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 :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

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

1234579

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭ AlekSmart


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but there's a design guide for roads called the Design manual for Urban Streets (DMURS). In it it specifically says the below:

    Clearer sightlines and wide carriageways also allow for greater driver reaction time/error correction. Whilst this approach is sensible on isolated roads, within urban areas it can be counter productive as it may transfer risk to more vulnerable users. Research has found that:

      The speed at which drivers travel is principally influenced by the characteristics of the street environment
      If the design of a street creates the perception that it is safe to travel at higher speeds drivers will do so, even if this conflicts with the posted speed limit.
    By eliminating risk and promoting free-flowing conditions, drivers feel more inclined to drive at higher speeds. Furthermore if speed limits are perceived as not being appropriate to the environment, it can undermine the speed limit system as a whole. The extent to which speeding in urban areas is a problem has been identified in successive surveys carried out by the Road Safety Authority, with 3 out of 5 drivers on urban streets driving in excess of the posted speed limit.

    It's a great pity that Hans Mondermann passed away in 2008,as he was so inventive and individualistic in his approach...essentially he believed in the power of Humans to sort out things for themselves with minimal signage and barriers....

    This clip is almost an hour long,but worth dipping into and considering,particularly in the light of Irelands Local Authority fetish for Multiples of traffic signals and stainless steel poles !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ

    Plus some clips of his work in The Netherlands.....(Yes I know......we ain't no Dutchmen !!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47umjW7GfE&ab_channel=JerryMichalski

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpHlj5j7nyY&ab_channel=Fietsberaad

    Meanwhile in deepest Cheshire,they really do need a LOT more poles.....:eek:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YZFDDb-pOQ&ab_channel=normanarmstrong

    Question is,where is Dubblin headed...? ;)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,036 ✭✭✭ 07Lapierre


    Infini wrote: »
    What they should do is get rid of the poxy car parking on the Northbound side tbh down near the talbot st end and improve the cycle lanes on both sides. I acually think they should put better cycle infractrusture in too and really should be focusing on this along with far better syncronised traffic lighting and better traffic flow. Let's be honest some of the goddamn light stay red for up to 2min and only change green for as little as 10 seconds in places. That's why red light running has become a thing.

    The fact the 30km limit is not even enforced is hillarious too. Let's be honest I dont even know why they're suddenly having this huge focus on 30km when in actuallity when it's busy it's not possible to go that fast even due to traffic during busy times. It seems to be purely driven by certain spite fuelled anti-car elements of the council with a desire to fúck with people who drive rather than improve thing overall.

    Honestly I don't like driving into Dublin City, if anything I'd avoid it if I didn't have to work there, gave up cycling both because of craptacular weather and because cycling infrastructure is utterly crap to the point it's unsafe.

    When you think about it, DCC should get rid do ALL on street parking. Instantly, every street that had on street parking, is now twice as wide, which leaves plenty of room for social distancing friendly wide pavements and cycle lanes, without removing any "driving lanes". Everyone's a winner, even the car park owners! ;)


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,429 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    When you think about it, DCC should get rid do ALL on street parking. Instantly, every street that had on street parking, is now twice as wide, which leaves plenty of room for social distancing friendly wide pavements and cycle lanes, without removing any "driving lanes". Everyone's a winner, even the car park owners! ;)

    Do you by any chance work for the Irish Parking Association, I think they'd think Christmas had come early!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭ VonLuck


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Meanwhile in deepest Cheshire,they really do need a LOT more poles.....:eek:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YZFDDb-pOQ&ab_channel=normanarmstrong

    Question is,where is Dubblin headed...? ;)

    Wasn't the Cheshire shared space system lauded as a great improvement on what was there before?

    I get the idea behind it, but it seems like a bit of a free for all in that clip!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭ Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    This is wonderful news, drivers need to be forced to slow down in urban areas and respect vulnerable road users.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭ VonLuck


    This is wonderful news, drivers need to be forced to slow down in urban areas and respect vulnerable road users.

    I may have missed a previous post, but how many accidents in Dublin City over the years have been attributed to speeds in excess of 30kmph?

    I'm all for reducing speeds in areas where it poses a real risk, but reducing it for the sake of it is nonsensical.


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


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I may have missed a previous post, but how many accidents in Dublin City over the years have been attributed to speeds in excess of 30kmph?

    I'm all for reducing speeds in areas where it poses a real risk, but reducing it for the sake of it is nonsensical.

    Its not just for safety tho - Environmental, traffic management, behavior changes etc

    It wont be a blanket change either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭ CrankyHaus


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I may have missed a previous post, but how many accidents in Dublin City over the years have been attributed to speeds in excess of 30kmph?

    I'm all for reducing speeds in areas where it poses a real risk, but reducing it for the sake of it is nonsensical.


    This isn't really about safety, it's about punishment; just like the changes to light sequences in recent months to increase congestion have been.


    Back in the good old days these type of people could get their fix by whispering to the Monsignor about the Hussey on their road who got pregnant out of marriage, so she'd get sent to the Magdalene Laundries.



    Now all that righteous indignation has to find another outlet; against a new set of heretics. The words change but the dynamic stays the same.


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


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    This isn't really about safety, it's about punishment; just like the changes to light sequences in recent months to increase congestion have been.


    Back in the good old days these type of people could get their fix by whispering to the Monsignor about the Hussey on their road who got pregnant out of marriage, so she'd get sent to the Magdalene Laundries.



    Now all that righteous indignation has to find another outlet; against a new set of heretics. The words change but the dynamic stays the same.

    That's a fairly skewed view of the world you have there! Is everyone out to get you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,943 ✭✭✭✭ Cienciano


    SeanW wrote: »
    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:

    Shorter waits for pedestrian lights is something I don't understand. OK, not O'Connell Bridge ones as they're so busy. But for instance, crossing on Cork Street. Not many pedestrians, you press the button and have to wait ages. What happens is, you're waiting so long, eventually there's a break in traffic and you cross. You're on the other side of the road, walking away and the light then changes. Cars then have to stop for no one to cross. Why don't they change as soon as you press?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,378 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    VonLuck wrote: »
    I may have missed a previous post, but how many accidents in Dublin City over the years have been attributed to speeds in excess of 30kmph?

    I'm all for reducing speeds in areas where it poses a real risk, but reducing it for the sake of it is nonsensical.

    I'm not sure there's any way to know the attributed cause for every accident that happens in Dublin.

    However, of the 27 pedestrian fatalities recorded by the RSA in 2019, all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher.

    The science of the safety of the measure is fairly clear too: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,378 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    Cienciano wrote: »
    Shorter waits for pedestrian lights is something I don't understand. OK, not O'Connell Bridge ones as they're so busy. But for instance, crossing on Cork Street. Not many pedestrians, you press the button and have to wait ages. What happens is, you're waiting so long, eventually there's a break in traffic and you cross. You're on the other side of the road, walking away and the light then changes. Cars then have to stop for no one to cross. Why don't they change as soon as you press?

    The rest of your post seems to directly answer that puzzle!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭ Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    kenmm wrote: »
    That's a fairly skewed view of the world you have there! Is everyone out to get you?

    Indeed. I wonder if this thread has been Godwinned yet?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    This isn't really about safety, it's about punishment; just like the changes to light sequences in recent months to increase congestion have been.


    Back in the good old days these type of people could get their fix by whispering to the Monsignor about the Hussey on their road who got pregnant out of marriage, so she'd get sent to the Magdalene Laundries.



    Now all that righteous indignation has to find another outlet; against a new set of heretics. The words change but the dynamic stays the same.

    Trolling like this isn’t going to be tolerated.

    — moderator


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭ Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    Why do we still used manned vans in this day?
    • Gatso men cost more in wages than they bring in.
    • Some scum vandalise the vans with the men inside.
    • They stick out like a sore thumb so people notice them then continue along merrily speeding once they've passed them.


    Would it not be better to introduce average speed cameras on roads?

    Advantages:
    • They will have an initial installation cost but maintenance will be a fraction of what Gatso workers will be paid.
    • They can be installed a few metres off the ground to prevent vandalism.
    • They will force drivers to constantly obey the limit on stretches of road where they exist.
    • They can be doubled up as bus lane and red light cameras.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'm not sure there's any way to know the attributed cause for every accident that happens in Dublin.

    However, of the 27 pedestrian fatalities recorded by the RSA in 2019, all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher.

    The science of the safety of the measure is fairly clear too: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf

    Also to make injuries less severe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭ VonLuck


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'm not sure there's any way to know the attributed cause for every accident that happens in Dublin.

    However, of the 27 pedestrian fatalities recorded by the RSA in 2019, all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher.

    The science of the safety of the measure is fairly clear too: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf

    Well that's not true. The speed limit on the road where the accident occurred was 50kmph or higher, it wasn't the speed the car was travelling. They could just as well have been driving at 80kmph on a 50kmph road, or even 30kmph for that matter.

    Also the way you've presented the information really shows your agenda. Instead of saying what fatalities occur at 50kmph speed limit, you say that "all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher". A more transparent representation of the facts is that 33.3% of fatalities happened at this speed limit and 7.4% below this. Only 6 of the 27 deaths occurred in Dublin too. Unfortunately we don't have a breakdown by location, but if we assume that the percentages nationally applied to Dublin, this could mean that 2 people died on a 50kmph speed limit road and less than 1 (0.44) for a lower speed limit.

    Not denying that there's a direct link between speed and increase in likelihood of a fatality in an accident, but we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer. There's a risk in everything we do, but we need to be rational in the approach.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    VonLuck wrote: »
    we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer.
    we're talking about roads which people actually live on. not national routes etc.; roads that people live on, and where the average speed is usually less than the speed limit anyway.
    i can't remember if it was this thread or the thread on the topic in the current affairs forum, but there was someone recently complaining about the notion of having to drive at 30km/h on sundrive road. that's a suburban road lined with houses, that's the sort of road where 'just because it's safer' is easily justified just because it's safer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭ VonLuck


    we're talking about roads which people actually live on. not national routes etc.; roads that people live on, and where the average speed is usually less than the speed limit anyway.
    i can't remember if it was this thread or the thread on the topic in the current affairs forum, but there was someone recently complaining about the notion of having to drive at 30km/h on sundrive road. that's a suburban road lined with houses, that's the sort of road where 'just because it's safer' is easily justified just because it's safer.

    I'm not going to get into the details of that specific road because I'm not really familiar with it, but by applying that logic all country roads should be 30kmph. There's a greater risk there given that there are no footpaths for pedestrians to walk on, but you regularly see people out for strolls or runs essentially sharing the road with 80kmph vehicles.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    VonLuck wrote: »
    by applying that logic all country roads should be 30kmph.
    on many suburban roads in dublin, there's a house on average every 5m. if a country road is that densely populated A) it's not a country road, and B) 30km/h would be easily justified anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭ VonLuck


    on many suburban roads in dublin, there's a house on average every 5m. if a country road is that densely populated A) it's not a country road, and B) 30km/h would be easily justified anyway.

    Density is not the only factor. In my opinion an urban "residential" road with wide footpaths separated by a grass verge (e.g. many of the roads around the Templeogue area) is much safer at 50kmph than a winding rural road enclosed by overgrown hedgerows with a few houses dotted along the way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,378 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    VonLuck wrote: »
    Well that's not true. The speed limit on the road where the accident occurred was 50kmph or higher, it wasn't the speed the car was travelling. They could just as well have been driving at 80kmph on a 50kmph road, or even 30kmph for that matter.

    Also the way you've presented the information really shows your agenda. Instead of saying what fatalities occur at 50kmph speed limit, you say that "all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher". A more transparent representation of the facts is that 33.3% of fatalities happened at this speed limit and 7.4% below this. Only 6 of the 27 deaths occurred in Dublin too. Unfortunately we don't have a breakdown by location, but if we assume that the percentages nationally applied to Dublin, this could mean that 2 people died on a 50kmph speed limit road and less than 1 (0.44) for a lower speed limit.

    Not denying that there's a direct link between speed and increase in likelihood of a fatality in an accident, but we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer. There's a risk in everything we do, but we need to be rational in the approach.

    This is an irrationally angry response to my post which merely repeated the stuff from the RSA report. I’m not sure why you think it reveals any agenda (that’s much more obvious in all the posts where I essentially say “fück drivers”).

    I’d argue we can start making city roads 30kph just because it’s safer. 30kph is fast enough. The entire area in question is only 15km in diameter.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    VonLuck wrote: »
    Density is not the only factor. In my opinion an urban "residential" road with wide footpaths separated by a grass verge (e.g. many of the roads around the Templeogue area) is much safer at 50kmph than a winding rural road enclosed by overgrown hedgerows with a few houses dotted along the way.
    damning with faint praise, no? saying 50km/h is safer than a rural road with no footpath and restricted sightlines, is not exactly what we should be aiming for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭ VonLuck


    MJohnston wrote: »
    This is an irrationally angry response to my post which merely repeated the stuff from the RSA report. I’m not sure why you think it reveals any agenda (that’s much more obvious in all the posts where I essentially say “fück drivers”).

    I’d argue we can start making city roads 30kph just because it’s safer. 30kph is fast enough. The entire area in question is only 15km in diameter.

    Not angry at all! Just clearing up something that was factually incorrect and clarifying the statistics to give a more transparent view. When information is presented in a certain way it can be misconstrued.

    And a statement saying "30kph is fast enough" is not much of an argument to be fair. Could say 10kmph is fast enough as well!
    damning with faint praise, no? saying 50km/h is safer than a rural road with no footpath and restricted sightlines, is not exactly what we should be aiming for.

    My point is that why are we trying to enforce this rule based on nothing more than the road being in an urban setting? It's a blanket speed limit which is being put in place without looking at the actual infrastructure. There are many roads in the city which are perfectly safe to drive at 50kmph but thousands of rural roads where 80kmph is just madness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭ El Tarangu


    VonLuck wrote: »

    Not denying that there's a direct link between speed and increase in likelihood of a fatality in an accident, but we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer.

    This is such a curious, and somewhat chilling statement.

    If 148 people in Ireland died as a result of any other activity in one year, like in industrial accidents or drowning or housefires, there would be a parliamentary inquiry, and immediate beefing up of safety provisions relating to whatever it is.

    Car culture is so insidious, and so ingrained within our society, that the fact that it kills 130-140 people each and every year is met with a shrug by many people.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    If 148 people in Ireland died as a result of any other activity in one year, like in industrial accidents or drowning or housefires, there would be a parliamentary inquiry
    the number who die by drowning is very nearly the same as the number who die in RTCs, actually.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    This is such a curious, and somewhat chilling statement.

    If 148 people in Ireland died as a result of any other activity in one year, like in industrial accidents or drowning or housefires, there would be a parliamentary inquiry, and immediate beefing up of safety provisions relating to whatever it is.

    Car culture is so insidious, and so ingrained within our society, that the fact that it kills 130-140 people each and every year is met with a shrug by many people.

    And that's without accounting for the indirect deaths caused by airpollution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,917 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    This is such a curious, and somewhat chilling statement.

    If 148 people in Ireland died as a result of any other activity in one year, like in industrial accidents or drowning or housefires, there would be a parliamentary inquiry, and immediate beefing up of safety provisions relating to whatever it is.

    Car culture is so insidious, and so ingrained within our society, that the fact that it kills 130-140 people each and every year is met with a shrug by many people.
    "Our" society? I think you'll find that this tolerance for DEATH is not something that is unique to Ireland - road fatalities always follow road usage - but Ireland is near-unique in managing those risks very well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

    As an Irish person you have a chance of dying on Irish roads every year of 0.003%. Most people would consider that risk to be reasonable especially considering the ways in which motor usage improves the quality of everyone's life. Not just drivers and car passengers, bus passengers are motor vehicle users, but even if you don't use any motor vehicles yourself, your mail, food and goods to the shops etc are all carried by motor vehicle.

    As to the statement you were replying to, it is a question of proportionality. 30kph may by your claims be "safer" than 50kph (I have my doubts in that regard as Irish roads/streets are already safe) but by the same token 10kph would be safer than 30kph. Should everyone have to drive around at 10kph? Would that be proportionate?
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    And that's without accounting for the indirect deaths caused by airpollution.
    You might have had a point in the early 1980s when leaded petrol was common and neither petrol nor diesel vehicles had any real air pollution controls.

    But I suspect you will find that Irish air quality is generally good.
    http://waqi.info/#/c/53.728/-6.97/7.6z
    It's pretty rare for someone to die because of good quality air.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    SeanW, let's say for the sake of argument that your 12 year old daughter/granddaughter/niece decided she wanted to cycle 4km to her school in the suburbs of dublin. you'd be happy with that?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,378 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    SeanW wrote: »
    But I suspect you will find that Irish air quality is generally good.
    http://waqi.info/#/c/53.728/-6.97/7.6z
    It's pretty rare for someone to die because of good quality air.

    It benefits to not take such a binary approach to societal improvements - there is a spectrum of events between living and dying.

    Air pollution, even truly minor amounts, has been shown to cause numerous deleterious health effects.


Advertisement