A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

seamus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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:

It's bemusing that you think this is a recent phenomenon. Progress is constant. Things that were "perfectly normal and accepted" fifty years ago are wrong and need to be changed.

Just because something was acceptable 15 years ago, doesn't mean it should remain acceptable today.

It turns out that promoting the use of cars and building ever wider roads and ever more roads, has negative consequences which in many contexts outweighs their utility.

Cities in fact work better when vehicular use in urban areas is suppressed to the bare essentials and priority given to modes that move more people for less social, environmental and health cost.

The end goal of urban planning should be making private cars such a pain in the hole that very few urban residents own vehicles and very few visitors bring them in.

That's not being trendy or "social media". It's a simple function of what's been known but resisted for decades; cities and private cars don't mix.

Thelonious Monk

It doesn't really matter if you get it or not, but the people who matter in county and city councils are starting to realise you can't always put the car first, and are doing more for walking and cycling, so at least there are some improvements going on.

Seth Brundle

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

No! Society is designed to revolve around the car. This is why some are so against a shift in focus. Many people want to use alternative forms of transport. Many people want their kids to be able to walk or cycle to school. Currently the perception is that the roads are unsafe.
The roads need to be made safer for people to make the change. The alternatives are there but have always been put into second place to the car. BusConnects has been downgraded partly because it would affect peoples "right" to drive or park.
People won't change unless the environment allows them to!

_Kaiser_

seamus wrote: »

It's bemusing that you think this is a recent phenomenon. Progress is constant. Things that were "perfectly normal and accepted" fifty years ago are wrong and need to be changed.

Just because something was acceptable 15 years ago, doesn't mean it should remain acceptable today.

It turns out that promoting the use of cars and building ever wider roads and ever more roads, has negative consequences which in many contexts outweighs their utility.

Cities in fact work better when vehicular use in urban areas is suppressed to the bare essentials and priority given to modes that move more people for less social, environmental and health cost.

The end goal of urban planning should be making private cars such a pain in the hole that very few urban residents own vehicles and very few visitors bring them in.

That's not being trendy or "social media". It's a simple function of what's been known but resisted for decades; cities and private cars don't mix.

And this is a wonderful theory and all, but fails to take into account some uncomfortable realities of course.

We have (just as we did in the 2000s) spent the last few years allowing property and particularly rental pricing spiral out of control to where we're back to those Tiger days of people commuting from a county or two away to work or family.

Our rail infrastructure is woefully inadequate as is without pushing more people that you want to bully out of cars into it. Buses the same. Plus these methods are often almost as expensive and far slower - hence why people will put up with the commute and cost.

Now yes, Covid has accelerated the move to WFH and the signs are that it'll remain a thing to varying degrees post-Covid. But not every job is suitable for this, and not every employer will support it (still a lot out there who think you need to stand over a worker to make them productive).

And again, like the other poster, there's this arrogant presumption in your post (making private cars such a pain in the hole that very few urban residents own vehicles and very few visitors bring them in) that you or those like you should get to decide what others can and can't have.

BanditLuke

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.

Getting in your car and going to work because you have very little or no other options does not equate to one not being smart.

_Kaiser_

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No! Society is designed to revolve around the car. This is why some are so against a shift in focus. Many people want to use alternative forms of transport. Many people want their kids to be able to walk or cycle to school. Currently the perception is that the roads are unsafe.
The roads need to be made safer for people to make the change. The alternatives are there but have always been put into second place to the car. BusConnects has been downgraded partly because it would affect peoples "right" to drive or park.
People won't change unless the environment allows them to!

It's a nonsense argument driven by hysteria and the infantalisation of society.

Cars and roads are safer than they've ever been as technology and standards have improved. Back in the 80s cars were poorly maintained with low safety measures, general infrastructure was poor (even things like road marks, crossings, junctions etc) and yet we all walked to school along or crossing busy roads without incident. I used to have a 45 minute walk in Dublin each way crossing several busy roads and yet never had an issue.

What's happened since is a general move to victim and blame culture. Everything is always someone else's responsibility or fault. Walk out in front of car and it hits you.. that's the driver's fault for not predicting your stupidity etc

It's ridiculous, but it's the way society has become and a large part of that is social media driven and the way by which unsubstantiated soundbites and "feels" and the need for validation means that even the most ridiculous notion can seem legitimate and gain traction.

Take responsibility for your own safety, don't be letting particularly young children out on the road unsupervised, and stop expecting "someone else" to do it for you and you'll be fine.

Thelonious Monk

BanditLuke wrote: »

Getting in your car and going to work because you have very little or no other options does not equate to one not being smart.

No one is trying to stop that. Most car journeys are very short and not necessary.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-than-half-of-travellers-use-cars-for-journeys-under-2km-1.2303451

Tea drinker

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?

Equally cyclists have no problem stopping and shouting aggressively at people, be it drivers, pedestrians or other cyclist. case in point being the new cycle lanes in Dun Laoghaire, cyclist (not a knacker) starts screaming like a pteradactyl at people crossing the road 60 yards in front of him. There was plenty of time to slow if necessary, but the roaring at the top of his voice continued. At a woman and 2 small children. The kids were on little bikes... do you think that was rational or justifiable? Another cyclist stopped for the woman and kid and I guess tried to help them, but psycho cyclist was already away. Loads of witnesses to that, not inventing it. They were all on bikes, but they crossed "his" cycle lane. If you think cyclists aren't toxicly territorial ... you aren't seeing what I see.
It's regular they start shouting at each other near the forty foot on the one way cycle track. Speeding next to pedestrians who may step off the sidewalk to socially distance... "my cycleway get out of the way"

The absolute morons pushing over the cyclist,,, that isn't a motoring issue, it's an absolute mong issue. They will be fighting, having covid parties, probably driving without tax etc. Cowboys ain't representative of motorists, as sick as the behaviour was.

Lockheed wrote: »

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

Countries built infra around cars for their quality of life, it's a bit of a conspiracy theory to say it was foisted on the populace to enrich a few car makers. I don't think Germany with it's autobahns and the creation of VW fit that? (there may have been military reasons or political for the autobahns but VW wasn't made to force Germans to drive)

Why would we make new railway lines, it's only to enrich train manufacturers of which we have none here.
Why would we build buses, it's only to ...etc.

joey100

Everything is always someone else's responsibility or fault.

Are you not guilty of doing this yourself though? It's social media's fault, it's curtain twitchers fault. Maybe some of the fault lies with some car drivers who think they have a god given right to drive where they like, when they like and how they like?

If we were to stay with things as they were 15/20 years ago cars would be much smaller. We have seen a huge move to SUV and crossover style cars. Cars are bigger than ever. Does it not make sense that as cars get bigger and heavier that the speed limits in places where there could be a large interaction with pedestrians gets slower? Combine that with the huge increase in mobile phones and the impact that has on drivers attention, issues that were not as common 15/20 years ago.

Cars have gotten safer but in the majority of cases they are safer for the driver, mainly because they need to be because of the increase in the size of all the cars on the road. Tends to be the top end cars that come with pedestrian safety features, like some Volvos.

seamus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And again, like the other poster, there's this arrogant presumption in your post (making private cars such a pain in the hole that very few urban residents own vehicles and very few visitors bring them in) that you or those like you should get to decide what others can and can't have.

That's all lovely, but the agenda behind your entire post is, I should have the right to buy and operate a vehicle regardless of the impact of that decision on the rest of society.

Society gets to decide what others can and can't have. All the time. By making things so difficult to own, that you don't bother.

That's the reality of living in a society. In urban settings, private vehicles are the least efficient and most expensive form of travel there is. Therefore for the good of society they must be discouraged and deprioritised. Nobody's saying you can't buy one. Just that your decision to buy one doesn't come with the automatic privilege of having somewhere to store it or use it. No more than if I buy a horse I'm entitled to a stable and a field to ride it in. Or if I buy a ride-on lawnmower I'm entitled to a patch of grass to cut and a garage to put it in.

Social planning doesn't need to be hamstrung to make allowances for the selfish desires of the individual.

Dick Turnip

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Cars and roads are safer than they've ever been as technology and standards have improved. Back in the 80s cars were poorly maintained with low safety measures, general infrastructure was poor (even things like road marks, crossings, junctions etc) and yet we all walked to school along or crossing busy roads without incident. I used to have a 45 minute walk in Dublin each way crossing several busy roads and yet never had an issue.

Cars are massively safer roads, yes and in general roads & infrastructure is much improved across the country but there there's still the same number of streets in the city centre, so rules and priorities need to shift.

The roads are way busier though and cars & vehicles are much bigger. The streets of Dublin are lot busier.

We can't change the landscape of the city centre, but we can change who gets priority, giving public transport priority over cars, and making pedestrians & cyclists better infrastructure to encourage more people to switch mode of transport to a greater %.

The population of Dublin has increased from 921k to 1.242m from 1986 to 2021, a 35% increase

The no. of vehicles in Ireland has increased from 915k to 2.6m from 1985 to 2015, a 181% increase

The % of kids in Ireland getting to school by foot or bike has fallen from 49.5% to 24.8% from 1986 to 2016, whilst the % getting to school by car has risen from 24% to 59.8% in that same time.

Why should we want to reverse this?
- Keeping people, especially kids, active is never a bad thing
- Traffic congestion in Dublin is the 6th worst in Europe and 17th in the world, we need less traffic on the roads & streets
- Taking more traffic out of the certain parts of city centre will make it more attractive for retail/business/leisure

How do we do this?
- improve infrastructure for cyclists & pedestrians
- make it safe for kids to cycle to school
- prioritise bus & luas on streets
- more segregated cycle lanes
- less on street parking in city centre

You may think that the streets are safer now to cycle and walk than they were in the 80s and you survived just fine. But evidently a lot of people don't and we need to change things in order to reverse the trends, unclog the roads and make the city more livable.

Wibbs

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Can depend on the car and the gearing and throttle travel/sensitivity as far as level of difficulty sustaining 30kph or below comfortably. Some cars are easier than others in this regard. Hearses are automatics for a reason. It's most certainly not a one size fits all going on. For better or worse cars have been designed to be at their most fuel efficient at 90-100kph. It is considerably more comfortable for the driver and car to travel at a steady 80 or 90 kph than to travel at 30kph. Manual geared cars will be more tricky to manage than autos at that speed and again it depends on gearing. EV I'd imagine would be easier than ICE. In my own car 40-50kph is a breeze, as is 20 actually, 30kph is right between revving a little too much for one gear or too little for the next. I'm running in that spot between second and third and the difference between 25kph and going over 30kph on the throttle is very tight.

And that's game ball when I'm passing a school where I slow to a crawl(more like 20kph than 30 tbh) and I agree too many muppets don't slow in such cases, often including the muppets picking up their own kids :rolleyes: Same for housing estates. On longer roads holding that speed or under save for in stop go traffic is a lot more difficult. Actually CC I'd be willing to bet that if I covered up the speedo in my car after you set off at or under 30kph, you'd break the limit within a couple of hundred metres.

As for speeding in cities? Yep I see it regularly enough, though less so off the main thoroughfares. I drive slowly within city limits, never even the sniff of a ticket in over 30 years of driving and I don't get the apparent epidemic of tailgating either, and I'm someone who would stick at 90 kph on motorways. Yep I'm one of the "slow ones" yet no blasting of horns or waving of frustrated arms by other drivers to the degree it seems some suffer. If someone's being tailgated enough that they notice it as a thing, imho it's likely they're driving erratically rather than particularly slowly. I see those types on the regular, but I give them a wide berth.

Wibbs

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And again, like the other poster, there's this arrogant presumption in your post (making private cars such a pain in the hole that very few urban residents own vehicles and very few visitors bring them in) that you or those like you should get to decide what others can and can't have.

Christ knows I hate to use the following terms because of the imported from the US bullshít of late, but in very broad terms the "left" are more society and control from above based and biased, the "right" more individual and personal responsibility based and biased. Both see "freedom" in different ways. On the personal transport subject a cyclist is more likely to be "left" and an 3 litre V8 SUV driver is more likely to be on the "right". You'll tend to find the posters here will follow that pretty closely. Though you will find more and more of the centrists driving SUVs and the like and putting out green bins thinking they're "environmentally friendly" when they're being anything but. Self delusion and all that.

Actually on this score I'd actually be much more "left" than "right", more societal good than individual, to some degree anyway, right before it butts up against nanny statism(though that's a moving target too). Mostly because there are a lot of utter morons and/or utterly self centred types in any given society and basically they need controlling for the sake of rest of us, our wider society and the environment.

Wibbs

joey100 wrote: »

Cars have gotten safer but in the majority of cases they are safer for the driver, mainly because they need to be because of the increase in the size of all the cars on the road. Tends to be the top end cars that come with pedestrian safety features, like some Volvos.

It's trickled down across the industry to some degree J. If you compare car designs today with designs from 30 years ago cars have higher grill/bonnet lines, a bigger gap between the steel of the bonnet and the engine beneath and larger overhangs, much of it to do with reducing injuries and deaths in pedestrians. Put it another way being hit by a high bonnet SUV at 30kph would do less damage than being hit by a lower than a snakes mickey bonnet of a Ferrari at the same speed.

Seth Brundle

Wibbs wrote: »

Put it another way being hit by a high bonnet SUV at 30kph would do less damage than being hit by a lower than a snakes mickey bonnet of a Ferrari at the same speed.

I thought it was the case that a bang with a tall front end would result in a higher likleihood of direct impact on the body core and possibly the head.
...goes off to check...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2020/06/17/study-says-suvs-are-more-deadly-striking-pedestrians-than-cars/?sh=37536bb731eb
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars

I do note this from back in 2005...

The Irish Medical Council is to write to the Department of Transport recommending that all new SUVs carry a sticker warning that these vehicles carry a "higher risk of death to a pedestrian knocked down".

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/doctors-concerned-at-suv-risks-1.456025

Hamsterchops

Stovepipe wrote: »

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.

25 MPH converts to 40 km/h, we can live with that.

30 km/h is crazy stuff on main roads X
30 km/h is good in housing estates ✓

AndrewJRenko

_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:

Eh, have you heard about the ol climate change thing?

BanditLuke wrote: »

Getting in your car and going to work because you have very little or no other options does not equate to one not being smart.

Getting in your car and going to work to pay the car loan for the car you got for going to work isn't being smart.

Wibbs

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I thought it was the case that a bang with a tall front end would result in a higher likleihood of direct impact on the body core and possibly the head.
...goes off to check...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2020/06/17/study-says-suvs-are-more-deadly-striking-pedestrians-than-cars/?sh=37536bb731eb
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars

I do note this from back in 2005...

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/doctors-concerned-at-suv-risks-1.456025

Interesting stuff Seth. TBH my view was skewed by stuff I read years back about how car design, particularly bonnet/grill height and angle affected injuries and fatalities. IE the lower the impact to the legs, the more likely the person crumples at or below the knee and slams into the bonnet and windscreen, whereas with say a flat fronted van at the same speed that's less likely. There isn't that "whipping" action. I wonder is it also the sheer mass and weight of an SUV over a lighter car that is in play here too? At the same speed the former is carrying more momentum and transmits that into the poor pedestrian?

Cars in general have gotten way heavier and EV's are by their nature heavier again. When that Renault Alpine sportscar came out a couple of years ago I remember reading of the serious effort and their attention to every fixture and fitting to the gramme to get it to the weight of 1100kgs. The original Mark 1 Golf weighed under 900Kgs and that was with four seats and all steel. Now car safety is a helluva lot of that extra weight, but there's also the extra "stuff" we've all gotten used to in the interim too.

One of the rare occasions where I agreed with Jeremy Clarkson was when he suggested replacing crumple zones and airbags with a dirty great rusty spike protruding through the steering wheel would slow idiots down. Then again that's assuming there's a baseline for idiots and there isn't.

I have long listened to my late dad's advice he gave me when I first started driving; cyclists and pedestrians are smaller than you and you will hurt or kill them. Take care and attention to avoid both. Trucks and buses are bigger than you and will hurt or kill you. Take care and attention to avoid both. That and; speed is great, but you'll get a slow ride in a hearse.

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Getting in your car and going to work to pay the car loan for the car you got for going to work isn't being smart.

Yeah, because car loans are the only expense and reason people work. :rolleyes:

On the one hand the Idon'tgiveafcukinmy4litreSUV types are a pain in the hoop, the other side of the nouveau crawthumpers of the Church of the po faced organic muesli bicyclists aren't exactly a laugh a bloody minute either.

Larbre34

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if you get it or not, but the people who matter in county and city councils are starting to realise you can't always put the car first, and are doing more for walking and cycling, so at least there are some improvements going on.

Nobody matters in City and County Councils.

The people are, for want of a better word, sovereign. If the Members of County Councils, that they elect, don't deliver what a majority of them want, they're out.

If national Government doesn't deliver the resources to local government for the initiatives that people want, they're out too.

When it comes to an overzealous Council executive, they can be challenged in Court, though I wish that didn't have to be the case. Mind you, getting real local democracy in this Country is another whole saga.

SeanW

Stovepipe wrote: »

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.

This is simply not true. The Netherlands for example maintains a wide variety of urban speed limits including a default 50kph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_Netherlands
"Crawl everywhere" laws most likely don't exist anywhere else and if they do, they're not common.

As to the United States, while they have School Zone speed limits, they are timed, and you will often see "School Zone, Speed limit 25MPH when flashing." So you don't have to crawl past a school at 10PM for example. That's a demand unique to Irish cyclists - who are themselves less than angelic when it comes to obeying road laws. :rolleyes:

cnocbui wrote: »

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.

You're largely correct about the 300 million. According to the European Transport Safety Council, the figure for Ireland is 3.3 fatalities per billion kilometres travelled. Divided that's just over 300 million.
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/14-PIN-annual-report-FINAL.pdf

And remember, that's by any cause - when a motorist is finally involved in a fatal incident (after 303,030,303 kilometres) they may not have caused it. Yes, clearly, Irish drivers are so insanely dangerous that they require extreme, bizarre and unique "crawl everywhere" laws :pac:

Of course, it seems Irish drivers are so insanely dangerous that they kill cyclists even when their car is parked and they're upstairs in their apartment watching Netflix. At least that's what I assume from the Dublin Cycling Campaign objecting to a parking in a residential tower block planned for the Connolly quarter. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/cycling-group-secures-court-decision-over-permission-for-dublin-apartments-1.4216803

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

This is simply not true. The Netherlands for example maintains a wide variety of urban speed limits including a default 50kph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_Netherlands
"Crawl everywhere" laws most likely don't exist anywhere else and if they do, they're not common.

Netherlands has rules around having vulnerable road users segregated from motorised traffic on roads with speed limits >= 50km/hr though.

Irish cities are a bit of a mess at the moment with inadequate infrastructure for letting people get around safely unless they're surrounded by metal. 30km/hr speed limits are a quick way to improve the situation while waiting for better infrastructure to be built.

Seth Brundle

SeanW wrote: »

This is simply not true. The Netherlands for example maintains a wide variety of urban speed limits including a default 50kph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_Netherlands
"Crawl everywhere" laws most likely don't exist anywhere else and if they do, they're not common.

Why is the Netherlands so bike friendly - what has made their planners take that focus and why did we not follow suit?
Are you aware of the defining moment that sparked NL to implement infrastructure that favoured active travel?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

You're largely correct about the 300 million. According to the European Transport Safety Council, the figure for Ireland is 3.3 fatalities per billion kilometres travelled. Divided that's just over 300 million.
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/14-PIN-annual-report-FINAL.pdf

And remember, that's by any cause - when a motorist is finally involved in a fatal incident (after 303,030,303 kilometres) they may not have caused it. Yes, clearly, Irish drivers are so insanely dangerous that they require extreme, bizarre and unique "crawl everywhere" laws :pac:

Which translates to 2 or 3 people killed on the roads each week, just in case anyone has forgotten.

Pinch Flat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why is the Netherlands so bike friendly - what has made their planners take that focus and why did we not follow suit?
Are you aware of the defining moment that sparked NL to implement infrastructure that favoured active travel?

In the Netherlands people actively lobbied for safe cycling infrastructure and to get cars out of their cities and towns that were mired with traffic in the early 70s. Also the "stop the kindermoord" (stop killing children) movement. Housing estates were built to put people not cars first. Lots of people cycle as well as drive.

cnocbui

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which translates to 2 or 3 people killed on the roads each week, just in case anyone has forgotten.

Make sure you slow all the cars down to 30kph and get more people to use public transport to prevent something like this happening every week.

She loved her friends and her little scooter’ – neighbours’ shock after tragic Sophia (3) hit by bus outside home

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/she-loved-her-friends-and-her-little-scooter-neighbours-shock-after-tragic-sophia-3hit-by-bus-outside-home-40314768.html

0lddog

IIRC something like one in six road deaths in Ireland is a motorcyclist yet the km/year by all motorcyclists is miniscule in the context of total km/year.

Does anyone who wants to make a significant reduction in road deaths advocate banning motorcyclists ? if not why not ?

What are the people advocating the use of powered two wheeled transport thinking of ?

Have the Dutch managed to reduce their road death per million citizens per year figure down to the Irish rate yet ?

Seth Brundle

0lddog wrote: »

IIRC something like one in six road deaths in Ireland is a motorcyclist yet the km/year by all motorcyclists is miniscule in the context of total km/year.

Does anyone who wants to make a significant reduction in road deaths advocate banning motorcyclists ? if not why not ?

You are making the assumption that the fault lies with the bikers and not the SMIDSYs!
Have a biker friend who was one of the first ROSPA gold star riders in the country. He still managed to get hit by drivers because drivers weren't paying enough attention and would pull out without looking, etc.

riclad

the point is between 7am and 8pm, its very hard to drive anywhere near an irish city due to heavy traffic and the no of junctions ,traffic lights .
after 8pm the traffic levels are light so i dont think theres much chance of
an accident while cycling .
so i dont see the point of the new limits,
also in the last year theres alot of new cycle paths opened up
giving cyclists more space on the road

i just think 30mph everywhere in dublin is a joke, crazy,
estates would already have lower speed limits.
this is the most stupid thing i have seen in dublin for years.
many streets in dublin are curved and narrow, it would be impossible to drive
at 50mph on them.
whether you like people who drive large suvs is not relevant to
is it wise to have a 30mph speed limit in dublin
cycling is more popular now, many people cycle to work or to school ,
most students have a choice take a bus or cycle.
And its good for the environment

AndrewJRenko

cnocbui wrote: »

Make sure you slow all the cars down to 30kph and get more people to use public transport to prevent something like this happening every week.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/she-loved-her-friends-and-her-little-scooter-neighbours-shock-after-tragic-sophia-3hit-by-bus-outside-home-40314768.html

If you actually want to stop things like this happening, the first thing you need to do is to change the Garda culture that declares this 'a tragic accident' within hours of the incident happening, thus ensuring that the driver bears no responsibility for killing a three year old child while reversing into a cul-de-sac on a residential estate - before you've checked any on-board cameras or got any local CCTV or done any decent investigation at all.