't look and so didn't give a crap: https://streamable.com/l7p0g7 (language NSFW)

The roads are for everyone, not just those who currently use them. The proposed speed limits will make it less likely for someone to be involved in an incident. If there is an incident, then the damage will be less. This is better for everyone. This is safer for everyone.

Stovepipe

Most European countries have speed limits in urban areas as low as 30 kph already and have done so for years. America has had a speed limit of 25 mph in school zones for decades and the cops rigorously enforce it. What most EU countries have,and we are slowly coming around to it, is intelligent speed limits that are designed to empty the cities and towns of all vehicles to prevent the types of traffic jams that are so prevalent on the M50.

Pinch Flat

Non adherence to speed limits is such an issue here. I find driving at the speed limit in almost any situation without being tailgated or aggressively overtaken a real issue. Unwritten rule is that speed limits can be comfortably exceeded by 30 - 50%. So 50 kph becomes 65 mph, 80kph becomes 100 kph etc. My local road is 60 kph limit and has one of those radar readouts. 80 kph plus is normal. 110kph not unusual. Likewise another area is 50 kph. 85 kph was the last speeding motorist I can recall.

So because speeding is so common place and normalised, it's going to be a real struggle for people to conceptualize 30kph. It's common place in Europe and people generally adhere to it - more a sense of personal responsibility but also ts socialoy unacceptable and enforcement is taken seriously.

_Kaiser_

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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

I think this is actually the issue here

Some people who've decided what others "need" to or should do or not, and are using "think of the children" as a rallying cry to gather support.

It's good ole Irish begrudgery and curtain twitching, driven by social media hysteria which is at ridiculous levels nowadays.

I find it hugely bemusing how "we" have decided in the last 10/15 years that everything that was perfectly normal and accepted beforehand is now somehow wrong and needs to be changed :rolleyes:

Thelonious Monk

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think this is actually the issue here

Some people who've decided what others "need" to or should do or not, and are using "think of the children" as a rallying cry to gather support.

It's good ole Irish begrudgery and curtain twitching, driven by social media hysteria which is at ridiculous levels nowadays.

I find it hugely bemusing how "we" have decided in the last 10/15 years that everything that was perfectly normal and accepted beforehand is now somehow wrong and needs to be changed :rolleyes:

Smart people have realised cars are ruining society. There are more and more cars on the road, we are getting more and more obese. It's a big problem. Plus you're clogging up the roads and streets and neighbourhoods with cars just absolutely everywhere. It isn't sustainable and must change.

_Kaiser_

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Smart people have realised cars are ruining society. There are more and more cars on the road, we are getting more and more obese. It's a big problem. Plus you're clogging up the roads and streets and neighbourhoods with cars just absolutely everywhere. It isn't sustainable and must change.

Ah so if you don't "get" it, you're not "smart" - I see. Social media argument at its finest.

If someone doesn't want to drive, or can get everywhere on foot, bike or public transport then fair play to them, but don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone else is the same.

Cars are an expensive depreciating asset that are not cheap to run. Most people put up with that because the alternatives are much worse or just not suitable/available.

Fix those issues and you'll see car use and ownership organically.