Dublin @30km

On non-arterial residential roads only

Another stupid speed law that will be ignored by the vast majority while providing easy pickings for Gardai here and there when they need to push up their numbers.

even if half of drivers obey it, the other half will be forced to obey it because they'll be stuck behind the slower cars.

The AA are banging on about it being unenforceable, but that's not really the point, it will bring average speeds down and set a marker that city streets are shared spaces (I see the AA wanted limits on some city streets increased to 80 - really nailing their colours to the mast there...)

atticu wrote: »

How will it improve the quality of life for the residents?

Vehicles will take longer to pass though, so more noise pollution, more air pollution, etc.

Faster vehicles create more noise. I'm about 1km away from the M50 and on a clear morning I can hear it outside my house, when I can't even hear cars moving slowly down the road 20m away.

There's also simple psychology - you feel less safe walking along a 100km/h dual carriageway than a 60km/h road. So if you step outside your door and the vehicles are moving slowly, you'll feel happier and safer going in and out of the house.

Roadhawk wrote: »

I haven't seen any stats on comparison. Please post if you have.

Well it's quite simple. The faster a car hits a pedestrian the more likely they will be seriously injured or die.

Even from the abstract of the below study:
"Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age. For example, the average risk of severe injury or death for a 70‐year‐old pedestrian struck by a car travelling at 25 mph is similar to the risk for a 30‐year‐old pedestrian struck at 35 mph."

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

For reference:
Mph Kph(rounded)
23 - 37
25 - 40
31 - 50
32 - 51
35 - 56
39 - 63
42 - 68
46 - 74
50 - 80
58 - 93


So in conclusion the quays are therefore safer once motorists abide by the lower speed limit.

Del2005 wrote: »

Anytime I've driven the quays the traffic has been doing more than 50 never mind 30, it's even difficult to find the start of the 30 zone. Even in 50 areas I regularly use cruise control and traffic disappears into the distance while I have the following traffic in my boot.

The council can set the limit as low as they want but until there is enforcement it makes no difference. Yet we'll still have the speed traps on the N4 which is a 2 or 3 lane road with very little pedestrian access, while people can happily speed on the residential roads nearby.

:eek: Do you not see the signs on poles and the road markings?

Roadhawk wrote: »

Yes im aware that higher speeds increases the risk of a fatality. I had misunderstood your initial post...I though you were saying that the quays are safer because of a lower speed limit in the sense that their would be less incidents as a result.

They are safer if you get hit. Wouldn't you rather be knocked down by a car at 30kph rather than 50kph? Also stopping speed is reduced so less chance of a vehicle not being able to stop before a collision.

Dravokivich wrote: »

I drive up the quays along the south side once a week and have never seen a sign stating 30 km/h.

Are they hoping its assumed everyone knows it's there?

:eek: Wow! MAybe you should rethink your mode of transport and take a bus...while hoping that the bus driver notices the signs :pac:

hmmm wrote: »

there has to be some thought given to the impact on quality of life caused by these limits versus the tiny chance that someone might get killed or injured.

There is. In fact quality of life for those living and working within these areas is a major reason for this speed limit reduction.

but in a city which is sprawling out all over the place it has a much greater impact on motorists.

Since average speeds during peak times are well below the limit, what's the problem?

Outside of peak hours, simply adjust your plan to factor in the reduced speed. The distance from canal to canal is about 3km. The time difference to drive this @ 30km/h -v- 50km/h is less than 3 minutes. That's if you had all green lights.

So what is the impact on motorists, exactly? A journey might take 3 minutes longer? Oh, the humanity!

Deedsie wrote: »

I wasnt actually saying you were whinging. To be fair you were just trying to identify the area currently affected by the 30km/h speed limit. That is responsible in itself. A little worrying that more dont do that. I have heard people complain about having to drive at 30km/h down by the point. I mean who's fault is that?

But you surely agree that 1 km of road that transects O'Connell Bridge is a special case speed wise? How many people cross that bridge per day?

I agree completely there is not enough signage to highlight the speed limit along the 30 km/h section.

Amazing really because usually there is excessive signage all across Dublin and Ireland, multiple bus stop sign within a couple of metres of each other etc

I like the approach they take in Germany. In built up areas, there is just a fixed speed limit that is not shown (you are supposed to know what it is). Only the exceptions to it are displayed.

So, what they could do here, is just show the exceptions on the arterial routes and (somehow) make it understood that it is 30km every where else. It would be crazy to try and put up 30km signs on each road.

Either way, it needs to be clear. It's not fair to enforce low limits unless they are very clear.