Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

14647495152

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭loco_scolo


    And according to your .... let's say "peculiar".....world view, a car driver should be allowed to drive at 50km/h through busy city areas with pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly, visually impaired, mobility impaired, drunk, distracted, sober people all around, despite the fact that driving at 30km/h would be safer for all those vulnerable road users.

    Very peculiar indeed.

    Goodnight.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    The fact that there are more than 300,000,000 vehicle-kilometres between fatalities suggests that you are exaggerating your case somewhat.



  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭loco_scolo


    The fact that you are using 'vehicle-kilometres per pedestrian fatality' suggests you are exaggerating your case somewhat.

    One real human being who doesn't die is one real human being who doesn't die. You can quote that in whatever "per unit" you prefer, it's still one human life.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    No, the number I gave was for overall fatalities, of all road user types. If I were to restrict it further, it would probably be closer to 1.2 billion vehicle-kilometres between pedestrian fatalities.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭loco_scolo


    Around 140 fatalities per year and about 1400 serious injuries. 1500+ people killed or seriously injured every year, or 4 people every single day, or one person every 6 hours.

    But for some reason you want to diminish that by quoting vehicle kilometres. Who are you kidding?

    Yourself is the answer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW



    What am I making up? According to the European Transport Safety Council, there were 3.3 fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres in Ireland in 2016-2018, with the numbers in following years (COVID excepted) presumably being similar. That's 1bn / 3.3 = 303,030,303.030303 vehicle-kilometres between fatalities of any kind or cause. According to Andy above, around a quarter of fatalities this year are pedestrians. So that means only 1/4 of 3.3 the above figure is relevant to pedestrians.

    So we are left with 1bn / (3.3 / 4) or 1,212,121,212 vehicle-kilometres between pedestrian fatalities. Our definitions or words like "commonplace" or "rare" may differ, but I don't think any sane person would call 1 fatality per 1.2 billion kilometres to be commonplace. Nor can it be said that there is broad responsibility for these among Irelands 3.2 million drivers.

    You are misrepresenting my claim by many orders of magnitude - I am using hundred of millions or billions of vehicle kilometres. And I am not questioning that bad things happen, I am questioning both the proportionality of the measures being proposed and the rationale for blaming Ireland's 3.2 million drivers for these tiny numbers of incidents.



  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭loco_scolo


    Deaths per vehicle kilometre is not a metric used by most countries. You do a disservice to your own argument by using a totally unrelatable metric (something per billion something....).

    Also, can you stop excluding serious injuries in your comparisons. For every death there are 10 more serious injuries. Reduced speed limit are also trying to tackle this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    I'm simply venturing that even safer again for all pedestrians of all types would be if they simply stick to the footpaths and designated crossing points that are provided for them on the sort of streets being discussed here. If they do that, the chances of them being struck by a vehicle travelling at any speed are negligible.

    If you want to continue to maintain that drunken, distracted pedestrians should be allowed to ignore these things and instead wander freely through traffic on the streets themselves, then obviously we have very differing views.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,935 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Many roads don't have designated crossing points. What do pedestrians do then?

    Furthermore, what you're describing as designated crossing points were put in place to suit people driving, not those walking. Maybe we should have a complete overhaul of these, looking at all options including drivers having to wait at designated crossing points by default. I take it for granted that your response to this would be along the lines of "oh you can't have tha because it would make driving inefficient, etc" which simply backs up my point that the current arrangement was put in place to suit drivers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Need some help moving those goalposts? Your side never stops talking about fatalities. That includes the poster who thanked your post. Official propaganda on the matter also talks about the number of people killed, the odds of someone being killed etc.

    But even if we include serious injuries and take your number at face value, that's still something around 97% of drivers who have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    As to my metrics being "unrelatable" or "not commonly used" I suspect this is code for "not convenient to the agenda being pushed." For example, when someone quotes the odds of a pedestrian dying in a crash as being X at such a speed and Y at another speed, a reader might ask "how often does that actually happen though?" and that's when practical data become relevant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭loco_scolo


    Once again you ignore the other people I mentioned in my comment - children playing, elderly people, visually impaired people, mobility impaired people, cyclists, people on scooters, pretty much anyone who isn't sitting in a large chunk of metal, wearing a seatbelt and surrounded by airbags.

    Cities are one thing, but what about every town and village in Ireland that don't have pedestrian/zebra crossings?

    In any case, the fact is (like it or not) if someone needs to cross the road, they are highly unlikely to walk 200m down the road to use a pedestrian crossing then back up 200m to their destination. That's a 10minute round trip, versus 20seconds to walk straight across the road and back again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    Firstly, a reminder that we're focusing here on urban streets, the vast majority of which do have designated crossing points such as pedestrian lights or zebra crossings.

    If by any chance the street doesn't have a designated crossing, or if the pedestrian wishes to cross at a different point, then obviously the usual "Safe Cross Code" applies - i.e. stop, look, listen, and cross when safe to do so.

    I honestly don't know where you're going with your second paragraph. Firstly that crossing points "were put in place to suit people driving, not those walking". Surely the thing that would most suit people driving would be if there were no pedestrian crossing points at all, so that the number of potential stops on any motoring trip would be minimised? But that's clearly not the case, and nor is anybody advocating for it.

    Secondly, drivers do already have to wait at designated crossing points by default, e.g. if the traffic light at a pedestrian crossing is red while the "little man" light for pedestrians is green or amber, or at a zebra crossing if a pedestrian is already crossing or signalling an intent to cross.

    And no, I'm not going to claim that drivers shouldn't have to stop at such places for pedestrians, "because it makes driving inefficient".

    Expecting drivers to stop at designated points to allow pedestrians to cross the road is perfectly reasonable. Just as I believe it's also perfectly reasonable to expect pedestrians to stick to the footpaths where they're provided, and not wander into traffic in a drunken and/or distracted state.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,688 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Maybe we should provide designated places on the footpath for pedestrians to stand while waiting for their connection?

    Oh wait...




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    You're the one who introduced the notion that drunken and distracted people should be free to wander wherever they want on city streets. Just as you're doing with SeanW and the valid statistics he's referencing, you're moving the goalposts here as well.

    As for crossing at points that don't have pedestrian lights or a zebra crossing, see my post above. Maybe also have a look at this:




  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭loco_scolo


    Humans do not process the world in "per billion" comparisons. It's unrelatable. Likelihood of dying if hit by a car at speed X versus speed Y is relatable and easy to understand.

    You mention data to back up these comparisons.... are you now questioning the data that backs up those stats?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    An undoubted tragedy, but it doesn't change the core fact that the chances of being struck by a vehicle while you're on the footpath are remote in the extreme.

    For instance, Dublin Bus alone had more than 121 million passenger journeys last year. That's 121 million times a person walked safely along a footpath to reach a bus stop, 121 million times a person waited safely at a bus stop for their bus to arrive, and 121 million times they walked away safely along a footpath after disembarking.

    Your guess is as good as mine as regards how many pedestrian trips are made in Dublin in total each year, but if 242 million of them involve just either getting to a bus or walking away from a bus, then I'd suggest the total number must be well in excess of a billion. How many of that billion or more foot journeys ended up with the pedestrian being struck by a vehicle that somehow mounted the footpath?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,688 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Vehicles don't mount pavements on their own.

    The passive voice and the "tragedy" terminology to kid ourselves that these things are unavoidable is noted.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,840 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    RTE to start running reports; 'another pedestrian died on the roads yesterday but it had been calculated that irish motorists had driven 5 million km since the last fatality, so that's kinda fine in a way'.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,935 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Firstly, a reminder that we're focusing here on urban streets, the vast majority of which do have designated crossing points such as pedestrian lights or zebra crossings.

    I'm not sure what you're defining as urban because most urban streets do not have that infrastructure or don't have it within a reasonable walking distance. I assume tat you are only considering a city centre or similar.

    If I consider my own village, Leixlip, there are few crossing points. Whilst the main street has three, one end of the street has none until you reach Lucan. That stretch out of the town also includes a footpath suddenly ending meaning pedestrians have to cross a busy road twice. Heading up Captains Hill, there is one set at the primary school. None outside any of the many housing estates. None within the estates including River Forest where there is an extremely busy entrance to steps down to the local secondary school (note that the footpath also suddenly ends near here also). No pedestrian crossing at the canal (where there are traffic lights).

    If you head out the Celbridge Road from Leixlip, there is a set outside the school and the next set is at Barnhall Meadows (~750m) - no lights outside the busy entrances to the housing estates e.g. Castletown. Heading towards Maynooth is much the same with a set at Louisa Br. but no lights to cross at Rockingham or other estates.

    There are also no designated crossing points within the estates (all of which are urban) .

    However, if you wish to show me somewhere urban like Leixlip that has loads of "designated crossing points such as pedestrian lights or zebra crossings", I'm looking forward to hearing about it.

    If by any chance the street doesn't have a designated crossing, or if the pedestrian wishes to cross at a different point, then obviously the usual "Safe Cross Code" applies - i.e. stop, look, listen, and cross when safe to do so.

    What if a child wishes to cross the road but misjudge an approaching cars speed - something kids often do?

    I honestly don't know where you're going with your second paragraph. Firstly that crossing points "were put in place to suit people driving, not those walking". Surely the thing that would most suit people driving would be if there were no pedestrian crossing points at all, so that the number of potential stops on any motoring trip would be minimised? But that's clearly not the case, and nor is anybody advocating for it.

    It wasn't a difficult concept to understand - our roads were designed for people driving. Our footpaths have traditionally been designed to suit people driving. Our cycle lanes are traditionally designed to suit people driving. If you don't undestand this then you're obviously not familiar to using them.

    Secondly, drivers do already have to wait at designated crossing points by default, e.g. if the traffic light at a pedestrian crossing is red while the "little man" light for pedestrians is green or amber, or at a zebra crossing if a pedestrian is already crossing or signalling an intent to cross.

    By default, drivers don't have to wait for pedestrians.

    Expecting drivers to stop at designated points to allow pedestrians to cross the road is perfectly reasonable. Just as I believe it's also perfectly reasonable to expect pedestrians to stick to the footpaths where they're provided, and not wander into traffic in a drunken and/or distracted state.

    There will always be reasons why a person has to step off a pavement and it doesn't always involve drink or distraction. However, someone driving along these stretches should not be travelling at 50km/h given that the potenmtial outcome for vulnerable road users isn't great, which brings us back to the need for 30km/h limit (which should be enforced rigorously also).



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Cool

    Still doesn't make it a good measure. I note that even the report you cite does not use it as a measure, merely as a "for info purposes only" reference

    It also completely ignores the "serious injury" category, which is growing at a horrific rate

    Here's the latest your chosen stat will not capture




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    I never said or suggested that vehicles mount pavements of their own accord.

    I simply pointed out that the chances of a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle which has mounted the pavement are extremely remote.

    Incidentally, I fully realise you have a long-standing habit of twisting things, but if you're suggesting it's in any way inappropriate to use the word tragedy in relation to this particular incident, then I find that as bizarre as the other poster's suggestions that drunken pedestrians should be free to wander along the middle of busy city streets.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,688 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    You said " by a vehicle that somehow mounted the footpath". Classic Absent Driver syndrome.

    https://twitter.com/absentdriver



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    I'm mindful of that old rock 'n' roll, 'Let's twist again'. It seems to be your motto in life.

    But okay, if I have to spell it out for you....'somehow mounted the footpath' as in:

    • possibly being driven onto the footpath by a driver who's drunk, distracted, inattentive, or otherwise to blame
    • possibly being forced onto the footpath by the impact of a collision caused by another driver, as appears to have been the case in that tragedy in Limerick (and yes, I use the word tragedy again, as I don't think even you can suggest it wasn't a tragedy)
    • possibly an unattended vehicle rolling onto the footpath on a downhill stretch of road as a result of a distracted or inattentive driver not properly applying the handbrake as they exited the vehicle
    • possibly mounting the footpath due to the driver suffering a sudden and unexpected medical emergency. This happened with a neighbour of mine a few years ago. Just 52 years old at the time and with no history of heart trouble, he suffered a heart attack while driving through the outskirts of our local town. His car mounted the footpath and struck a wall. Luckily there was nobody on that section of the path at the time. Anyway, I give this example by way of asking you please not to retort along the lines of 'shouldn't be driving in the first place, then'. None of us know what's ahead of us, and you or I or anybody else could suffer a heart attack even this evening. But is that going to prevent us from driving or indeed cycling home this evening?

    Anyway, fact remains that even allowing for these possibilities, the chances of a pedestrian on a footpath being struck by a vehicle that mounts the footpath as a result of driver action, inaction, or medical emergency, are remote in the extreme.

    I'm curious to see how you'll twist this one. Will check back later to find out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    @Seth Brundle - at least you're not twisting things, and are instead showing you're capable of a reasonable and rational discussion. Thank you for that.

    However, I didn't intend and nor do I propose to enter into a discussion about the streetscapes of individual towns and villages, and particularly ones I'm unfamiliar with myself. My original point was and remains that where footpaths and pedestrian crossings are provided, a pedestrian who's properly using them will be safe from passing vehicles in all bar one of those once-in-a-blue-moon instances, no matter whether those vehicles are travelling at 30, 50, or even 80km/h or more.

    I'm sure that someone as reasonable and rational as yourself can see that statement holds true.

    And with respect, everything else you introduce is outside the scope of that statement.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,840 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    suggesting that the solution is 'if everyone behaves themselves properly then no one will get hurt' is like suggesting 'all that needs to happen to end the scourge of american gun violence is that people stop shooting people'.

    it's trivial, but trivial in the unhelpful sense.

    it goes back to the fact that if you're operating a two ton machine travelling at 50km/h, say through ballsbridge, the vast majority of the onus of responsibility for safety falls on you, not the pedestrian.

    and again i'll refer back to the basic observation that the difference between doing 30 and doing 50 is a theoretical maximum of 48s, over 1km.

    one example (sticking with ballsbridge) - the distance from merrion square to the merrion gates is just shy of 4km. doing that with the speed limits set to 30km/h would cost you *at most* 3m12s. probably a lot less in practice. google maps is currently estimating that is currently taking 14 minutes anyway (i.e. an average of 17km/h on roads with a limit of 50).



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,935 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    However, I didn't intend and nor do I propose to enter into a discussion about the streetscapes of individual towns and villages, and particularly ones I'm unfamiliar with myself. My original point was and remains that where footpaths and pedestrian crossings are provided, a pedestrian who's properly using them will be safe from passing vehicles in all bar one of those once-in-a-blue-moon instances, no matter whether those vehicles are travelling at 30, 50, or even 80km/h or more.

    My point is that pretty much every streetscape is like that. We simply haven't designed our urban areas so that it is easy for pedestrians to cross if they are to follow the "this is how you should be doing it". Town centres may have traffic lights on each corner with pedestrian lights but as you move further from the centres then you'll see fewer anf ewer designated crossing points. This is simply because (as I said previously) our infrastructure is designed for people driving. Any pedestrian infrastructure has been designed to work around driving infrastructure and not the other way around.

    Getting back to the topic at hand, because our pedestrian infrastructure is poorly designed, people will always cross at unofficial points. I will make a safe assumption that you have done this. I would also make a safe assumption that you have also crossed the likes of Dublin's O'Connell St at a designated crossing but while the pedestrian lights were red. Pedestrians will cross roads, despite being vulnerable, and whilst it may not necessarily be the fault of a driver, a collision between a car travelling at 50km/h and a pedestrian will not end anywhere as well as had the car been travelling at 30km/h.

    Then add into the mix that we have problems at the moment with the numbers of kids being driven to schools, etc. with a large percentage because the parents deem the roads as unsafe. If we make our urban roads safer by having lower speed limits, more people will make the choice for them and/or their kids to walk or cycle. Aside from the obvious health benefits, you have less traffic on the roads so those that do drive have less queueing to cope with. Coincidentally, on that topic, I saw this article this morning...




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    @magicbastarder - I agree that if you're driving at 50km/h or indeed any other speed, through Ballsbridge or indeed anywhere else, then there's an onus of responsibility on you not to hit any pedestrians who may be in the road. Just as there's an onus on you not to strike another vehicle, a cyclist, a road sign or roadside railing, or anything else.

    However, I also maintain that if you're a pedestrian walking through Ballsbridge, or anywhere like it with footpaths along every road, then there's also an onus of responsibility on you for your personal safety, in that you should walk on footpath rather than out on the road. Likewise, ideally you'd cross only at pedestrian crossings, or if choosing to cross elsewhere, you make every effort to ensure that it's safe to do so.

    I'm seriously astounded by such degrees of opposition to the notion that everyone should have a large degree of responsibility for their own safety.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,935 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Incidentally, while we're talking about crossing at designated crossing points, I went looking for the video of where it took someone 14 minutes to cross one of the dual carriageways (which won't be subject to 30km/h) by following the designated crossing routes but couldn't find it - I did find this slightly older video however....



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,840 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    there's no argument that adult pedestrians have a burden of responsibility. it's just that car drivers have a much greater one.

    you hear platitudes like 'road safety is all our responsibilities', but that's effectively meaningless. and it's worth posting this again, the standard hierarchy of controls for hazard management. in this instance, the hazard is the motor car; pedestrians don't create a hazard.




Advertisement