30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

Uncle Pierre

Spent a few days in Dublin this week for work. Did a fair bit of walking, mainly around Ballsbridge/Sandymount area. Sometimes during the day when there were varying degrees of traffic gridlock, and sometimes at night when vehicles could move freely at speeds of 50km/h or even more, if the driver chose to break the limit.

Key point is I didn't once feel even remotely endangered or threatened by a vehicle moving at 40, 50 or even 60km/h, rather than having to stick to a 30km/h limit. All these areas - and surely every urban area that will have a 30km/h limit imposed - have footpaths, street lights, and designated crossing points. So long as a pedestrian sticks to the footpaths and crosses only when the pedestrian lights are showing the little green man, they'll be safe in 99.99999999% of all cases.

Realise now somebody will probably go googling for the once-in-a-blue-moon instances of a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle that mounts the footpath, or that doesn't stop when the lights are showing green for pedestrians. So if necessary, I'll knock a couple of 9s off the end there, and say the pedestrian would be safe in "only" 99.999999% of cases. But point stands.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121232406#Comment_121232406

So you're saying you only ever walk on footpaths and only cross a road at a pedestrian crossing.

Never crossed a road that has no pedestrian crossing?

Never walked on a road without a footpaths?

what_traffic

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/man-taken-to-beaumont-with-serious-injuries-following-city-collision/

This incident occurred in Galway City 30kmph zone yesterday evening.

Duckjob

@SeanW so cars being forbidden from driving up all over footpaths isn't a traffic control and drivers don't rampantly ignore that control ? Gotcha.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121232929#Comment_121232929

I have to laugh. Way to completely miss the point, buddy.

The point is that the sort of urban streets for which 30km/h limits are being proposed do have footpaths, street lights, and designated crossing points. So long as a pedestrian stays on the footpath and crosses only at a designated crossing point when they have the right to do so, they'll be safe from passing vehicles in that 99-point-whatever-number-of-nines per cent of cases, whether traffic is going by at 40, 50, 60, or even 80km/hr or more.

Of course I've walked on a road without footpaths, and crossed a road without a pedestrian crossing. I live on a rural L-road in County Wexford which I walk, and indeed cross, every day. But this is not the sort of road for which a 30km/h limit is being proposed. And even on this road or any other like it, I don't feel threatened or endangered by vehicles moving at 60km/h or more, so long as I walk sensibly and with due regard for my own safety.

Anyway, yes - when I'm walking in an urban area that has footpaths and pedestrian crossings, I stick to the footpaths and pedestrian crossings, just as all pedestrians in urban areas with footpaths and pedestrian crossings should do. What do you do - wander around the road itself, and cross wherever you feel like it? And if so, do you really think that motorists travelling at 45 km/h instead of 30 km/h are the ones putting you in danger, rather than your own actions?

I'm still laughing here.

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121239879#Comment_121239879

It's quite ironic that you're laughing at someone for missing your point.

That's great for you that you don't feel threatened by cars and trust yourself to not get killed by one. But there are 8billion other people in the world. Not everyone is lucky enough to be just like you, so aware of their surroundings. The elderly with reduced vision or hearing, children running onto a road without thinking, people in a hurry, distracted, on the phone, drunk.

The primary reason speed limits are being reduced is that it will bring down the average speed of all drivers, as it changes our perception of a "normal" driving speed. The reality is, we overestimate the time saved by driving quicker, so any negatives are vastly outweighed by the benefits.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121240244#Comment_121240244

Well, we have data to show that such radical measures are not necessary. Fatalities in Ireland are so low that they can be measured in the low single-digits per billion vehicle-kilometres and are low by all other measures, and pedestrians only make up a fraction of each number. So it's the benefits that are being overstated, not the negatives.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241332#Comment_121241332

What are the negatives to preventing death and injury?

SeanW

Forcing 2.8 million people to crawl everywhere for no reason isn't a negative? Wasting time and fuel en-masse isn't a negative?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241503#Comment_121241503

When compared to death and life altering serious injuries?

I'd qualify it as a mild inconvenience

SeanW

What death and serious injury? Death on our roads is rare. The data for that are clear.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121240244#Comment_121240244

Not ironic at all. The irony is actually how you don't see how you're missing it too.

Leave your bias aside, consider my straightforward and simple point again, and then maybe you'll see.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241533#Comment_121241533

That conclusion is based on either looking at incorrect data or misinterpreting of the data.

We're seeing a death rate great than 1 person every 2 days this year (approx 150 so far, not sure on the exact figure as there's been another bunch of deaths in the last few days) .

In terms of serious injuries it's many times higher than that, around 800 was the figure reported in Aug.

Just on the most recent deaths

RTE news : Five killed in separate road collisions since Friday

http://www.rte.ie/news/2023/1015/1410966-rtc/

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241593#Comment_121241593

Apparently all of those deaths are acceptable rather than the likes of Sean having to drive a little bit more slowly.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241503#Comment_121241503

All 2.8m drivers will be forced to drive in 30km zones permanently?

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121161933#Comment_121161933

I'm not sure what your original point was. I scrolled through 5 pages of comments trying to find it before giving up. I found this comment where you don't actually make a point, you just attach a 45page document that is extremely detailed and full of numbers. There is no clear point. The main thing that stood out to me is that drivers and speed are the main causes of death and injury on our roads.

We have built a world that is based on the car being a symbol of personal freedom, such car owners now expecting to drive wherever they choose. Well, touch **** selfish car owners, but the world is taking back their roads. Pedestrians and cyclists in towns and cities now except to be able to go wherever they want. If that means walking right down the middle of the road, it is expected that they won't be killed by a selfish car owner breaking the 30kmh speed limit.

Deal with it.

patrickbrophy18

@loco_scolo From your excuses for poor pedestrian and cyclist road observation (e.g. being distracted, being on the phone or in a hurry and drunk...seriously?) to your advocating for pedestrians and cyclists want for care free movement (to the point of walking in the middle of the road), it is very difficult to take such infantile rebelious stances on the matter seriously.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241999#Comment_121241999

You didn't have to go anywhere near that trouble to find the point I'm referring to. It's in the post at the top of this page.

It's simply this: the sort of urban streets for which 30km/h limits are being proposed have got footpaths, street lighting, and designated pedestrian crossings. So long as a pedestrian walks only on the footpaths and crosses only either when traffic is stopped at a zebra crossing, or when there's a 'little green man' light at pedestrian lights, then they're already assured of being safe in 99-point-many-other-nines per cent of cases.

Surely you can't be serious in your claim that pedestrians "now expect to be able to go wherever they want", including walking right down the middle of the road, instead of staying safely on the footpath????

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121242217#Comment_121242217

100%. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that one earlier, thinking that maybe he just hadn't written his point very clearly, but as it stands, he's expecting motorists to make allowances for pedestrians who are "in a hurry, distracted, on the phone, drunk."

@loco_scolo - why the bizarre double standard?

Obviously, if a vehicle strikes a pedestrian while the motorist is in a hurry, distracted, on the phone, or drunk, it's the motorist's fault.

But if it's the pedestrian who's in too much of a hurry to pay proper attention, or is on the phone or otherwise distracted, or is the one who's drunk, then you seem to believe it's still the motorist's fault? Does a pedestrian not have to take any personal responsibility at all?

Putting your posts together, it seems your view is that a pedestrian should be able to walk down the middle of a road while drunk, talking on the phone, and not concentrating on passing traffic, if they feel like doing so? And that there's a growing movement of pedestrians like this, "taking back their roads"?

Bizarre indeed.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241525#Comment_121241525

Ah come on, we can't have drivers being forced to crawl around by other drivers by new regulations. That's just ridiculous...

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-traffic-report-4491153-Feb2019

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241332#Comment_121241332

The fraction that pedestrians make up being 1/4.

Doesn't seem quite so trivial when you actually name it, does it. It's the main growth sector.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41039081.html

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241809#Comment_121241809

The question is not one of acceptability but of proportionality. I do not "accept" any fatalities, any more than "accept" other social ills like murders, rapes, thefts, vandalism. But when it comes to any of these social ills, I expect that measures taken to mitigate them will be proportionate and not unduly burdensome or punitive to the vast majority that have nothing to do with any of them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121241586#Comment_121241586

So that is 0.000046 fatalities per driver. Or roughly 3,257,471 drivers who have nothing whatsoever to do with these incidents (According to the most recent statistics, there are 3,257,621 drivers in Ireland. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-tranom/transportomnibus2021/driverandvehicletesting/ )

We're entitled to ask if crawl everywhere laws are actually warranted. Funny how your "well written articles" never include practical or context-specific data in their puff pieces.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121242866#Comment_121242866

So that is 0.000046 fatalities per driver

Its weird how nobody uses that particular measurement. Almost like it means nothing

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121243058#Comment_121243058

Or rather that it's not convenient to those who have an agenda to promote.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121243073#Comment_121243073

Says the man who has an agenda to promote 🙄

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121242551#Comment_121242551

I absolutely stand by my distracted or drunk points. In the same sentence I also mentioned children playing and elderly people, but you haven't commented on that.

Cities are full of people. Lots of people going about their daily lives including children playing, elderly people getting around, distracted people on phones, vulnerable cyclists sharing roads with cars and lorries and buses, drunk people, sober people, mobility impaired people, visually impaired people.

People are taking back their streets from arrogant car owners who think they should still drive around at 50km/h despite the fact that people are more likely to survive if hit by a car at 30km/h and more likely to die if hit by a car at 50km/h.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121243073#Comment_121243073

There's 2 "agendas" that I see

First one aims for change to

• save lives
• reduce serious injury
• cleaner air
• less noise
• calmer streets

The opposing agenda seems to aim for the status quo based on the argument of "I dun wanna change cos thats the why"

I know which one my money is on

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121242520#Comment_121242520

Right! So I also stand by my original comment then. It is highly ironic that you're laughing at someone for missing your point (on footpaths...).

Clearly you're missing the core point of the lower speed limits. Slower cars kill less people, including car drivers. We probably all agree with you that people shouldn't get themselves hit by cars, but unfortunately it continues to happen, hence why cities all over the world are reducing speed limits.

Deal with it.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121243510#Comment_121243510

So according to your....let's say "peculiar".....world view, a pedestrian holds no personal responsibility, and should be able to wander with impunity in a drunken and distracted state along the middle of a busy street, if they feel like doing so.

Very peculiar indeed.

Goodnight.