30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120089873#Comment_120089873

What was the RSA definition of 'culpability' that resulted in that 70% figure you're quoting there please?

SeanW

Periodic speed limits around schools can make sense depending on what the schedule is and how far out they apply. I think most sane people would agree that there are different circumstances at say, the final bell on a school day as opposed to later in the evening.

SeanW

@AndrewJRenko weren't you the one who routinely falsely accused 2.8 million people of collectively "killing 2 or 3 people every week?" NVM, I'll bite.

As for the school at 11PM, I've already proven that crawling for no reason wastes not just time but a significant amount of fuel.

https://myengineeringworld.net/2012/05/optimal-speed-for-minimum-fuel.html

Perhaps you think that petrol grows on trees and that climate change is a myth? That's the only logical reason I can find for making people crawl for no reason.

As to the RSA investigation where they found that 70% of pedestrian fatalities are caused by the actions of pedestrians, as near as I can determine the conclusion had already been reached in the Garda Investigation Files. On Slide 19 they explain that they charted based on 178 fatalities over a number of years and they base that on there being a complete Garda Investigation File. As explained on Slide 12 this includes: Garda Investigation Report, Forensic Collision Investigation (FCI) Report, PSV Report, Autopsy Report, Toxicology Report, Deposition Statement, Coroner’s Verdict, Death Certificate.

Not that it matters that much because even if the driver was 100% culpable in all cases, there would still not be enough of them to justify punishing the other 2.8+ million Irish drivers that were not even involved in these incidents, let alone the cause of them. The 70% figure just goes to show just how much "motorists" get blamed by some for things they didn't cause.

magicbastarder

why are you quoting as 'proof' that driving at 60-80km/h is more fuel efficient, when we're talking about a very different context to the conditions that chap is? he's talking about open road driving with little braking, which is the opposite to what happens in urban areas.

and the average speed in dublin is already a fraction of that 60-70km/h anyway. as low as 10km/h in rush hour, and currently about 20km/h after rush hour with the roads quite clear (on the usual test route i'd use, DCU to UCD, which is 95% on 50km/h roads anyway).

it may well be the case that in urban environments, due to the stop start nature of the driving, maxing out at 30 is more fuel efficient than maxing out at 50. because if you build up to 50, it means you're likely to have to brake harder at the next set of lights/junction, and braking is wasted fuel in a sense.

reaching the hypothetical average of 60-80km/h from the article you quote, in city driving, would probably involve getting the car up to 200km/h or higher, and almost instantly slamming on at the next lights. and that would be utter, utter murder on fuel efficiency.

in short, you cannot apply calculations on fuel efficiency in open road driving, to city driving.

magicbastarder

that RSA report is very thin on how culpability was decided. but the RSA reveals its usual colours with the statement that '98% of pedestrians were not wearing hi-vis clothing' which would certainly imply it's part of their calculations; it states that 57% of the fatalities in consideration were on urban roads.

also; to what extent can the gardai determine culpability? i would have assumed that a (final?) decision on that would lie with the coroner/courts, though i assume the gardai can issue their recommendations.

SeanW

Not every journey is at peak times and not every urban area road nationwide will have red lights every 200 metres. Outside of city centre environments you can easily find urban roads with little or no interruption for 500 metres or more - especially in Ireland where the definition of "urban area" often stretches significantly into the countryside. I posted earlier an extreme example of the N59 in Galway City, where the urban speed limit starts 2 kilometres before the first traffic light. Another example in Dublin, the R109 between St. Mary's nursing home and Islandbridge runs uninterrupted for 1.9km - and this road was to have its speed limit cut in half under DCCs "Love 30" campaign. Even where there are traffic lights, they aren't always red, especially on main roads.

As to the RSA, I suspect that determination of culpability was made by the Gardai or someone else during the actual investigation, hence the RSA only included incidents where there was a Garda Investigation File.

User142

https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1626487302011645953

Fantastic graphic from London that shows how when those darn pedestrians do stupid stuff they get hurt and die less when the limit is 20mph. Nice that London has great public transport and cycle infrastructure to reduce the climate change causing fossil fuels use everyone is very concerned about unnecessary burning of.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250631#Comment_120250631

I think most sane people would appreciate how difficult it is to get drivers to stick to speed limits at the best of times, let alone what would happen if drivers had to deal with the complexity of speed limits changing on different days and times.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120254696#Comment_120254696

So culpability comes from the Garda view? We've all seen what Garda view means, the view from behind the windscreen, fond of classic victim blaming tactics and full of excuses for not actually enforcing traffic laws.

SeanW

Other jurisdictions seem to manage just fine with variable speed limits around schools, and it's difficult to imagine any sane person asserting that Ireland is so radically different. Aside from the quantifiable things like road safety, where Ireland is better than just about any average.

As to your bizarre rant about Garda not enforcing traffic laws, assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, cyclists should be grateful for this because it gives them carte blanche to menace pedestrians out of their way on the footpath. Which they do with regular merry abandon.

Regarding the post about London, the comparison is not really apt as Greater London has a higher population and population density than anywhere in Ireland. Naturally if everywhere is more crowded, different measures are required. Even still, and taking the graphic at face value, it shows that serious incidents (involving serious injury or death) declined only marginally from a very small number (94), to a slightly smaller very small number (71).

Repeat the same experiment on a semi-rural arterial route in this country and the results would very likely be even less impressive. And none of it justifying punishing 2.8 million people for incidents they wouldn't even be involved in - let alone the cause of - under either circumstance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120255467#Comment_120255467

I'm not sure you want to be using road safety in the USA as a basis for an argument given the utter disregard for anyone not in a vehicle there

Sarn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120254704#Comment_120254704

Seeing as they introduced the lower limit in March 2020, I wonder how much Covid contributed to the reductions over the period. It will be interesting to see what level of reductions are maintained.

Unrealistic

We've had lots of snow in Galway today and I spent a couple of hours driving around in it. For all the talk about cars not being designed to be driven at 30km/h, and it being too difficult to do, most drivers seemed to be able to manage it when they needed to.

From another thread, a good read on the outcomes of implementing 30k limits

https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/None-of-the-European-cities-that-lowered-the-speed-limit-to-30-km-h-regrets-it

SeanW

That reads like a propaganda piece, i.e. that the "journalists" started with the presupposition that 30kph limits should be applied everywhere, and then set out to cherry-pick the information that they could use to push the pre-ordained hypothesis. They didn't ask, for example, how many person-hours were being wasted crawling everywhere, how much fuel was being wasted forcing drivers to cruise at such a low speed. These were questions I would have expected any actual journalist to ask.

They reveal their bias with this line:

90 percent of accidents resulting in injuries were caused by vehicles, and most of the victims were blameless individuals, pedestrians or cyclists.

Except we know for a fact that many collisions are caused by people not in vehicles, in Ireland for example the RSA estimates that 70% of fatal pedestrian-vehicle incidents are caused by the pedestrian, not the driver.

As to the city of Zurich in particular:

On the other hand, some citizens voiced their concerns. They worry that the standard of public transportation will worsen: to avoid this, the city council decided to invest 20 million franks to make public transport more frequent and improve capacity if needed. 

One question arises: did the city have to spend money to buy more buses and trams? Because if the slowdown affected public transport vehicles, it would be safe to assume that buses and trams could not provide public transport as efficiently as before and that the city might need more vehicles (using more fuel) to provide the same level of service.

The real question therefore is whether any of the supposed benefits are worth the waste of people's time and fuel that would result, as well as the consequences of the slowdown for and decreased efficiency of public transport? Your article made no effort to answer that question.

Kiteview

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120359907#Comment_120359907

The RSA report does not state that “70% of fatal pedestrian-vehicle incidents are caused by the pedestrian, not the driver”. That’s you “cherry-picking the information that you can use to push the pre-ordained hypothesis”.

The report refers to culpability which as the report points out can be an error. An error though does not cause an accident by itself. For instance, the highest culpable action by pedestrians is classified as “crossing the road” - but that makes no reference to any other factor such as the speed the motorist involved was travelling at. A motorist travelling at a slower speed would be far less likely to hit a pedestrian than one travelling with the attitude that they are being “punished” due to having to obey a 50km/hr speed limit - and that of course presumes they are travelling below that speed limit and that the data records the speed of the motorist accurately (and it almost certainly does not since motorists have a strong incentive to underreport their speed in an accident).

Equally the report classifies a failure to wear reflective gear after dark as one of their “culpable factors” - even though there is no more of a legal obligation to do so than there is for motorists to have someone carrying a large red flag in front of their cars as was once the case.

If pedestrians are to be blamed for “causing the accident” in the former case then equally motorists should be blamed for “causing the accident” in the latter case.

magicbastarder

For instance, the highest culpable action by pedestrians is classified as “crossing the road”

you've got to be **** me? if they're using that without nuance the whole report is suspect.

magicbastarder

there was a case five or ten years ago which made me question how reliable those investigations are anyway; a motorist hit a pedestrian on an N road at night (and it could well have been the pedestrian's fault). the motorist told the gardai he was doing about 90-95km/h IIRC, on a road with a limit of 100; but the gardai concluded that he was in fact doing i think 50km/h. which is nonsensical.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360868#Comment_120360868

I don't see a contradiction there. The motorist may well have been travelling at about 90-95 km/h, saw the pedestrian late, braked hard, and was doing 50 km/h when he hit them, which is what the gardai measured.

magicbastarder

i can't find the article now, but IIRC the suggestion was that was the speed the motorist had been travelling at. perhaps he had not had time to brake.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360030#Comment_120360030

I'm struggling to understand the point of this somewhat ... I had to recheck the definition of culpability just to make sure there were no mistakes on my part. It was as I expected.

I'm not sure what you are claiming exactly - that all motorists involved in motorist-pedestrian collisions are culpable because they weren't going slower? That the pedestrians are never culpable because their actions or negligence can be excused as an "error?"

Because you seem to be suggesting that if a motorist is driving at a reasonable speed, observing traffic controls, using a reasonable level of observation, it's somehow their fault if some muppet jumps out of a bush or something and runs out into the road without looking, as if the latter were not the root cause of a resulting accident. Not that this even happens that often in a country where fatalities are so rare that they occur only around 3 times per billion vehicle-kilometres and most of those incidents don't involve pedestrians.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with 50kph because the topic of this thread is the desire to make motorists waste time and fuel with 30kph speed limits.

As to your bizarre reference to the red flag laws of ... what was it, the 19th century? Nowadays, cars have headlights and newer cars have Daytime Running Lights, or DRLs, and those seem to handle the problem of vehicle visibility. If you think that having a man waving a red flag in front of cars would increase vehicle visibility, you can feel free to advocate for it. It should also be noted that something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Yes, you are free to wander around unlit rural roads late at night, in only dark clothes, not carrying a flashlight or anything. AFAIK that is legal. But if you have an ounce of common sense and any awareness of your surroundings, you would either do this with extreme caution or not at all. Of course, doing the same in an urban environment where there are things like streetlights should usually be OK.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120381663#Comment_120381663

Could we bring back the red flags, or mandatory hivis panels for the one or two idiot drivers I see every winter evening driving with no back lights because they don’t know how to operate their DRLs?

30k zone for Galway city center approved as part of speed limit by-law changes, effective 28th Aug this year.

Further expansion will be looked at as part of a wider speed limit review encompassing the whole city later this year

Jeremy Sproket

Bring them on! Fixed average speed cameras everywhere please.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120088407#Comment_120088407

I notice you're conveniently ignoring the 724 serious injuries in urban areas? If we can reduce that we should. Having a 30kph speed limit does that. We don't want kids with spinal injuries being the "ah sure its grand" of Irish Road safety policy

Alias G

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120540511#Comment_120540511

I'm sure you could multiply the fatality number by a factor of 10 to account for all the friends and family bereaved. But SeanW is unlikely to give a hoot. He can't see past the creature comforts of his own car. I've no doubt he is an insufferable personality.

SeanW

Wow, there's a lot of unfounded speculation there 😂

As to me being unable to "see past the creature comforts of his own car" wrong. I just don't like collective punishment. And that's what's being proposed - holding all 2.8 million Irish drivers responsible for incidents they weren't involved in, let alone the cause of. I'm also not a fan of mendacity, and the people pushing to wallpaper the country with 30kph limits are being ... economical with the truth ... in their suggestion that lowering speed limits has only positives and either no negatives or not wanting to talk about them. In reality, lowering speed limits inappropriately would have significant downsides both in terms of peoples time wasted and extra fuel used for no reason. Likewise the allusion I've seen that lowering speed limits wouldn't have much effect on anything because journeys in urban areas are only at peak times and on streets where there's a red traffic light every 200 metres.

As to my supposed "insufferable personality" ... frankly I suspect this is a case of projection.

magicbastarder

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/05/05/steal-this-idea-in-quebec-a-new-traffic-light-only-turns-green-for-safe-drivers/

...

Hotblack Desiato

Saw some of them on the entry to small towns in Spain over 20 years ago.

magicbastarder

this article raises the topic of speed limit reduction, and would seem to put the lie to the claim that the roads just keep getting safer - a tripling of serious injuries in a decade (though it's vague on whether that could be down to better reporting, as they mention accuracy of the info as being an issue?)

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/06/06/numbers-suffering-serious-often-life-changing-injuries-in-road-crashes-has-almost-tripled-in-a-decade/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681123#Comment_120681123

There's not a lot of detail in that report and I can't see anything recent on the RSA site relating to the figures mentioned so I'm not sure I'd agree with your conclusion.

This is very welcome though I'm sure the devil will be in the details

This summer, the Department of Transport is expected to publish a review of speed limits which could see the 50km/h default speed limit on urban roads cut to 30km/h and 100km/h on rural roads reduced to 80km/h.

magicbastarder

you wouldn't agree with what conclusion of mine? not sure i reached any conclusions...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681287#Comment_120681287

would seem to put the lie to the claim that the roads just keep getting safer

That, though in re-reading its not so much a conclusion as a comment

As both of us admit, there's not a lot of detail to go on. Even the previous RSA & Garda reports & datasets on this topic have been exceptionally poor. Considering the seriousness of the issue its a bad reflection on both entities

magicbastarder

and who decides if it's 'serious'? we don't know what the criteria are, could be just a judgment call by medical staff.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681519#Comment_120681519

A serious injury is "An injury for which the person is detained in hospital as an ‘in-patient’ or any of the following injuries whether or not detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe cuts and lacerations, and/or severe general shock requiring medical treatment."

https://www.rsa.ie/docs/default-source/road-safety/r4.1-research-reports/safe-road-use/serious-injuries-in-road-traffic-collisions-in-ireland-2021.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=6e44cdb6_5

magicbastarder

cheers - so if someone breaks their thumb in a collision (i chose that option because it happened a colleague), that's classed as a serious injury? hmm.

This was published a few weeks back and contains additional serious injury analysis specific to cyclists

https://www.rsa.ie/docs/default-source/road-safety/r2---statistics/analysis-of-road-users/cyclist-spotlight-report-fatalities-and-serious-injuries-2016-2021.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=771bb739_15

magicbastarder

you may have noticed that i'm crossposting some of this to the cycling forum too!

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120595026#Comment_120595026

One comment under that article I had to laugh at was:

Wouldn't it make more sense to design this light so it defaults to green, changing to red only when a speeder is detected?

We don't need more traffic infrastructure that discriminates against bicycles, scooters, etc. And I have yet to see a traffic sensor that reliably detects me approaching on my bike 100% of the time.

Maybe in Canada cyclists actually obey traffic lights LOL here they treat them as theoretical. And I've always wondered why cyclists care so much about speed limits on the road considering that they can and do cycle on the footpaths with absolute impunity.

Tenzor07

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120688430#Comment_120688430

As you claim, cyclists treating road traffic lights as theoretical, the same can be said of Motorists and speed limits, Motorbikers in particular treat some sections of roads as stages of the Isle of Man TT and they do so with impunity, so unless you never ever break the law/rules of the road then you haven't leg to stand on with your moralising over cyclists...many of whom lost their lives to speeding motorists..

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120689242#Comment_120689242

You know that what @SeanW posted is bull$h!t. The rest of us know that what @SeanW posted is bull$h!t. @SeanW knows that what @SeanW posted is bull$h!t.

Don't feed the trolls is the best approach, I think.

Hotblack Desiato

Just move this thread into the cycling forum and be done with it if you want an echo chamber.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120689242#Comment_120689242

I'm a regular pedestrian in Ireland's towns and cities, and I don't usually care what speed the drivers are doing because I'm on the footpath and they are on the road. As long as they observe traffic controls (i.e. yield to me at zebra crossings, stop when required at light-controlled pedestrian crossings, don't block junctions etc) I have no issue. And the data affirm this view.

As to my observance of laws, I observe traffic controls, don't drive on the footpath and generally choose a speed that is appropriate for the conditions and allows me to stop in the distance I can see to be clear. As such, I'm one of the 99.5+% of Ireland's 2.8 million drivers that have never been and likely never will be involved a fatal incident, let alone the cause of one (which is a different matter).

And since footpath riding has been de-facto legalised, cyclists shouldn't care that much about speed either. Yes, it's technically illegal, but enforcement and penalties are basically zero, so the laws are entirely theoretical. I also suggest that you look up Irish road fatality statistics, per 100,000 vehicles, per billion vehicle-kilometres drive. Also get the statistics for the number of drivers license holders in the State. Get the absolute statistics and them compare them relative to the rest of the world. You'll find that broad-brush claims about "motorists" in Ireland killing "many" are overstated. And that's being generous.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120689262#Comment_120689262

The only thing that is bull droppings are the claims that there is any case whatsoever for broad scale speed limit reductions in Ireland.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120691623#Comment_120691623

The only thing that is bull droppings are the claims that there is any case whatsoever for broad scale speed limit reductions in Ireland.

The govt disagree with you and have, through the RSA & Dept of Transport, established a working group who are formulating a strategy for reducing speed limits, in particular in urban areas.

This is being done under action #6 of the National Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030.

Its absolutely going to happen, just a matter of how its going to be rolled out, where and when.

I'd recommend you have a read of the strategy as it will give you a heads up of the many aspects of the strategy that will be rolling out

https://www.rsa.ie/about/safety-strategy-2021-2030

https://www.rsa.ie/docs/default-source/road-safety/legislation/government-_road_safety_strategy_2021_2030_13th_dec21_final.pdf

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120691623#Comment_120691623

What is interesting is your view of the two different user types: effectively you are admitting to breaking the speed limits but it's ok because you've decided it will be ok and you definitley won't kill anyone*. Separately, people on bikes breaking the law is ignored so the laws against cyclists are basically pointless." Do you really not see this or are you, as @Unrealistic said earlier, trolling?

* out of curiosity, how many people involved in collisions were driving with exactly the same mindset as yourself?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120691623#Comment_120691623

How do all the drivers we see parked on footpaths get there Seanie?

Larbre34

Installing 30 limits and implementing them are two very different issues.

The 20 mph (32.2 km/h) limit in certain hot spots of the UK, like central London and the urban streets of Wales is not observed by 87% of drivers.

Hard cases make bad law and laws in turn must have public backing or there is no point in introducing them.

Having an urban 30 km/h limit and an 80 km/h rural limit on tiny blind little boreens all serve to undermine faith in the entire model of appropriate limits for appropriate settings.

30 km/h limits belong on residential estates, cul-de-sacs, school zones and through traffic calmed commercial areas like Blackrock or Dundrum. Any other application of a 30 limit would have to be on a specific case made like an industrial estate or port road network, where they may be conflicting movements of heavy vehicles etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120694757#Comment_120694757

The 20 mph (32.2 km/h) limit in certain hot spots of the UK, like central London and the urban streets of Wales is not observed by 87% of drivers.

Which can be addressed through engineering works to both physically prevent higher speeds and also subconsciously make drivers go slower.

We've already done this at the entry points to towns and villages across the country through the likes of road narrowing etc

That, along with the likes of avg speed cameras or regular speed cameras, would see higher rates of compliance

There is no issue with this that can't be overcome. Just will take time and investment.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120691623#Comment_120691623

Tell me again about how drivers are on the road, not on the footpath Seanie?

https://twitter.com/kirv64/status/1667139311836315648?s=20

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120694757#Comment_120694757

Everybody knows 30km/h limits are a joke, but the point is to vigorously virtue signal while demonising motorists.

There are cyclists on footpaths exceeding 30km/h but they are the virtuous heroes of the new dawn, apparently.

Meanwhile we have thousands of young teenagers whizzing around (often on footpaths) on motorcycles, with no training, licence, helmet or insurance. But these motorcycles are electric so apparently that's ok.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120696878#Comment_120696878

Cyclists on footpaths exceeding 30 kmph eh? And then you woke up?

How exactly did you measure their speed? Have you any idea how difficult it is to build up to 30 kmph on a bike at all? You'd need a decent hill and probably a decent wind behind you, and a fair bit of a straight run to build it up. Those circumstances don't tend to come together too often on the footpath.