VonLuck wrote: » I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but there's a design guide for roads called the Design manual for Urban Streets (DMURS). In it it specifically says the below:Clearer sightlines and wide carriageways also allow for greater driver reaction time/error correction. Whilst this approach is sensible on isolated roads, within urban areas it can be counter productive as it may transfer risk to more vulnerable users. Research has found that: The speed at which drivers travel is principally influenced by the characteristics of the street environment If the design of a street creates the perception that it is safe to travel at higher speeds drivers will do so, even if this conflicts with the posted speed limit. By eliminating risk and promoting free-flowing conditions, drivers feel more inclined to drive at higher speeds. Furthermore if speed limits are perceived as not being appropriate to the environment, it can undermine the speed limit system as a whole. The extent to which speeding in urban areas is a problem has been identified in successive surveys carried out by the Road Safety Authority, with 3 out of 5 drivers on urban streets driving in excess of the posted speed limit.
Infini wrote: » What they should do is get rid of the poxy car parking on the Northbound side tbh down near the talbot st end and improve the cycle lanes on both sides. I acually think they should put better cycle infractrusture in too and really should be focusing on this along with far better syncronised traffic lighting and better traffic flow. Let's be honest some of the goddamn light stay red for up to 2min and only change green for as little as 10 seconds in places. That's why red light running has become a thing. The fact the 30km limit is not even enforced is hillarious too. Let's be honest I dont even know why they're suddenly having this huge focus on 30km when in actuallity when it's busy it's not possible to go that fast even due to traffic during busy times. It seems to be purely driven by certain spite fuelled anti-car elements of the council with a desire to fúck with people who drive rather than improve thing overall. Honestly I don't like driving into Dublin City, if anything I'd avoid it if I didn't have to work there, gave up cycling both because of craptacular weather and because cycling infrastructure is utterly crap to the point it's unsafe.
07Lapierre wrote: » When you think about it, DCC should get rid do ALL on street parking. Instantly, every street that had on street parking, is now twice as wide, which leaves plenty of room for social distancing friendly wide pavements and cycle lanes, without removing any "driving lanes". Everyone's a winner, even the car park owners!
AlekSmart wrote: » Meanwhile in deepest Cheshire,they really do need a LOT more poles.....:eek:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YZFDDb-pOQ&ab_channel=normanarmstrong Question is,where is Dubblin headed...?
Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: » This is wonderful news, drivers need to be forced to slow down in urban areas and respect vulnerable road users.
VonLuck wrote: » I may have missed a previous post, but how many accidents in Dublin City over the years have been attributed to speeds in excess of 30kmph? I'm all for reducing speeds in areas where it poses a real risk, but reducing it for the sake of it is nonsensical.
CrankyHaus wrote: » This isn't really about safety, it's about punishment; just like the changes to light sequences in recent months to increase congestion have been. Back in the good old days these type of people could get their fix by whispering to the Monsignor about the Hussey on their road who got pregnant out of marriage, so she'd get sent to the Magdalene Laundries. Now all that righteous indignation has to find another outlet; against a new set of heretics. The words change but the dynamic stays the same.
SeanW wrote: » 4) Shorter waits plus countdown timers at signal controlled pedestrian crossings. Ironically DCC once had countdown to green man timers on pedestrian crossings South of O'Connell bridge, but they were taken down and not replaced when the lights were "modernised" a few years back. Why?
Cienciano wrote: » Shorter waits for pedestrian lights is something I don't understand. OK, not O'Connell Bridge ones as they're so busy. But for instance, crossing on Cork Street. Not many pedestrians, you press the button and have to wait ages. What happens is, you're waiting so long, eventually there's a break in traffic and you cross. You're on the other side of the road, walking away and the light then changes. Cars then have to stop for no one to cross. Why don't they change as soon as you press?
kenmm wrote: » That's a fairly skewed view of the world you have there! Is everyone out to get you?
MJohnston wrote: » I'm not sure there's any way to know the attributed cause for every accident that happens in Dublin. However, of the 27 pedestrian fatalities recorded by the RSA in 2019, all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher. The science of the safety of the measure is fairly clear too: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf
VonLuck wrote: » we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer.
magicbastarder wrote: » we're talking about roads which people actually live on. not national routes etc.; roads that people live on, and where the average speed is usually less than the speed limit anyway. i can't remember if it was this thread or the thread on the topic in the current affairs forum, but there was someone recently complaining about the notion of having to drive at 30km/h on sundrive road. that's a suburban road lined with houses, that's the sort of road where 'just because it's safer' is easily justified just because it's safer.
VonLuck wrote: » by applying that logic all country roads should be 30kmph.
magicbastarder wrote: » on many suburban roads in dublin, there's a house on average every 5m. if a country road is that densely populated A) it's not a country road, and 30km/h would be easily justified anyway.
VonLuck wrote: » Well that's not true. The speed limit on the road where the accident occurred was 50kmph or higher, it wasn't the speed the car was travelling. They could just as well have been driving at 80kmph on a 50kmph road, or even 30kmph for that matter. Also the way you've presented the information really shows your agenda. Instead of saying what fatalities occur at 50kmph speed limit, you say that "all but 2 occurred at speeds of 50km/h or higher". A more transparent representation of the facts is that 33.3% of fatalities happened at this speed limit and 7.4% below this. Only 6 of the 27 deaths occurred in Dublin too. Unfortunately we don't have a breakdown by location, but if we assume that the percentages nationally applied to Dublin, this could mean that 2 people died on a 50kmph speed limit road and less than 1 (0.44) for a lower speed limit. Not denying that there's a direct link between speed and increase in likelihood of a fatality in an accident, but we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer. There's a risk in everything we do, but we need to be rational in the approach.
VonLuck wrote: » Density is not the only factor. In my opinion an urban "residential" road with wide footpaths separated by a grass verge (e.g. many of the roads around the Templeogue area) is much safer at 50kmph than a winding rural road enclosed by overgrown hedgerows with a few houses dotted along the way.
MJohnston wrote: » This is an irrationally angry response to my post which merely repeated the stuff from the RSA report. I’m not sure why you think it reveals any agenda (that’s much more obvious in all the posts where I essentially say “fück drivers”). I’d argue we can start making city roads 30kph just because it’s safer. 30kph is fast enough. The entire area in question is only 15km in diameter.
magicbastarder wrote: » damning with faint praise, no? saying 50km/h is safer than a rural road with no footpath and restricted sightlines, is not exactly what we should be aiming for.
VonLuck wrote: » Not denying that there's a direct link between speed and increase in likelihood of a fatality in an accident, but we can't start plastering roads with 30kmph speed limits just because it's safer.
El Tarangu wrote: » If 148 people in Ireland died as a result of any other activity in one year, like in industrial accidents or drowning or housefires, there would be a parliamentary inquiry
El Tarangu wrote: » This is such a curious, and somewhat chilling statement. If 148 people in Ireland died as a result of any other activity in one year, like in industrial accidents or drowning or housefires, there would be a parliamentary inquiry, and immediate beefing up of safety provisions relating to whatever it is. Car culture is so insidious, and so ingrained within our society, that the fact that it kills 130-140 people each and every year is met with a shrug by many people.
Zebra3 wrote: » And that's without accounting for the indirect deaths caused by airpollution.
SeanW wrote: » But I suspect you will find that Irish air quality is generally good.http://waqi.info/#/c/53.728/-6.97/7.6z It's pretty rare for someone to die because of good quality air.
