30km/h planned for main roads in Dublin City Council area (not all main roads)

odyssey06

Alias G wrote: »

I love how you can casually dismiss 150 annual deaths as a perfectly acceptable level of attrition. Multiple that figure by the number of families and close personal acquaintances directly impacted for a better understanding of the level of grief and despair visited upon fellow Irish citizens every year. Being best in class in one statistic should not preclude continuing efforts to improve safety on our roads. If it did, we wouldn't remain best in class for long.
Nor should it preclude making our urban centres more pleasant places to visit and navigate. But a modal shift from cars to walking, cycling and public transport will help acomplish that objective. No one is going to hold a gun to your head and demand that you no longer use your car. But it is only fair and reasonable that we begin to design our infrastructure to safely share the streetscape with those who wish to avail of greener and more efficient modes of transport.

If 150 deaths is being used as justification for this measure it seems reasonable to ask Hlhow many of those 150 deaths occurred on the types of streets targeted by this initiative?

Are the suburb trunk routes affected part of the urban centre?

Public transport routes using these streets will also be impacted by this limit, with impacts to service timetables.

Charles Babbage

Duckjob wrote: »

There, there. Do you feel better now you got that out ?

If the intention is to improve the urban environment then preventing cycling on the footpath would be an easy measure to start with, then they could propose further measures. That they do not do the easy things shows the lack of integrity of this initiative.

donvito99

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If the intention is to improve the urban environment then preventing cycling on the footpath would be an easy measure to start with, then they could propose further measures. That they do not do the easy things shows the lack of integrity of this initiative.

It's already illegal to cycle on the footpath.

If the Guards devoted resources to ticketing people cycling on the footpath, that's less resources devoted to things that actually impair safety on the roads.

Also, a 30kph speed limit is much easier to do than "preventing" cycling on the footpath. Don't know what you're getting at there.

Alias G

odyssey06 wrote: »

If 150 deaths is being used as justification for this measure it seems reasonable to ask Hlhow many of those 150 deaths occurred on the types of streets targeted by this initiative?

Are the suburb trunk routes affected part of the urban centre?

Public transport routes using these streets will also be impacted by this limit, with impacts to service timetables.

I didn't use the annual road death statistic as a justification for the proposed speed limit. That figure was introduced by one of your fellow status quo advocates. I was merely a bit appalled by how comfortable he was with the figure. That bring said, there have been high profile fatalities invilolving children which have formed part of the motivation to implement the 30kp/h limit. Even if there is no net reduction in annual road fatalities but it creates and urban environment where more people feel confident enough to opt for the bicycle rather than adding an additional car to the gridlock, then it will have had a positive impact.

This is a DCC proposal. Even if it is implemented on trunk routes, it would only apply as far as the municipal boundary. The suburban routes are not in scope.

Effect on public transport will be neglible. Average kp/h on routes traversing the area in question are typically under 30 anyway.

odyssey06

Alias G wrote: »

I didn't use the annual road death statistic as a justification for the proposed speed limit. That figure was introduced by one of your fellow status quo advocates. I was merely a bit appalled by how comfortable he was with the figure. That bring said, there have been high profile fatalities invilolving children which have formed part of the motivation to implement the 30kp/h limit. Even if there is no net reduction in annual road fatalities but it creates and urban environment where more people feel confident enough to opt for the bicycle rather than adding an additional car to the gridlock, then it will have had a positive impact.

This is a DCC proposal. Even if it is implemented on trunk routes, it would only apply as far as the municipal boundary. The suburban routes are not in scope.

Effect on public transport will be neglible. Average kp/h on routes traversing the area in question are typically under 30 anyway.

That is effectively the same as using 150 deaths to justify this proposal. Our roads are safe.
What are these high profile deaths on the type of roads in scope of this proposal?
Inc trunk roads.

Is it your contention that everywhere in DCC area is part of the urban centre?
Even suburbs such as Raheny?

Average kph is a deceptive stat given that it includes time stopped at lights. Public transport timetables will be impacted by this across its daily schedule so to cite public transport as a reason to justify it is absurd. Ask bus drivers or timetablers what they think of this.

magicbastarder

i really, really wish road deaths weren't jockeyed about as the sole metric for how safe or usable our roads are.
huge numbers of schoolchildren are driven to school, and the safety of them getting there on their own is a huge factor. but concerns about safety seem to be swept away with comments relating to our low road deaths.

as i will repeat for probably the nineteenth time; no one dies swimming in shark infested pools in ireland, but we don't draw the conclusion that swimming in shark infested pools is safe.

Peregrine

odyssey06 wrote: »

That is effectively the same as using 150 deaths to justify this proposal. Our roads are safe.

Would you let your kids walk to school by themselves? Or cycle by themselves?

Most parents don't. Not anymore.

Deaths are a poor metric of road safety. For example, people are too afraid to cycle and say it's too dangerous. So very few people cycle. As a result, very few people die cycling. That doesn't mean our roads are safe.

odyssey06

magicbastarder wrote: »

i really, really wish road deaths weren't jockeyed about as the sole metric for how safe or usable our roads are.
huge numbers of schoolchildren are driven to school, and the safety of them getting there on their own is a huge factor. but concerns about safety seem to be swept away with comments relating to our low road deaths.

as i will repeat for probably the nineteenth time; no one dies swimming in shark infested pools in ireland, but we don't draw the conclusion that swimming in shark infested pools is safe.

The safety of getting kids to school on their own does not just include road safety does it?
Would they be any less safe on the road in a dublin bus or dart or luas?

Were more kids sent on their way on their own steam in the 80s say when road deaths etc were higher and probably less safe by any other road safety metric?

magicbastarder

approximately 2% of *secondary* school students cycle to school in ireland.
in the netherlands, 37% of *primary* school students cycle.

magicbastarder

odyssey06 wrote: »

The safety of getting kids to school on their own does not just include road safety does it?

i didn't claim it was. i did say it was a 'huge factor'.
when many adults claim its too dangerous to cycle *themselves*, you can imagine their attitudes to their kids cycling.

odyssey06

magicbastarder wrote: »

i didn't claim it was. i did say it was a 'huge factor'.
when many adults claim its too dangerous to cycle *themselves*, you can imagine their attitudes to their kids cycling.

And yet roads have never been safer in living memory.

Peregrine

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0701/1150834-road-deaths-eu/
Ireland has lowest road traffic fatality rate in EU

Is anyone on this thread going to insult everyone's intelligence and argue that we have the safest roads in Europe? Safer than the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark? We've gradually scared vulnuerable road users off our roads.

Using road deaths only as a metric of road safety shows very poor understanding of road safety.

odyssey06

Peregrine wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0701/1150834-road-deaths-eu/
Ireland has lowest road traffic fatality rate in EU

Is anyone on this thread going to insult everyone's intelligence and argue that we have the safest roads in Europe? Safer than the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark? We've gradually scared vulnuerable road users off our roads.

Using road deaths only as a metric of road safety shows very poor understanding of road safety.

As is focusing on speed only.
The roads in scope of this proposal are not unsafe because of the speed limit and the road death figures show this.
Look at bottlenecks, junction layouts, road quality etc

What would be the equivalent speed limit on the roads in scope of this proposal in denmark or holland?

magicbastarder

" for instance, in the Netherlands, 70% of the urban roads are limited to 30 km/h"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_km/h_zone

Peregrine

odyssey06 wrote: »

As is focusing on speed only.
The roads in scope of this proposal are not unsafe because of the speed limit and the road death figures show this.
Look at bottlenecks, junction layouts, road quality etc

What would be the equivalent speed limit on the roads in scope of this proposal in denmark or holland?

They're not "focusing on speed only". That's just plain wrong. Speed is one of many things they're focusing on. It's also one of many things that impact road safety.

You may not have noticed but they have been doing a few road layout changes recently. They're taking heat left, right and centre for it. Ended up in the High Court and everything. It was hard to miss, really.

magicbastarder

odyssey06 wrote: »

And yet roads have never been safer in living memory.

the roads will be even safer yet when everyone is driving around in tanks.

magicbastarder

Peregrine wrote: »

We've gradually scared vulnuerable road users off our roads.

going back to NL - 37% of primary school students cycle to school. 17% of primary school students cycle unaccompanied by an adult.
can you imagine that many kids cycled to school in ireland? it'd be carnage, in the absolute worst sense of the word.

SeanW

Alias G wrote: »

I love how you can casually dismiss 150 annual deaths as a perfectly acceptable level of attrition. Multiple that figure by the number of families and close personal acquaintances directly impacted for a better understanding of the level of grief and despair visited upon fellow Irish citizens every year. Being best in class in one statistic should not preclude continuing efforts to improve safety on our roads. If it did, we wouldn't remain best in class for long.
Nor should it preclude making our urban centres more pleasant places to visit and navigate. But a modal shift from cars to walking, cycling and public transport will help acomplish that objective. No one is going to hold a gun to your head and demand that you no longer use your car. But it is only fair and reasonable that we begin to design our infrastructure to safely share the streetscape with those who wish to avail of greener and more efficient modes of transport.

Strangely, I actually agree with as much of this post as I disagree with :rolleyes: Firstly, I'm fine with reasonable measures to improve our already good statistics. Just not ones that are overly broad and excessive. Secondly, I agree that core urban centres should be made more attractive to people not necessarily driving. As a routine pedestrian, there are things I'd find useful like faster countdowns for the green man at pedestrian crossings (including those countdown timers they used to have around O'Connell Bridge), wider footpaths in some cases, the introduction of "scramble crossings" etc. Also, I have no objection to reasonable demands for things like cycle lanes, as these too can clearly be part of best practice. As long as the measures being proposed are fair, reasonable and effective, I have no objections - and there are plenty of things that could be done that would meet those criteria.

Alias G wrote: »

I didn't use the annual road death statistic as a justification for the proposed speed limit. That figure was introduced by one of your fellow status quo advocates.

Not quite. I was responding to another poster who posted a figure of 1.3 million fatalities per year worldwide, as evidence of the need for broad changes in Ireland. Quoting death statistics is common among those calling for extreme measures to be taken against Irish motorists.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i really, really wish road deaths weren't jockeyed about as the sole metric for how safe or usable our roads are.
huge numbers of schoolchildren are driven to school, and the safety of them getting there on their own is a huge factor. but concerns about safety seem to be swept away with comments relating to our low road deaths.

If you want cycle lanes and the like to make your journey safer and less stressful, go for it. Unfortunately, much of the reference to road death statistics comes from those who are simply using them as cudgels against Irish motorists. For my part, I only quote international evidence to put such claims into context.

Charles Babbage

donvito99 wrote: »

It's already illegal to cycle on the footpath.

If the Guards devoted resources to ticketing people cycling on the footpath, that's less resources devoted to things that actually impair safety on the roads.

Also, a 30kph speed limit is much easier to do than "preventing" cycling on the footpath. Don't know what you're getting at there.

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable group an they are entitled to some space without people tying to ram them with metal objects.

But there are other aspects of enforcement that should be concentrated on in the first instance, cameras to identify people breaking red lights for instance, not only cyclists but people making left and right turns without waiting for the arrow.

Marcusm

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, they won't, as speed limits don't apply to cyclists. speed limits apply to motorised vehicles.

The equivalent offence for a cyclist is “cycling furiously” but it is subjective.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

For my part, I only quote international evidence to put such claims into context.

and i post international evidence so as to place *those* claims into context, so we're two sides of the same page.

Marcusm

donvito99 wrote: »

It's already illegal to cycle on the footpath.

If the Guards devoted resources to ticketing people cycling on the footpath, that's less resources devoted to things that actually impair safety on the roads.

Also, a 30kph speed limit is much easier to do than "preventing" cycling on the footpath. Don't know what you're getting at there.

If the guards merely screamed at people cycling on the footpaths then I think it would have a better effect. As with speeding cars in built up areas, red light jumping etc, the greatest impediment is an inability to people stop acting like dicks combined with a reticence to call out bad behaviour in front of you.

magicbastarder

Charles Babbage wrote: »

cameras to identify people breaking red lights for instance, not only cyclists

that's a very weird clarification.

Marcusm

Alias G wrote: »

I love how you can casually dismiss 150 annual deaths as a perfectly acceptable level of attrition. Multiple that figure by the number of families and close personal acquaintances directly impacted for a better understanding of the level of grief and despair visited upon fellow Irish citizens every year. Being best in class in one statistic should not preclude continuing efforts to improve safety on our roads. If it did, we wouldn't remain best in class for long.
Nor should it preclude making our urban centres more pleasant places to visit and navigate. But a modal shift from cars to walking, cycling and public transport will help acomplish that objective. No one is going to hold a gun to your head and demand that you no longer use your car. But it is only fair and reasonable that we begin to design our infrastructure to safely share the streetscape with those who wish to avail of greener and more efficient modes of transport.

And 20 years ago it was over 400 with historically higher numbers in earlier decades with many fewer cars. Each death is a tragedy but, to some extent, there will always be some. A continued focus on bringing the fatality rate down is important but all the easy gains have already been made. It will not drop to zero and, I suspect, it will never drop below 100.

magicbastarder

there are multiple reasons why the fatality rate has dropped. cars are much much safer (for the occupants mainly); drink driving is far less common than it used to be; and the numbers cycling and walking have also plummeted.

SeanW

Are you sure that the numbers of people walking have plummeted? Maybe cycling, but (at least pre-pandemic) Dublin and other cities/towns had plenty of people walking about, as far as I could see.

magicbastarder

anyway, i'd agree in general with what a lot of people are saying here; there should be more focus on actually policing the laws we have before we introduce new ones, otherwise the new laws are just tokenistic.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

Are you sure that the numbers of people walking have plummeted? Maybe cycling, but (at least pre-pandemic) Dublin and other cities/towns had plenty of people walking about, as far as I could see.

i'm not; but i was thinking of the same context of schools; when i was in primary school (in the 80s admittedly, suburban dublin) it was exceptionally rare that someone would arrive to school in a car. now the figure is over 60% nationally.

Larbre34

Owen Keegan has conceded under questioning by Councillors, that having the City Council promote the Loving 30 campaign, as well as being the local authority to hold a notionally impartial consultation on the reduction of the default limit to 30 km/h, is a conflict of interest and incompatible. He indicates be may have to scrap the current consultation process.

Personally, I think he is throwing his own officials under the bus, as he knows what way the wind is blowing and cannot afford to loose a second Council vote on the matter is less than 12 months.

Most likely the end of this nonsense and not before time.

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

Owen Keegan has conceded under questioning by Councillors, that having the City Council promote the Loving 30 campaign, as well as being the local authority to hold a notionally impartial consultation on the reduction of the default limit to 30 km/h, is a conflict of interest and incompatible. He indicates be may have to scrap the current consultation process.

Personally, I think he is throwing his own officials under the bus, as he knows what way the wind is blowing and cannot afford to loose a second Council vote on the matter is less than 12 months.

Most likely the end of this nonsense and not before time.

Consultation is non-statutory. So is the current process.

The final vote is in October. Which would actually be 13 months since the last vote. Which was not "lost" because it was never voted on.

Larbre34

Semantics.

Its the politics of this that matters.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Semantics.

Ah the truth, it can be so annoying

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

Semantics.

Its the politics of this that matters.

The politics of it is that only like five councillors are opposing this proposal completely and want to see it scrapped like you say. The same dinosaurs as last time. The rest are either supportive or looking for changes. They may not support 100% of it but they're not looking for an "end of this nonsense" like you say.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

the current average speed to get from the phoenix park to the five lamps on the north circular is not 50km/h, and not even 30km/h.

it's 13km/h.
based on google maps current calculations.

google maps shows the phoenix park to the five lamps on the north circular is 4km. It also says the travel time is between 7mins - 26mins. average time being 16.5 mins. That would also mean that the average travel speed would be 14.54km/h. just saying

beauf

I'm surprised it's that's fast. Phibsboro at peak is no joke.

Roadhawk

SeeMoreBut wrote: »

Will cyclists be stopped when breaking 30 kph also as that speed is easily achievable for lot a cyclists

Although a bicycle is defined as a vehicle in legislation a cyclist is not governed by the speed limit on the road. Unfortunate but the argument being that a bicycle would cause considerably less damage/harm when traveling at a higher speed.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are multiple reasons why the fatality rate has dropped. cars are much much safer (for the occupants mainly); drink driving is far less common than it used to be; and the numbers cycling and walking have also plummeted.

In addition to that the number of privately owned vehicles has increased over the last 20/30 years yet the number of fatalities have dropped...if you follow the timelines of when the seatbelt campaigns and drink driving campaigns were held after the implementation of penalty points there is a serious positive result. Just shows that enforcement and awareness works.

sdanseo

If you don't want to be hit by a car don't walk in front of one.

Wrapping the world in cotton wool this is. Ludicrous waste of everyone's time.

30km/h HAS a place on narrow, urban streets. Not the quays, or even sub-arterial routes. But even then, surely it's better to pedestrianise swathes of streets so that pedestrians will actually use them (and put tables outside pubs and resteraunts) than use this absolute joke to shoot fish in barrels. But of course Brown Thomas couldn't have that.

It'd be easy to say this is all about money, but in actual fact it's much worse: literal clowns running the show. As for Keegan.. isn't it about time he was put out to pasture?

Roadhawk

Peregrine wrote: »

Genuine question, Roadhawk, have you read the proposal?

Roadhawk wrote: »

Eh yes, i have since become a key stakeholder in the loving 30 campaign just to have a position of understanding.

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0421/1211193-dublin-speed-limit-campaign/

Round one...more to come.

odyssey06

Larbre34 wrote: »

Owen Keegan has conceded under questioning by Councillors, that having the City Council promote the Loving 30 campaign, as well as being the local authority to hold a notionally impartial consultation on the reduction of the default limit to 30 km/h, is a conflict of interest and incompatible. He indicates be may have to scrap the current consultation process.

The consultation isn't impartial even, regardless of whether you approve or not of the proposal. The wording of the online consultation form is deliberately designed to influence your choice.
If you agree with the proposal you just tick a box.
If you disagree you have to justify your negative.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

google maps shows the phoenix park to the five lamps on the north circular is 4km. It also says the travel time is between 7mins - 26mins. average time being 16.5 mins. That would also mean that the average travel speed would be 14.54km/h. just saying

Yes, their estimate changes based on traffic levels.

odyssey06

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not; but i was thinking of the same context of schools; when i was in primary school (in the 80s admittedly, suburban dublin) it was exceptionally rare that someone would arrive to school in a car. now the figure is over 60% nationally.

Yes but how much is that is because of road safety fears versus...
A lot less people had cars in 1980s suburban Dublin, two car homes even rarer.
There were more households where one parent was still at home, and would walk the kids to school, or grandparents\family member around the corner would do this.
There were larger households with older siblings who would bring younger siblings to adjacent schools.
Now if you have two parents working the dropoff to school on the way to work is more common.
People were living at shorter distances from the school and their close relations.
Concerns about 'child' abductions became prevalent.

beauf

People are choosing where they live based on if what they need is with in driving distance hence it's creating a reliance on the car.

Schools have changed their enrollment policies to give less priority to length of residency in the catchment. This is to create diversity in the schools. This has the effect of positive discrimination. But also that it facilitates people who don't live close to the school getting places in the school. Requiring kids to be driven to school. But also local kids not getting into the local school and have to driven out to a school somewhere else.

magicbastarder

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes but how much is that is because of road safety fears versus...

a lot; as a result of the same factors you mention. i agree with pretty much all you post there, but i'd argue that they're all interlinked. yes, many more people started driving their kids to school for those reasons, but it also resulted in a massive increase in traffic on the roads and it becomes a feedback cycle.

beauf

I'm often surprised when some people kids schools are nowhere near where they live. Then I realize its either near where they work, or its on their commute.
They do stuff like give someone else address or rent temporarily in the area, get the kids into the school, then move away.

That said my parents did the same to me. I went to school halfway across the city. Used to get dropped in the morning, bus home.
But in general I got the bus too and from school, and it was two bus journeys away. Or a 30 minute walk and a bus journey. I thought it was pointless back then too.

Peregrine

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0421/1211193-dublin-speed-limit-campaign/

Round one...more to come.

What does that have to do with you not understanding the proposals? You're not Owen Keegan, John Kilraine, Damian O'Farrell or Mannix Flynn.

You were presenting a scenario of someone driving 400km in Dublin city in a day at 50km/h for 8 hours. Even Mannix Flynn understands how silly that is.

Zebra3

sdanseo wrote: »

If you don't want to be hit by a car don't walk in front of one.

What a vile comment.

You actually think that all pedestrians injured or killed by motorists are to blame? :rolleyes:

There's a foot bridge in the car park of my local train station and it has a protective defence around it. I wonder why that is. To stop cyclists crashing in to it and damaging the bridge? To stop pedestrians walking into it? Any thoughts?

vandriver

Are there any statistics for the level of road deaths in the DCC area per year?
I've looked,and can only find the Dublin level of about 20 a year.
If DCC aren't publicising it,I might suppose that it's very low,and wouldn't suit their narrative,specially when they only ascribe 40% of deaths to excessive speed.

markpb

vandriver wrote: »

Are there any statistics for the level of road deaths in the DCC area per year?
I've looked,and can only find the Dublin level of about 20 a year.
If DCC aren't publicising it,I might suppose that it's very low,and wouldn't suit their narrative,specially when they only ascribe 40% of deaths to excessive speed.

There are plenty of reasons to support a 30kph limit other than road deaths. Death is probably the biggest inconvenience when being hit by a car but there's also air and noise pollution which drop considerably at lower speeds. Lower speeds make roads feel safer so people are more likely to walk or cycle instead of driving. Lower speeds make drivers more involved in their surroundings. At 50kph, the car is king and everyone else has to work around it. At 30kph, pedestrians can more easily cross the road, cyclists can more easily merge into traffic to get around parked cars, drivers are more likely to acknowledge other road users and slow down or stop for them. There's a subtle but powerful psychological impact.

beauf

vandriver wrote: »

Are there any statistics for the level of road deaths in the DCC area per year?
I've looked,and can only find the Dublin level of about 20 a year.
If DCC aren't publicising it,I might suppose that it's very low,and wouldn't suit their narrative,specially when they only ascribe 40% of deaths to excessive speed.

Is 40% not enough. Seems a massive percentage.