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

magicbastarder

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The entire argument for lower speeds other than "safety" ... is the congestion that happens at peak hours.

not sure if i misunderstand you - are you saying you believe that the argument *for* lower speed limits has anything to do with congestion?
FWIW i don't think anyone is arguing that lower speed limits will have any effect on congestion.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure if i misunderstand you - are you saying you believe that the argument *for* lower speed limits has anything to do with congestion?
FWIW i don't think anyone is arguing that lower speed limits will have any effect on congestion.

Aye - it’s usually used on the opposing side arguing that a lower speed limit will make traffic flow worse, and then others point out that traffic studies to date suggest that’s not the case, traffic flow being determined much more greatly by factors like traffic junctions, light sequencing and driver behaviors.

_Kaiser_

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure if i misunderstand you - are you saying you believe that the argument *for* lower speed limits has anything to do with congestion?
FWIW i don't think anyone is arguing that lower speed limits will have any effect on congestion.

Duckjob wrote: »

Aye - it’s usually used on the opposing side arguing that a lower speed limit will make traffic flow worse, and then others point out that traffic studies to date suggest that’s not the case, traffic flow being determined much more greatly by factors like traffic junctions, light sequencing and driver behaviors.

What I meant was that the argument for lower limits is usually based around 2 ideas:

- Safety: those "vulnerable" (ie: blameless victims) road users who should be free to walk out in front of traffic, shoot up between it and across it on bikes etc. It's amazing how we have infantilised society whereas 30/40 years ago kids were raised to be careful around traffic and not take stupid or dangerous chances

- "Traffic isn't doing 50 anyway", ergo lower limits are in fact pointless at those peak times and only serve to frustrate and delay everyone in those areas and/or during those 18+ other hours of the day where congestion isn't an issue.

I've a much better idea. Rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator and Helen Loveyjoy-esque hysteria, people just take some personal responsibility for their safety and actions instead.

magicbastarder

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've a much better idea. Rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator and Helen Loveyjoy-esque hysteria, people just take some personal responsibility for their safety and actions instead.

yes, that's working very well at the moment.
or, to phrase it another way, not sure if serious.

magicbastarder

to expand - road fatalities went *up* during the lockdown last year, despite the drastically reduced traffic volumes. the gardai (and hands up, i don't always agree with them on roads policing) reckoned it was the open roads were causing motorists to speed.
and RLJing is chronic in dublin right now; any motorist who spends any time driving around will tell you that. to make a claim that relying on people to show responsibility is in any way sensible, is naive in the extreme.

Pinch Flat

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/motorists-driving-at-extreme-speeds-on-less-busy-roads-during-covid-19-crisis-1.4241203

Yep, it was quite the thing.

_Kaiser_

magicbastarder wrote: »

to expand - road fatalities went *up* during the lockdown last year, despite the drastically reduced traffic volumes. the gardai (and hands up, i don't always agree with them on roads policing) reckoned it was the open roads were causing motorists to speed.
and RLJing is chronic in dublin right now; any motorist who spends any time driving around will tell you that. to make a claim that relying on people to show responsibility is in any way sensible, is naive in the extreme.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/motorists-driving-at-extreme-speeds-on-less-busy-roads-during-covid-19-crisis-1.4241203

Yep, it was quite the thing.

And a 30 km/h limit will do NOTHING to address that. If they're ignoring a 50/120 limit, they'll ignore that too.

The answer is enforcement of the rules we have, not imposing new ones that some will ignore anyway and which will only delay everyone else and encourage lemmings to take stupid chances among traffic.

magicbastarder

i doubt anyone here would agree that the current laws are anywhere close to being adequately policed.

Duckjob

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

What I meant was that the argument for lower limits is usually based around 2 ideas:

- Safety: those "vulnerable" (ie: blameless victims) road users who should be free to walk out in front of traffic, shoot up between it and across it on bikes etc. It's amazing how we have infantilised society whereas 30/40 years ago kids were raised to be careful around traffic and not take stupid or dangerous chances

- "Traffic isn't doing 50 anyway", ergo lower limits are in fact pointless at those peak times and only serve to frustrate and delay everyone in those areas and/or during those 18+ other hours of the day where congestion isn't an issue.

I've a much better idea. Rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator and Helen Loveyjoy-esque hysteria, people just take some personal responsibility for their safety and actions instead.

Mmmmhhhh.

The problem with your whole argument here is that it implies directly that our road safety problems are pretty much all the fault of everyone EXCEPT those driving a motorised vehicle, and those pesky people outside would just behave all would be fine and dandy.

The fact that this is not the case is evidenced very clearly by the almost daily news stories of people dying in single vehicle crashes and head on collisions. It is evidenced by people wrapping their cars around lampposts and overturning their cars in urban areas and flying off bends in rural areas. It's evidenced by the now predictable weekly reports of traffic pileups on the M50, etc etc.

TBH if anything is "infantile" it's the macho ("if you get a belt of a car on the road it's your own lookout") stance. We need to be a little bit more grown up in our thinking.

A slightly more mature and measured way is to approach it is to recognise that HUMANS, whether they are walking, riding a bike, or operating a motor vehicle are both flawed behaviorally, and also sometimes make honest mistakes. A mature road safety system allows for these human flaws (which is not the same thing as absolving people of responsibility to take due care) and plans accordingly so that a relative minor mistake need not result in a death or serious injury.

If you accept the premise that we are all flawed, that we all can have momentary lapses in judgement or make mistakes in the moment, then logically is it is a no-brainer to try to limit the speed of vehicular traffic more in built up areas you where you have more flawed people having to interact more closely, some in vehicles, some on bike, some on foot.

It's really not rocket science.

liamog

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The answer is enforcement of the rules we have, not imposing new ones that some will ignore anyway and which will only delay everyone else and encourage lemmings to take stupid chances among traffic.

Chapel Hill in Lucan Village is a good example of this, I stick my cruise control onto 30km/h for this section of road as the road is not designed as a 30km/h road. It's a pretty regular occurrence that someone decides to cross the solid white line and overtake.

Amirani

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1306139351903023105

So while Deirdre Conroy said this last year in opposition to 30km/hr speed zones, she has submitted a claim to the courts that having been injured in a skiing accident in 2015:

"Her claim also states she had to trade her Mercedes car for an automatic model, as she could no longer drive a manual due to the injury."

Something doesn't quite add up between these 2 statements.

odyssey06

Labour Councillor Mary Freehill said she saw little point in having a second public consultation since the council management didn’t take on board the results of the first one.
“What are we doing, going back out again, and choosing not to listen to the public again,” she says. “It doesn’t make sense.”

It's not a consultation. It's a con job because people don't support this in a proper consultation that wasn't run as a rigged propaganda exercise.