Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

30kph coming to Dublin road near you? (note warning in post #254)

«13456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,406 ✭✭✭✭ Eric Cartman


    utter insanity. This is of almost no safety benefit and is clearly part of the road diet plan to make Dublin City unbearable to drive through.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭ kenmm


    This was done over in the current affairs forum.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058083347

    All the usual boards.ie arguments can be found there.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    FarmerBob wrote: »
    Can you imagine driving at 30kph on Howth rd, Malahide Rd, Stillorgan Rd, Griffith ave etc.
    anyone who has ever driven in rush hour traffic in dublin doesn't need to imagine it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭ Xterminator


    so no one yet has recognized the benefits of this move in loss of life?

    i mean you dont have to agree, but to go full donald trump and claim
    This is of almost no safety benefit
    is just ignoring science and evidence.

    If you hit a pedestrian:

    at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.

    from https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/#:~:text=If%20you%20hit%20a%20pedestrian%3A,chance%20they%20will%20be%20killed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,895 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    These "benefit" will likely be theoretical, misguided and can be likened to using a wrecking ball to drive a nail, as far as proportionality is concerned.

    Speeds above 30mph (50kph) are already banned in all core urban areas including city arterial roads. The list above also assumes that motorists never have any warning of an impending collision, in reality a motorist will likely hit the brakes, reducing their speed. Pedestrian fatalities in this country are relatively low, indicating that at most a tiny minority of motorists or pedestrians use the roads in a way that make pedestrian fatalities likely.

    Finally, as routine pedestrian in Dublin city for many years, I could think of half a dozen things that would make my journeys safer and less stressful that have nothing to do with motorist speed.

    1) Footpaths that are wide enough for purpose.
    2) Junctions that should have pedestrian crossing for all arms (Merrion Row, Baggot St. and Ely Place I'm looking you)
    3) More and official "scramble" crossings that allow you to cross diagonally at a junction instead of having to cross multiple arms separately. Less nonsense like this in Santry.
    4) Shorter waits plus countdown timers at signal controlled pedestrian crossings. Ironically DCC once had countdown to green man timers on pedestrian crossings South of O'Connell bridge, but they were taken down and not replaced when the lights were "modernised" a few years back. Why? :confused:
    5) Special measures to prevent motorists, bus drivers etc from blocking pedestrian crossings during peak times. Trying to cross Clare St. at the Merrion Sq. junction, i.e. from the National Museum to the Mont hotel (link) can be ... interesting at 6PM on a weekday.
    6) Better control over the behaviour of cyclists which borders on total lawlessness.

    Maybe DCC should focus on this before they worry about motorist speed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,781 ✭✭✭ Carawaystick


    SeanW wrote: »

    5) Special measures to prevent motorists, bus drivers etc from blocking pedestrian crossings during peak times. Trying to cross Clare St. at the Merrion Sq. junction, i.e. from the National Museum to the Mont hotel (link) can be ... interesting at 6PM on a weekday.
    6) Better control over the behaviour of cyclists which borders on total lawlessness.
    Its peculiar you give an example of people driving motor vehicles breaking the law and yet its the behaviour of cyclists that is nearly totally lawless.

    Not all people cycling have to obey the law.
    and not all laws apply to people cycling. Speedlimits being the most obvious example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,895 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    I never claimed that all motorists and bus drivers were absolutely 100% perfect. But yes, the absolute worst I've encountered from Irish motorists is that they can sometimes be inconsiderate. And BTW this has nothing to do with speed.

    And my 6 point list was not mutually exclusive, all 6 can be problems experienced by the same pedestrian(s) and I have found all to be so. None of them have anything to do with motorist speed and all could be fixed without an overkill, blanket reduction in maximum speed limits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    so no one yet has recognized the benefits of this move in loss of life?

    i mean you dont have to agree, but to go full donald trump and claim is just ignoring science and evidence.

    If you hit a pedestrian:

    at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.

    from https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/#:~:text=If%20you%20hit%20a%20pedestrian%3A,chance%20they%20will%20be%20killed.

    Since there is no enforcement of the current 30 zones and there will be no enforcement of these new limits how is this of benefit to anybody? They should start with enforcing our current laws instead of the tradition of making new laws which will be ignored to replace the currently ignored laws


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭ nthclare


    This speed over distances will be bad for some car's, they'll have to drive on lower gear's, higher revs therefore burning more diesel and petrol polluting the atmosphere more than ever.

    Sometimes I wonder what kind of idiot's come up with these ideas..


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,428 ✭✭✭ Charles Babbage


    Not all people cycling have to obey the law.


    That is clearly what cyclists think. But the law is for everyone, however self important they may feel themselves.


    and not all laws apply to people cycling. Speedlimits being the most obvious example.


    So cars will be limited to 30kph while cyclists can do what they like?
    That figures.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,715 CMod ✭✭✭✭ spurious


    Even better....wait for this.... I saw on a Facebook group that Annesley bridge is to be shut for 16 months (apart from buses and cyclists) and all the Howth, Malahide and Coast road traffic funneled into one lane through Ballybough. Why? To build yet another cycle lane for them to not use.

    We will be dreaming of getting to 30kph.
    Lunacy.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    SeanW wrote: »
    the absolute worst I've encountered from Irish motorists is that they can sometimes be inconsiderate.
    I think I live on a different planet to you. In a different reality.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    spurious wrote: »
    Even better....wait for this.... I saw on a Facebook group that Annesley bridge is to be shut for 16 months
    Do you have a better source for that than a Facebook group? That's almost the least reliable source possible you've mentioned there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,872 ✭✭✭ markpb


    nthclare wrote: »
    This speed over distances will be bad for some car's, they'll have to drive on lower gear's, higher revs therefore burning more diesel and petrol polluting the atmosphere more than ever.

    Sometimes I wonder what kind of idiot's come up with these ideas..

    This is the same reason that is trotted out every time someone proposes reducing a speed limit. What do you think would be a good speed limit for the city? Are cars all humming along at 50kph blowing out clean air at the minute? Why are some drivers only concerned with their pollution when speed limits are the topic of conversation?

    Not all cars are inefficient at lower speeds. At the times when there are most cars on the city centre roada, they’re not being driven at anything close to the speed limit (old or new) and instead spend most of their time stopped in traffic or at lights. At night time when traffic volumes are lower, traffic lights are still a thing and your ability to see is reduced so you should be driving with more caution and less speed anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,911 ✭✭✭ begbysback


    so no one yet has recognized the benefits of this move in loss of life?

    i mean you dont have to agree, but to go full donald trump and claim is just ignoring science and evidence.

    If you hit a pedestrian:

    at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
    at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.

    from https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/#:~:text=If%20you%20hit%20a%20pedestrian%3A,chance%20they%20will%20be%20killed.

    So then why don’t we just ban cars altogether ?? :rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,715 CMod ✭✭✭✭ spurious


    Do you have a better source for that than a Facebook group? That's almost the least reliable source possible you've mentioned there.

    Yes I have a leaflet distributed to homes. See attached.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭ kenmm


    spurious wrote: »
    To build yet another cycle lane for them to not use.

    If you weren't a mod I would think this is a troll.

    Clontarf cycle lane is one of the busiest stretches in Dublin and the leaflet you linked clearly has a lot of benefits to the are other than the building of a cycle lane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 jim salter


    Most cyclist are inconsiderate dïckhėads who believe they can do what they want on the road (or footpath), that they own the roads and no laws apply to them.

    We have a network of cycle lanes that they don't use because the cycle lanes are not compulsory where provided, but they will cycle in whatever fashion they please without any repercussion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭ kenmm


    jim salter wrote: »
    Most cyclist are inconsiderate dïckhėads who believe they can do what they want on the road (or footpath), that they own the roads and no laws apply to them.

    We have a network of cycle lanes that they don't use because the cycle lanes are not compulsory where provided, but they will cycle in whatever fashion they please without any repercussion.

    Hard to argue with general sweeping generalisations.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I (and a heap of others) get stuck going home from work near every day by the same arsehole cycling on the road alongside a cycle lane.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭ kenmm


    I stubbed my toe this morning - that was annoying too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,297 ✭✭✭✭ _Kaiser_


    anyone who has ever driven in rush hour traffic in dublin doesn't need to imagine it.

    This ALWAYS comes out as a reason to dismiss any objections. It's the same with the notion of lower speed limits on the M50

    In stop/start traffic.. Fine, 30 km/h may be ambitious!

    Now, what about the other 18 hours+ of the day?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,872 ✭✭✭ markpb


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    This ALWAYS comes out as a reason to dismiss any objections. It's the same with the notion of lower speed limits on the M50

    In stop/start traffic.. Fine, 30 km/h may be ambitious!

    Now, what about the other 18 hours+ of the day?

    The speed limit will improve the safety for other road users 24 hours a day, especially at night when it’s harder to see them.

    When traffic is heavy, the reduced limit will make no difference to you. When traffic isn’t heavy, the limit will make little difference because you’ll still need to stop at traffic lights and drive with some level of awareness and caution because you’re driving in a city with other people around you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,808 ✭✭✭ Duckjob


    spurious wrote: »
    Yes I have a leaflet distributed to homes. See attached.


    Hope the cycle track is a bit wider than the artists impression, otherwise it will get overcrowded in morning rush hour and people WILL use the road instead.

    Build it once, build it properly....


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    spurious wrote: »
    Yes I have a leaflet distributed to homes. See attached.
    That differs from your first claim, that the bridge would be shut. The leaflet says continuation of inbound and outbound bus lanes and *inbound* other traffic will be affected.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Now, what about the other 18 hours+ of the day?
    During the other 18 hours of the day, traffic lights will continue to operate and traffic will still be stop/starty.

    At the moment, Google maps is giving me a claimed 28 minutes to drive from DCU to UCD. It's 13km, so at 10am on a Saturday morning, that's an average of under 30km/h anyway. I learned long ago when I had to drive for a living that it's the time you spend stopped that determines your average speed far more than the time you spend moving.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,297 ✭✭✭✭ _Kaiser_


    markpb wrote: »
    The speed limit will improve the safety for other road users 24 hours a day, especially at night when it’s harder to see them.

    When traffic is heavy, the reduced limit will make no difference to you. When traffic isn’t heavy, the limit will make little difference because you’ll still need to stop at traffic lights and drive with some level of awareness and caution because you’re driving in a city with other people around you.

    Sure.. because at 10/11 at night (or later) there's so many pedestrians and cyclists around, that anything over 30 km/h is like playing Russian Roulette :rolleyes:

    It's an attempt to severely discourage car usage without outright banning them from the streets. Zero to do with "safety". But on that point, how about pedestrians and cyclists take some responsibility for their own safety and behaviours on the roads? Y'know.. like not weaving between cars in traffic, or dashing across the road in front of moving cars, or breaking the lights, or not stumbling out onto the road because they're drunk.

    Couldn't be having that I suppose - always the motorists fault/responsibility for the risk-taking and outright idiocy of others eh?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,367 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    I (and a heap of others) get stuck going home from work near every day by the same arsehole cycling on the road alongside a cycle lane.

    Funny, I usually take the lane when I’m cycling because driving a car turns pretty much *everyone* into a selfish arsehole who would risk your life for a few extra seconds shaved off their journeys. I could upload hours worth of GoPro footage, because it happens constantly on every cycle.

    All you lost was that few seconds of journey time, cyclists could lose their fúcking lives. Grow the fúck up, stop being so brainlessly selfish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,367 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Sure.. because at 10/11 at night (or later) there's so many pedestrians and cyclists around, that anything over 30 km/h is like playing Russian Roulette :rolleyes:

    It's an attempt to severely discourage car usage without outright banning them from the streets. Zero to do with "safety". But on that point, how about pedestrians and cyclists take some responsibility for their own safety and behaviours on the roads? Y'know.. like not weaving between cars in traffic, or dashing across the road in front of moving cars, or breaking the lights, or not stumbling out onto the road because they're drunk.

    Couldn't be having that I suppose - always the motorists fault/responsibility for the risk-taking and outright idiocy of others eh?

    Motorists always want to abdicate responsibility for the fact that they’re driving something that’s incredibly dangerous to *everyone* else. If you’re driving a car, the responsibility is yours and yours alone to ensure you’re not endangering anyone. Stop trying to shirk that, stop trying to blame others for any selfishness you’ve displayed while driving.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,911 ✭✭✭ begbysback


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Motorists always want to abdicate responsibility for the fact that they’re driving something that’s incredibly dangerous to *everyone* else. If you’re driving a car, the responsibility is yours and yours alone to ensure you’re not endangering anyone. Stop trying to shirk that, stop trying to blame others for any selfishness you’ve displayed while driving.

    You're actually contradicting yourself here, if motorists were abdicating responsibility then wouldn't they be seeking to have all speed limits reduced, thereby absolved of any responsibility for driving competence, or lack thereof?


Advertisement