30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120801105#Comment_120801105

Where is the Dublin City blanket 30 km/h limit?

McGrath5

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120803273#Comment_120803273

The speed limit would have better compliancy if the street/road was narrowed, had ramps or chicanes to make it physically impossible to drive at nearly 3 times the speed limit. Enforcement only goes so far depending how bothered the Gardai are (which is usually not very).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120803427#Comment_120803427

Oh its coming. The council are looking to flip the guidelines around so that roads are 30k by default

https://dublininquirer.com/2022/11/16/foiled-last-year-council-officials-want-to-take-another-crack-at-reducing-city-speed-limits/

Personally I can't seeing that happening this side of the next national elections, but its likely this will become the default

In the meantime, the current 30k limits are per the map below in pink

Here's the prior phase

and the first & second phases

Seems pretty clear to me which way the tide is flowing 🤷‍♂️

SeanW

Yes, because people's time and fuel are both unlimited :) so we can waste both with stupid crawl-everywhere laws.

DoraDelite

So an extra couple of mins of a drivers time is more important than people's lives/health and their ability to get safely around their town/city while not in a car?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120807586#Comment_120807586

If only there were other ways to get around the city…

Tenzor07

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808966#Comment_120808966

The average speed of a car in Dublin city centre is about half that 30kph limit, doesn't stop idiots from exceeding the speed limit when there is a clear bit of road..only speeding to the next traffic light or traffic jam...

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808966#Comment_120808966

i don't think it's going to make much difference really. so far, most of the 30km/h limits are essentially within housing estates. and as mentioned above, the average speed in dublin (within DCC territory) is well below 30km/h anyway.

SeanW

[sarcasm]Yes, because every journey occurs at peak times and every road in all urban areas has a stop light every 200 metres. Also bus passengers don't exist.[/sarcasm]

Oh and by the way, the claim that this has anything to do with road safety is a stretch at best. Road deaths in Ireland are so rare that they have to be measured per billion vehicle-kilometres, and even then only occur in the low singe digits.

https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/14-PIN-annual-report-FINAL.pdf

DoraDelite

I'm sure those killed and injured on our roads along with their family and friends are delighted to know that we shouldn't change anything (especially not change anything that is proven to reduce deaths and injuries) because SeanW thinks our drivers and road safety measures are already world beating.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120809901#Comment_120809901

...but again you are ignoring the reality that over the years people are not out walking, cycling or playing as much as they used to for fear of being knocked down by someone in a car.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120809901#Comment_120809901

yes, the roads are so safe, this explains why in NL, approx two thirds of dutch secondary school students cycle to school, and in ireland (as of 2016) i think just under 4% did (might be up to ~7% by now, trying to find a source on that).

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810252#Comment_120810252

I've already explained what's wrong with Irish school "planning" in a specific thread. If you disagree with my view on that or think there are too many secondary students being driven to school, you need to explain how come even countries like the U.S. can have fewer students being driven to school than Ireland. Even if we assume that the supposed lack of students cycling to school is some sort of problem, how do 50kph limits directly cause it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810091#Comment_120810091

Unfounded fears? If someone has a road with the footpath and they won't walk on it because they're too scared of all the "maniacs" driving at 49kph, the problem is with them, not everyone else. And when could you play on a main road? Either in an urban area or otherwise?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810070#Comment_120810070

It's more like you have 2.8 million drivers in this country who are almost all totally blameless for these things. They might wonder why they should be punished for things they by-and-large have nothing to do with, let alone be responsible for.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810444#Comment_120810444

Unfounded fears? If someone has a road with the footpath and they won't walk on it because they're too scared of all the "maniacs" driving at 49kph, the problem is with them, not everyone else. And when could you play on a main road? Either in an urban area or otherwise?

Firstly, it is common knowledge that the numbers of kids walking or cycling to school has plummeted in the last few decades. Most if tgisbis blamed on the perceived risk from drivers. Do your kids walk to school? Your neighbours kids? If not, why?

Secondly, it was common when I grew up all over the country for kids to be out playing. Not it us not. Again the risk from drivers is a considerable factor.

You make light of it (as you usually do to defend your staunch position) but ask anyone and they will confirm what I've said. I also believe that you also have or have been subscribed to this theory!

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810444#Comment_120810444

Speed limits aren't a punishment.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810936#Comment_120810936

They most certainly are a punishment if they are absurd. Which is what is being sought.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810484#Comment_120810484

"Ask anyone?" I've never been put off from walking anywhere because of the speed of cars etc. And even when I'm walking on a footpath and KNOW that a driver on the road is speeding (because I see a car passing one of those "your speed is ..." sign) I think "hmm, that's interesting" and continue on. In fact if I have a footpath (e.g. urban area) I couldn't give a fig as long as the drivers observe controls like zebra crossings, etc which they generally do. I've never had any serious issues except at specific places and times. And cyclist have de-facto free reign to cycle on footpaths so they shouldn't be overly concerned with drivers' speed either.

And the data back this up. I don't know when you grew up, but I'm assuming before 1995. The risk back then was actually insane - we lost at least 400 people every year on the roads "back in the day" in some years IIRC over 600 and that's with most people being too broke and poor to have cars or having anywhere to go except the boat dock to England or the American embassy. Oh and speed limits were higher back then, all roads outside urban areas were 60MPH (70 on motorways) and all roads and streets in urban areas were 30MPH, there were no lower limits for residential side streets etc.

magicbastarder

in some years IIRC over 600 ... Oh and speed limits were higher back then, all roads outside urban areas were 60MPH (70 on motorways) and all roads and streets in urban areas were 30MPH, there were no lower limits for residential side streets etc.

seriously? when speed limits were higher, road casualties were far greater? what is the speed limit on the road to damascus?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811121#Comment_120811121

They most certainly are a punishment if they are absurd. Which is what is being sought.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, having one doesn't make it correct

"Ask anyone?" I've never been put off from walking anywhere because of the speed of cars etc. And even when I'm walking on a footpath and KNOW that a driver on the road is speeding (because I see a car passing one of those "your speed is ..." sign) I think "hmm, that's interesting" and continue on. In fact if I have a footpath (e.g. urban area) I couldn't give a fig as long as the drivers observe controls like zebra crossings, etc which they generally do. I've never had any serious issues except at specific places and times. And cyclist have de-facto free reign to cycle on footpaths so they shouldn't be overly concerned with drivers' speed either.

Your answer to illegal driving is.....illegal cycling?

And the data back this up. I don't know when you grew up, but I'm assuming before 1995. The risk back then was actually insane - we lost at least 400 people every year on the roads "back in the day" in some years IIRC over 600 and that's with most people being too broke and poor to have cars or having anywhere to go except the boat dock to England or the American embassy. Oh and speed limits were higher back then, all roads outside urban areas were 60MPH (70 on motorways) and all roads and streets in urban areas were 30MPH, there were no lower limits for residential side streets etc.

If I understand you right, you are against further reductions in speed in built up areas because the current level of deaths and serious injuries is good enough and we should just leave it at that. Did I get that right?

magicbastarder

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41169541.html

worth noting in the context of the 'our roads are safe' argument.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811121#Comment_120811121

"Ask anyone?" I've never been put off from walking anywhere because of the speed of cars etc. And even when I'm walking on a footpath and KNOW that a driver on the road is speeding (because I see a car passing one of those "your speed is ..." sign) I think "hmm, that's interesting" and continue on.

Do you or your neighbours let your kids walk to school and if not why not? Your anecdote about you not being afraid to walk somewhere does not represent society. Our pavements have generally been designed to suit drivers. Pedestrians must give way to drivers whenever they wish to pass a junction (even including private entrances). Our junctions in many cases are designed to allow cars to travel quickly increasing risks for those whiching to cross them.

In fact if I have a footpath (e.g. urban area) I couldn't give a fig as long as the drivers observe controls like zebra crossings, etc which they generally do. I've never had any serious issues except at specific places and times. And cyclist have de-facto free reign to cycle on footpaths so they shouldn't be overly concerned with drivers' speed either.

Actually, one thing I take from your waffle is that you simply think "hmm, that's interesting" and continue on when you witness a driver clearly speeding. You admit that drivers generally observe controls like zebra crossings meaning that a large percentage do not (which we all know is the case!). However, you never lose the opportunity to peddle your shite about cyclists on the footpaths! You're being somewhat hypocritical there Seanie but I guess it suits your agenda! 

And the data back this up. I don't know when you grew up, but I'm assuming before 1995. The risk back then was actually insane - we lost at least 400 people every year on the roads "back in the day" in some years IIRC over 600 and that's with most people being too broke and poor to have cars or having anywhere to go except the boat dock to England or the American embassy. Oh and speed limits were higher back then, all roads outside urban areas were 60MPH (70 on motorways) and all roads and streets in urban areas were 30MPH, there were no lower limits for residential side streets etc.

Our road network has improved significantly and the risk that caused many of the head on collisions has been removed (thankfully). Vehicle safety has improved for those inside the vehicle which has contributed towards saving lives and reducing injuries. However, the road improvements have not been made for anyone not inside a car. However, "back in the day" kids were able to cycle to school, play on the streets, and not require their parents to chauffeur them around like you see nowadays.

Incidentally, to correct your point that "speed limits were higher back then", they weren't really and the "Go Metric" project allowed them to increase in most cases:

• 30km/h = 18.6mph (but we didn't have 20mph limits IIRC)
• 50km/h = 31mph
• 80 km/h = 49.7mph
• 100km/h = 62mph
• 120km/h = 74.6mph

That many of our roads have had their speed limit changed is a different point!

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120812005#Comment_120812005

In 2021, the EU averaged 45 road traffic fatalities per million people, while in Ireland, the rate was far lower at 27.

If we didn't have so much one-off housing, no footpaths etc. you can bet our pedestrian fatality rate would be lower.

In urban areas it's not motorists putting people off walking it's cyclists on the footpath and SDCC for one encourages this!

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810252#Comment_120810252

Yet when parents take issue with the local schools all being single-sex, strict Catholic, run by religious orders with a strong record of child abuse, etc. etc. they are told they can just drive their kids to an inclusive school miles away... as we have to do despite living in the middle of a very large Dublin suburb.

There's a bus lane on the main road to the school but no bus routes have ever used it. There is a cycle path but it's much too far for a junior cycle student at least to be expected to cycle.

I expect they have a far better planned and more inclusive education system in NL than we do.

DoraDelite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120812794#Comment_120812794

You must have missed all the cars on footpaths around Dublin, can't walk 50 metres without encountering one. Also having a "footpath" and having a footpath that is designed for the comfort of those on foot are two different things. Loads of examples in urban areas where there's a "footpath" i.e. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3672474,-6.250216,3a,75y,320.93h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa75xM5YQWzXN6hhNd6RxmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120812794#Comment_120812794

In urban areas it's not motorists putting people off walking it's cyclists on the footpath and SDCC for one encourages this!

Oh Christ, another one!

SeanW

A lot to unpack here. First I can't comment on the speed limits on the road(s) to Damascus, but I was responding @Seth Brundles bizarre idea that Ireland in decades past was some kind of lost Garden of Eden. But the main reasons there were so many fatalities back in the day was because everyone drove home from the pub after 10 pints and thought nothing of it and because all the main roads for long distance travel were glorified 16 century goat tracks.

Also this idea from @[Deleted User] that I'm "promoting illegal cycling" ... no. Footpaths are de-facto cycle lanes. That's just reality. I'm not promoting anything.

As to this nonsense "If I understand you right, you are against further reductions in speed in built up areas because the current level of deaths and serious injuries is good enough and we should just leave it at that. Did I get that right?" That is false. My argument is that regulations should be balanced and proportionate - and given that 99+% of Ireland's 2.8 million drivers are not even involved in, let alone the cause of these incidents, your measures are not proportionate.

@magicbastarder interesting how you try to equate Ireland with Latvia and Romania. Let's see how those numbers stack up shall we?

Ireland, 3.3 fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres, Latvia 9.7, Romania, no data on vehicle distance. (source)

As for deaths per 100,000 population and per 100,000 motor vehicles: Ireland, 2.9 and 7.5 respectively. Latvia 6.9 and 24.8 respectively. Romania, 9.6 and 31.4 respectively (source). Any claim on inference that Ireland is in any way comparable to either of these countries is disingenuous in the extreme.

As to the last post from @Seth Brundle I don't know where to start. Firstly, it's a fact that large scale speed limit reductions were part of the Go Metric program: all R and L roads outside of urban areas went from 60MPH (96kph) to 80kph with the metric change. Secondly, I am a routine pedestrian on all types of roads and streets in Ireland (urban and rural) and from my practical experience as well as the data, I have no idea WTF you're talking about. As a pedestrian I've had way more problems with lawbreaking cyclists than with drivers. Dramatically so. I created a specific thread about school transport issues and if I had kids, I would want them to be guaranteed a place in a designated universal local school and be assured they could use the school bus if they could not walk. Finally, this bizarre idea that "However, the road improvements have not been made for anyone not inside a car" really? Do you even live in this country?

@[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120813213#Comment_120813213

Also this idea from @[Deleted User] that I'm "promoting illegal cycling" ... no. Footpaths are de-facto cycle lanes. That's just reality. I'm not promoting anything.

Just to clarify, cycling on footpaths is illegal. The only exception is if you are entering or exiting a property. They are not de-facto cycle lanes so give that a rest.

https://rothar.ie/blogs/stories/cycling-in-ireland-what-the-law-says

As to this nonsense "If I understand you right, you are against further reductions in speed in built up areas because the current level of deaths and serious injuries is good enough and we should just leave it at that. Did I get that right?" That is false. My argument is that regulations should be balanced and proportionate - and given that 99+% of Ireland's 2.8 million drivers are not even involved in, let alone the cause of these incidents, your measures are not proportionate.

You seemed to think of this as an unfair inconvenience i.e. I haven't killed or maimed anyone so why should I have to slow down. Thats not the way the world works. If it did, we would accept drink driving

magicbastarder

@magicbastarder interesting how you try to equate Ireland with Latvia and Romania. Let's see how those numbers stack up shall we?

um, no. i quoted an article; i did not try to 'equate' us with them. the article is about ireland having an unusually high proportion of pedstrians in our fatality figures, and those two countries were simply cited as the two countries in europe where the proportion of pedestrian deaths were higher.

there is a not very subtle difference between the concepts of 'comparing' and 'equating'.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120812996#Comment_120812996

A lot of pedestrians notice all the cyclists on the footpath, they are hard to miss. You should not be surprised by that. On this forum though, they usually get shouted down with "BUT BUT WHATABOUT WHATABOUT ... CARS" from likely the same people that are doing the cycling on the footpath.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120813513#Comment_120813513

Well there's no comparison. The data on that are clear.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120813448#Comment_120813448

As to cycling on the footpaths being theoretically illegal, nobody seems to have told the cyclists. And are you seriously comparing driving drunk with driving on a main road at 50kph?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120813213#Comment_120813213

A lot to unpack here. First I can't comment on the speed limits on the road(s) to Damascus, but I was responding @Seth Brundles bizarre idea that Ireland in decades past was some kind of lost Garden of Eden. But the main reasons there were so many fatalities back in the day was because everyone drove home from the pub after 10 pints and thought nothing of it and because all the main roads for long distance travel were glorified 16 century goat tracks.

Nothing bizarre about it. The reality was that in the past kids played on the streets and were allowed to walk or cycle to school (despite the high fatality rate nationally). You keep deflecting from this presumably because it is an iuncomfortable truth.

As to the last post from @Seth Brundle I don't know where to start. Firstly, it's a fact that large scale speed limit reductions were part of the Go Metric program: all R and L roads outside of urban areas went from 60MPH (96kph) to 80kph with the metric change.

I stand corrected - i had forgotten about the limit on non-national roads. Now, as you have previously described speed limit reductions as a punishmnt, do you believe that reducing the limit on non-national roads to 80km/h was an act of punishment?

Secondly, I am a routine pedestrian on all types of roads and streets in Ireland (urban and rural) and from my practical experience as well as the data, I have no idea WTF you're talking about. As a pedestrian I've had way more problems with lawbreaking cyclists than with drivers. Dramatically so.

I would make the claim that this is complete and utter toss! You will have passed cars parked illegally no matter where you walk. You will see drivers breaking red lights all over the place. You will see drivers on their phones or other devices. To make the claim that people on bikes pose more of a danger to you is nonsense. However, you also point out that there is data on this (I've made it bold in your quote), can you show us this data please?

Finally, this bizarre idea that "However, the road improvements have not been made for anyone not inside a car" really? Do you even live in this country?

ok - what has been done on our roads up until recently to improve safety for pedestrians or cyclists? A few examples would be good. (Oh and before you say painted cycle tracks - they don't add any improvements (paint is not a form of protection)!)

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120812005#Comment_120812005

That's an odd conclusion for The Examiner to draw from what the figures actually state. The Examiner claims that Ireland is third worst in Europe for pedestrian deaths because the proportion of pedestrian deaths in all road deaths is higher than all bar two other countries. But consider the following (figures are somewhat extreme in order to make a point, but the principle still stands):

• Country A has six pedestrian deaths, but only 10 road deaths overall. That means 60% of all road deaths are pedestrians.
• Country B has 50 pedestrian deaths, and 250 road deaths overall. That means 20% of all road deaths are pedestrians.

Does it follow that Country A is three times more dangerous for pedestrians than Country B? Would others not infer that Country B is actually the far more dangerous one?

It would be like arguing that far from looking towards The Netherlands as an example of what to do with regard to cycling, we should be looking the other way, because more cyclists are killed there than any other type of road user.

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523252/netherlands-number-of-road-fatalities-by-mode-of-transportation/

So, by using The Examiner's logic:

• In the Netherlands last year, 291 of 737 road deaths were cyclists. That's just under 40%.
• In Ireland last year, seven out of 155 road deaths were cyclists. That's 4.5%.
• Therefore, The Netherlands is almost nine times more dangerous for cyclists than Ireland is.

See how absolutely illogical and twisted things get when statistics aren't read and interpreted properly?