A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

0lddog

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You are making the assumption that ....

Actually I'm not....


I was a very keen biker and only gave it up due to age. I would not advocate for one minute the motorcycles be banned. Nevertheless, if there were no motorcycles on the road there would be no deaths of motorcyclists ! ( who is at fault does not come into it )

Seth Brundle

riclad wrote: »

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

I'm really not sure where to start with this.
Firstly we use km/h not mph.
Secondly, whilst there has been some segregated cycle lanes introduced, the vast majority of infrastructure simply is not safe.
As for kids cycling to school, numbers are still drastically low, especially for girls.

You also mention how streets are narrow with limited sight lines and yet driving more slowly would not be good here? This is simply daft logic.

riclad

the point i,m making is many streets are narrow ,it would be impossible to drive at 50kph on them right now regardless of what new limits come in.

beauf

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?

Also the Netherlands was dominated by cars like every other European country after WW2. They were no different to anywhere else.

Hamsterchops

riclad wrote: »

the point i,m making is many streets are narrow, it would be impossible to drive at 50kph on them right now regardless of what new limits come in.

50 km/h is too fast for narrow streets...

Seth Brundle

beauf wrote: »

Also the Netherlands was dominated by cars like every other European country after WW2. They were no different to anywhere else.

My question was really directed towards SeanW and his pro-car bias.
But the core if the point was that the people took back control from drivers. We didn't see that here because we were playing catch up and following Thatchers policy that car = good and if you didn't have one you must have been poor.
We are finally seeing sense and deprioritising the car now.

beauf

We have an anti cycling media bias. This plays a big part in why there is no social pressure to reduce car use.

The reason we want lower speed limits is there so much speeding. But at the same time these zones are very crude, clumsy and ineffective way of achieving that. Especially if you mostly don't enforce it.

There's no point in debating the point with people who are not so much pro car but anti cyclist.

Eric Cartman

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

In a cul de sac, bus reversing , thats a real appeal to emotion there, even a speed limit of 5 wouldnt have prevented that,

seamus

riclad wrote: »

the point i,m making is many streets are narrow ,it would be impossible to drive at 50kph on them right now regardless of what new limits come in.

So you agree then that it's very appropriate to put lower limits on these streets because driving at 50 km/h would be extremely dangerous due to them being narrow.

When you say "impossible", what you mean is, "I would not drive at 50km/h because there's a good chance I'd crash into something".

This doesn't mean that another person wouldn't drive at 50km/h. Its not physically impossible to drive at 50km/h, just very dangerous.

Which is exactly why you put limits in place.

CramCycle

0lddog wrote: »

Actually I'm not....


I was a very keen biker and only gave it up due to age. I would not advocate for one minute the motorcycles be banned. Nevertheless, if there were no motorcycles on the road there would be no deaths of motorcyclists ! ( who is at fault does not come into it )

To be honest, if the manpower was there to enforce speed limits and penalise dangerous driving, I wouldn't give a sh1t about the speed limit. For example my native roads have a limit of 80kmph but in many sections, anything over 50kmph, even 40kmph is dangerous driving. So while the limit is 80, if the gardai had average speed cameras up all over the place and someone made it from point a to point b with an average of 75kmph, even though technically below the limit, they would get done because analysis of the road shows that there is no safe way to get from point a to point b at that average speed.

As for those harping on about our road deaths being so low this is unnecessary, you are missing the really, I thought obvious points. Road deaths are low for a variety of reasons but this isn't the metric they are trying to fix. A lot of pedestrians and cyclists don't go out in areas because it is perceived as dangerous to walk or cycle there even those these are areas where it should be common place. My own mother used to walk an 8km walk daily on local roads years ago, now she drives to a local lake and does laps because she feels the roads are too dangerous to walk on. She hates when I cycle home, she won't let her grandson out on the road to cycle. People don't even realise that often they are part of the problem.
Some local elderly people out cycling do so on the foot paths because the roads are too dangerous in their opinion, which infuriates me as footpaths are for pedestrians and kids, that's it. If they go on the road though they will be buzzed, beeped at (for what? a 3 second delay), intimidated and so on.
In Dublin no one should be driving their kids to school (with specific exceptions), but here we are, and the irony is it is a self fulfilling prophecy. People feel unsafe to walk or cycle, they drive, congestion increases, road use becomes inherently more unsafe from a perception viewpoint and the cycle continues. You enforce dangerous driving and speed limits, all of a sudden people start using buses, walking and cycling because its quicker and safer all of a sudden. Then the number of cars on the road reduces, pollution lowers.

Just an idea though.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In a cul de sac, bus reversing , thats a real appeal to emotion there, even a speed limit of 5 wouldnt have prevented that,

You're right - what would have prevented it would be the driver not reversing blindly down a residential cul de sac.

This was utterly predictable and avoidable.

riclad

Theres many people who drive to school, drop off a child, pickup up the child after school.
a 30kph speed limit is not gonna cause them to switch to cycling.
if you drive around the city centre before 8pm.
you will find it almost impossible to drive at 50kph, due to heavy traffic,
traffic lights at almost every junction.road works.etc
someone on a high wage want to drive,
the covid crisis has caused a massive drop in people using bus/luas,
they drive or else cycle.
30kph limit will have zero effect on levels of car driving ,
it,ll cause more pollution maybe due to longer car journeys after 8 pm.

Seth Brundle

riclad wrote: »

30kph limit will have zero effect on levels of car driving ,
it,ll cause more pollution maybe due to longer car journeys after 8 pm.

Is that opinion or an exppert based projection?
See many people will be happy to let their kids cycle once the roads become safer which will remove the need for a car and reduce the number of chubby kids out there.
Also, whilst I admire your faux concern for the environment, this really is nonsense. If driving becomes a burden then people won't bother. They will use alternative form of transport or they will avoid non-essential trips. But drop the faux concern for the environment as it is far too much.

Tea drinker

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is that opinion or an exppert based projection?
See many people will be happy to let their kids cycle once the roads become safer which will remove the need for a car and reduce the number of chubby kids out there.
Also, whilst I admire your faux concern for the environment, this really is nonsense. If driving becomes a burden then people won't bother. They will use alternative form of transport or they will avoid non-essential trips. But drop the faux concern for the environment as it is far too much.

Looks to me it's you who has faux concern? You have an anti car agenda and hide it behind "environmental" issues.
Get them cars OUTTA here :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd95dufYBrU

Seth Brundle

Tea drinker wrote: »

Looks to me it's you who has faux concern? You have an anti car agenda and hide it behind "environmental" issues.
Get them cars OUTTA here :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd95dufYBrU

I didn’t raise the environmental issues aspect. That’s was done by those against the proposals.
As for my anti-car bias, maybe double check your facts. As a former mod of the motors forum and long time BMW enthusiast, I’d easily challenge your allegation!
Nonetheless, a city isn’t somewhere where cars should have dominance over all other road users. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, whether you like it or not!

beauf

riclad wrote: »

...
30kph limit will have zero effect on levels of car driving ,
it,ll cause more pollution maybe due to longer car journeys after 8 pm.

There won't be longer journeys because the 30 won't be enforced and as a result people will ignore it.

CramCycle

beauf wrote: »

There won't be longer journeys because the 30 won't be enforced and as a result people will ignore it.

Pretty much, bar the speed vans which we all know where they are, it will change nothing. The only real thing it will actually change is in the case of an accident it might shift the victim blaming in the courts, as in if they run someone down at 50kmph in a residential area, the solicitor can no longer say, well they were within the speed limit. I'd prefer if something more preventative rather than reactive was put in place I would be happier.

Tea drinker

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I didn’t raise the environmental issues aspect. That’s was done by those against the proposals.
As for my anti-car bias, maybe double check your facts. As a former mod of the motors forum and long time BMW enthusiast, I’d easily challenge your allegation!
Nonetheless, a city isn’t somewhere where cars should have dominance over all other road users. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, whether you like it or not!

But what makes you think they are faux concerns, you actually seemed convinced on thin evidence.
Yeah i know you from motors section you are a prolific poster there...... maybe the most enthusiastic anti smokers are reformed smokers ;-)
I don't think cars should have dominance over other road users. You think cyclists should have dominance over other user?
Thanks for your opinion...It's not cars or bikes, it's people going about their lives, and they need to share that space. If there's more people in cars they get priority, as more people get serviced by the system, if it's more bikes, more pedestrians, same should apply. Well thats my opinion.

Seth Brundle

Tea drinker wrote: »

But what makes you think they are faux concerns, you actually seemed convinced on thin evidence.
Yeah i know you from motors section you are a prolific poster there...... maybe the most enthusiastic anti smokers are reformed smokers ;-)

I'm not a prolific poster there so your sources are wrong again (although I did give up smoking some years ago I've absolutely no problem if someone wants to smoke (I still love the smell)).
:rolleyes:

Tea drinker wrote: »

I don't think cars should have dominance over other road users. You think cyclists should have dominance over other user?

I don't think I ever said that. I'm not sure if I even suggested that. So I'm not sure why you're making that assertion.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion...It's not cars or bikes, it's people going about their lives, and they need to share that space. If there's more people in cars they get priority, as more people get serviced by the system, if it's more bikes, more pedestrians, same should apply. Well thats my opinion.

What you're failing to understand is that a car based culture encourages car usage. This has been shown all around the world to be unsustainable but somehow a few, like yourself seemingly, think it might just be different here. It won't be!
As for your nonsense about if there's more people on bikes they should get priority: why do many people currently not cycle? Hint: because there are too many cars driving too close and too fast :rolleyes:

Hamsterchops

beauf wrote: »

There won't be longer journeys because the 30 won't be enforced and as a result people will ignore it.

They'll ignore it anyway, seeing as it's too slow ...

40 km/h would be better and more sensical for main roads.

Jeremy Sproket

This is wonderful news and music to my ears. Hopefully those who ignore limits will be punitively punished. It'll make cycling less intimidating.

suicide_circus

40km/h for a few years leading to 30km/h is the way to go. It's less of a jump down from 50 - less of an "attack" on motorists, youre more likely to get buy in and observance.

Tea drinker

but surely a collision with a car at 30 km/h is a lot more deadly than at 20 km/h you heartless devils

cnocbui

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

This is wonderful news and music to my ears. Hopefully those who ignore limits will be punitively punished. It'll make cycling less intimidating.

It would seem most female cyclists who die, are killed by trucks - probably doing less than 30kph. Such a limit will do nothing about the intimidating nature of large vehicles, or the way they are driven. Not helped by Irish roads tending to be too narrow.

Tea drinker

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't think I ever said that. I'm not sure if I even suggested that. So I'm not sure why you're making that assertion.


What you're failing to understand is that a car based culture encourages car usage. This has been shown all around the world to be unsustainable but somehow a few, like yourself seemingly, think it might just be different here. It won't be!
As for your nonsense about if there's more people on bikes they should get priority: why do many people currently not cycle? Hint: because there are too many cars driving too close and too fast :rolleyes:

But you said that cars have "dominance" over bikes so to me that's a foolish assertion you made.
If people want to use cars, I'm happy with that, if people want to use bikes, I'm happy with that. You aren't, you want cars removed or regulated so heavily as to remove them from cities - just going by your posts above.
No matter what you do, it won't be enough, e.g. the cycle lanes in Dun Laoire are sometimes ignored and cyclists go down from the main road to cycle through the car park at the sea front, or cycle in the car lane beside the new cycle lanes,- nothing legally wrong there... but a bit ignorant after lots of money and time spent to make it safer. I'd say the woman and 2 small children on their bikes who were screamed at by a road rage cyclist now feel that cycling is unsafe in Dun Laoire.
And there's always going to be those outliers no matter what you do. Yes cyclists and cars should be seperated as much as possible, for safety and enjoyment, what rational person wants to cycle with cars / trucks etc when an alternative exists... but as per above, will it fix anything if someone really wants to have their bike on that stretch of tarmac because they can?

Thelonious Monk

Sure, an angry cyclist was screaming at children, that happened. I caught a guy out on Twitter the other day saying a cyclist ran over his elderly relative, but then in another tweet he said it was his partner. I pointed this out to him with a screenshot and he blocked me and deleted the tweets. This was under a Tweet from Eamon Ryan praising the Dun Laoighaire cycle lanes.
You people have to resort to making up stories about how dangerous cycling is, because there is no real evidence to back up your claims.

Seth Brundle

Tea drinker wrote: »

But you said that cars have "dominance" over bikes so to me that's a foolish assertion you made.

erm, it is not an assertion! Can you really not see it?

Tea drinker wrote: »

If people want to use cars, I'm happy with that, if people want to use bikes, I'm happy with that. You aren't, you want cars removed or regulated so heavily as to remove them from cities - just going by your posts above.

I've no problem if people want to use cars or bikes or walk or Luas or whatever. However, their dominance within the city should not be. Cars are the least efficient form of transit within a city. Why then are we providing so much space for them both to move around and also for storing them in public places?

Tea drinker wrote: »

No matter what you do, it won't be enough,

Really? You don't know me very well so!

FileNotFound

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You people have to resort to making up stories about how dangerous cycling is, because there is no real evidence to back up your claims.

Jaysus "You People" haha, it sounds like you are one of them people.


Otherwise whenever i see lower speed limits I often take a look at the average speed on my car and consider the fact then when driving in urban it's often around 30kmh anyway.

I do think any 30kmh areas should be more specific to roads with houses opening directly onto them etc. thus leaving sections of dual etc at 50kmh.

My only issue with this slower limit is that I use cruise control to maintain below 50kmh but it won't work at 30kmh.

Not sure i am a fan but open to changing (both up and down) speed limits if it helps.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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

No that is not what it says. It says 20% are short ( 1 in 5) and under 2km.
80% are longer. Also bear in mind 2km each way by foot takes 40-50 minutes.
Try cycling or walking that with a baby and a toddler in tow and/or with bags of shopping.

Cars arent the problem. They are a symptom of larger issues.

Hamsterchops

FileNotFound wrote: »

I do think any 30kmh areas should be more specific to roads with houses opening directly onto them etc. thus leaving sections of dual etc at 50kmh.

My only issue with this slower limit is that I use cruise control to maintain below 50kmh but it won't work at 30kmh.

Not sure i am a fan but open to changing (both up and down) speed limits if it helps.

That's why 40km/h (25mph)is the magic number!

Works on most cruise controls ✓

30km/h (18moh) is too bloody slowwwww