30kph coming to Dublin road near you? (note warning in post #254)

VonLuck · 08-09-2020 10:32pm

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.

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 · 08-09-2020 10:36pm

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.

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 · 08-09-2020 10:45pm

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.

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 · 08-09-2020 10:54pm

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.

Not angry at all! Just clearing up something that was factually incorrect and clarifying the statistics to give a more transparent view. When information is presented in a certain way it can be misconstrued.

And a statement saying "30kph is fast enough" is not much of an argument to be fair. Could say 10kmph is fast enough as well!

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.

My point is that why are we trying to enforce this rule based on nothing more than the road being in an urban setting? It's a blanket speed limit which is being put in place without looking at the actual infrastructure. There are many roads in the city which are perfectly safe to drive at 50kmph but thousands of rural roads where 80kmph is just madness.

El Tarangu · 09-09-2020 2:57pm

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.

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.

magicbastarder · 09-09-2020 3:20pm

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

the number who die by drowning is very nearly the same as the number who die in RTCs, actually.

Zebra3 · 09-09-2020 6:15pm

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.

And that's without accounting for the indirect deaths caused by airpollution.

SeanW · 09-09-2020 7:26pm

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.

"Our" society? I think you'll find that this tolerance for DEATH is not something that is unique to Ireland - road fatalities always follow road usage - but Ireland is near-unique in managing those risks very well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

As an Irish person you have a chance of dying on Irish roads every year of 0.003%. Most people would consider that risk to be reasonable especially considering the ways in which motor usage improves the quality of everyone's life. Not just drivers and car passengers, bus passengers are motor vehicle users, but even if you don't use any motor vehicles yourself, your mail, food and goods to the shops etc are all carried by motor vehicle.

As to the statement you were replying to, it is a question of proportionality. 30kph may by your claims be "safer" than 50kph (I have my doubts in that regard as Irish roads/streets are already safe) but by the same token 10kph would be safer than 30kph. Should everyone have to drive around at 10kph? Would that be proportionate?

Zebra3 wrote: »

And that's without accounting for the indirect deaths caused by airpollution.

You might have had a point in the early 1980s when leaded petrol was common and neither petrol nor diesel vehicles had any real air pollution controls.

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.

magicbastarder · 09-09-2020 8:50pm

SeanW, let's say for the sake of argument that your 12 year old daughter/granddaughter/niece decided she wanted to cycle 4km to her school in the suburbs of dublin. you'd be happy with that?

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 8:58pm

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.

It benefits to not take such a binary approach to societal improvements - there is a spectrum of events between living and dying.

Air pollution, even truly minor amounts, has been shown to cause numerous deleterious health effects.

VonLuck · 09-09-2020 9:43pm

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.

As was mentioned earlier, the number of people drowning is almost on par with road fatalities at an average of 120 per year. I would say the risk of drowning is significantly higher given that most people either drive or are in the vicinity of moving cars everyday whereas a very small minority are regular swimmers.

There are so many riskier activities that you haven't mentioned. Their fatality rate is so low because the number of people partaking in them isn't comparable with car usage, which as you say is so ingrained in our society.

kenmm · 09-09-2020 9:53pm

VonLuck wrote: »

As was mentioned earlier, the number of people drowning is almost on par with road fatalities at an average of 120 per year. I would say the risk of drowning is significantly higher given that most people either drive or are in the vicinity of moving cars everyday whereas a very small minority are regular swimmers.

There are so many riskier activities that you haven't mentioned. Their fatality rate is so low because the number of people partaking in them isn't comparable with car usage, which as you say is so ingrained in our society.

Ye death per participant (for lack of a better word) is low for driving.
I don't think 30knoh limits are necessarily for reducing deaths on our roads alone.

It's the other benefits that have been mentioned.

Pollution of various sorts, more throughput when required, ultimately a reduction in traffic over time etc etc

VonLuck · 09-09-2020 10:15pm

kenmm wrote: »

Ye death per participant (for lack of a better word) is low for driving.
I don't think 30knoh limits are necessarily due reducing deaths on our roads alone.

It's the other benefits that have been mentioned.

Pollution of various sorts, more throughput when required, ultimately a reduction in traffic over time etc etc

I may have missed links to studies etc. previously, but what is the link between lower speeds and reduced pollution? I would have thought pollution would reduce as speed increases to the most efficient speed which I think is around 80kmph.

kenmm · 09-09-2020 10:22pm

VonLuck wrote: »

I may have missed links to studies etc. previously, but what is the link between lower speeds and reduced pollution? I would have thought pollution would reduce as speed increases to the most efficient speed which I think is around 80kmph.

You don't need a study to show traffic is quieter at lower speeds, do you? I'm sure there are some though if you look.

I may have missed the posted links regarding emisions.

Reduction of traffic would also lead to less pollution.

I don't know if the 80kmph is accurate, maybe you could post something, but it unrealistic and had no place in Dublin city centre anyway (outside one or two arterial roads into the city that wouldn't be impacted).

Edit to add tho: re emissions: a lower speed I guess would also reduce the amount of acceleration and braking that's required. For ICE those are quite inefficient actions, so I would guess lower speed would smooth that out and lead to fewer emissions. I'm sure there are plenty of studies on this.

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 10:32pm

kenmm wrote: »

Ye death per participant (for lack of a better word) is low for driving.
I don't think 30knoh limits are necessarily for reducing deaths on our roads alone.

Nah, that’s not the right perspective imo. How many of those deaths while swimming are caused by someone else?

That’s the point. There are a large number of non-drivers who are killed by drivers. Speed reductions in a busy city could help prevent a majority of them.

Personally I’d rather most of the city centre was entirely car-free, but as it is, a 30kph offers the right balance between safety and practicality.

VonLuck · 09-09-2020 10:35pm

kenmm wrote: »

You don't need a study to show traffic is quieter at lower speeds, do you? I'm sure there are some though if you look.

I may have missed the posted links regarding emisions.

Reduction of traffic would also lead to less pollution.

I don't know if the 80kmph is accurate, maybe you could post something, but it unrealistic and had no place in Dublin city centre anyway (outside one or two arterial roads into the city that wouldn't be impacted).

Edit to add tho: re emissions: a lower speed I guess would also reduce the amount of acceleration and braking that's required. For ICE those are quite inefficient actions, so I would guess lower speed would smooth that out and lead to fewer emissions. I'm sure there are plenty of studies on this.

I thought you were referring solely to air pollution, not noise pollution seeing as you mentioned quieter.

Reduced car numbers will reduce overall pollution, of course. I was thinking more on an individual level. Does a car travelling 30kmph over say 1km emit less pollutants than a car travelling 50kmph over the same distance?

I only mentioned 80kmph because that's around the optimum speed so the closer you get the more efficient your fuel usage is. I obviously wasn't suggesting that speed limit in the city.

kenmm · 09-09-2020 10:36pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Nah, that’s not the right perspective imo. How many of those deaths while swimming are caused by someone else?

That’s the point. There are a large number of non-drivers who are killed by drivers. Speed reductions in a busy city could help prevent a majority of them.

Personally I’d rather most of the city centre was entirely car-free, but as it is, a 30kph offers the right balance between safety and practicality.

I want using it so much as a marker for the 30kmph, just in response of doing those weird death per X comparisons. Technically it is quite low. I'd agree that for the city centre, it's a good safety speed, but I really don't think that's the main driver (reduction of deaths) but more reduction of pollution, traffic management and lowering the severity of injury.

kenmm · 09-09-2020 10:41pm

VonLuck wrote: »

I thought you were referring solely to air pollution, not noise pollution seeing as you mentioned quieter.

Reduced car numbers will reduce overall pollution, of course. I was thinking more on an individual level. Does a car travelling 30kmph over say 1km emit less pollutants than a car travelling 50kmph over the same distance?

I only mentioned 80kmph because that's around the optimum speed so the closer you get the more efficient your fuel usage is. I obviously wasn't suggesting that speed limit in the city.

I meant pollution of all sorts.
The more I think about it tho (re the emisions)- I think in s typical 1km of city driving, the pollutants would be a good bit lower- with start/stop driving, traffic lights (accelerating up to 50/60 and back down) etc.

On a 'laboratory conditions 1km' where the revs are kept low and the acceleration steady - probably not much difference (still lower for the 30, but not by much).

This is all very tough imagination science, if I could be arsed I'd look some of this up!! Maybe a job for tomorrow..

VonLuck · 09-09-2020 10:44pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Nah, that’s not the right perspective imo. How many of those deaths while swimming are caused by someone else?

That’s the point. There are a large number of non-drivers who are killed by drivers. Speed reductions in a busy city could help prevent a majority of them.

Personally I’d rather most of the city centre was entirely car-free, but as it is, a 30kph offers the right balance between safety and practicality.

If we're getting technical, if you're on a road you are exposing yourself to a risk which you could avoid if you really wanted to. If you go swimming you are also exposing yourself to a risk. I'm not sure how big of a factor the source of the danger is. I guess it becomes a factor because it's one of the few things society can attempt to mitigate.

When you say you want the city centre car free, to what extent would you ideally want this?

magicbastarder · 09-09-2020 10:44pm

VonLuck wrote: »

Reduced car numbers will reduce overall pollution, of course. I was thinking more on an individual level. Does a car travelling 30kmph over say 1km emit less pollutants than a car travelling 50kmph over the same distance?

in the urban context we're talking about here, if it's less stop starty, then i would assume some benefit. not driving towards the next set of reds at 50km/h and doing it instead at 30 makes sense. every time you brake, you're essentially wasting energy it took fuel to generate. in that urban context, you're not going to be able to reach and sustain 50km/h for very long in most circumstances.

the 80km/h optimum you mention is achieved on open roads. accelerating and braking is death to fuel efficiency. though weirdly, i have read that 'pulsing' might actually be most fuel efficient on an open road - accelerate to 90, say, ease off the pedal and let the speed drop to 70 or 80, and accelerate back up to 90; rinse and repeat. and leave the person driving behind you to wonder what the hell you're up to.

and also worth mentioning that dust from brake pads is a not insignificant pollutant.

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 11:05pm

VonLuck wrote: »

If we're getting technical, if you're on a road you are exposing yourself to a risk which you could avoid if you really wanted to. If you go swimming you are also exposing yourself to a risk. I'm not sure how big of a factor the source of the danger is. I guess it becomes a factor because it's one of the few things society can attempt to mitigate.

When you say you want the city centre car free, to what extent would you ideally want this?

It’s only a risk to walk down a street because of the drivers, not because of some immutable law of nature like seas being dangerous. We can actively mitigate a substantial part of that risk by forcing those drivers to stick to 30kph.

I’m genuinely not sure what the argument against all of this is that you’re making? You accept that it will be safer, right?

The car free city centre I'm referring to would preferably be at least the area bounded by the inner orbital route (as seen here: http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-traffic-dublin-getting-around-dublin/orbital-signage-updating)

SeanW · 09-09-2020 11:07pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

SeanW, let's say for the sake of argument that your 12 year old daughter/granddaughter/niece decided she wanted to cycle 4km to her school in the suburbs of dublin. you'd be happy with that?

My first question would be why said child could not use the school bus - because in countries where education is planned properly there is a system of municipal schools that guarantee places to all students in the municipality so the need for students to make their own way to school is much more limited. In such a country, she would simply take the school bus and that would be the end of the matter. In this country of course, where a child goes to school can be a crap-shoot of school place availability especially in growing Dublin suburbs, so you have students going from here and there to everywhere. Naturally it's much harder to plan a school transport system around that mess - and any issues one has with cycling to school are most likely secondary problems caused by the first.

As to the cycling specifically, I understand some routes are better than others in terms of cycle lanes etc. So my answer after "why can't she use the school bus" would be "it depends."

MJohnston wrote: »

It benefits to not take such a binary approach to societal improvements - there is a spectrum of events between living and dying.

Air pollution, even truly minor amounts, has been shown to cause numerous deleterious health effects.

You're correct. It's not "binary" - global air quality conventions generally go from "Good" to "Hazardous" based on various indexes. At any rate, pollution has many causes and given the manner in which modern Irish motor vehicles are regulated with regard to environmental standards, it's safe to assume that power plants, incinerators, home heating, what little industry we haven't lost to Asia, occasional Southern/Eastern winds etc are all contributing factors.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Irish air is causing widespread health problems. Maybe for people that insanely unhealthy with the worst possible case of asthma or something and lives in a hotspot (where pollution might be moderate), but even in those extreme cases their problems could be solved by moving away from the hotspot.

magicbastarder · 09-09-2020 11:18pm

SeanW wrote: »

My first question would be why said child could not use the school bus

because there is no 'school bus' in dublin.

you know where i'm going with that question. if roads in ireland are so safe, as you repeatedly claim, why does so much of the population regard cycling as being a death wish? why do so many parents refuse to countenance allowing their kids to cycle to school?
primary school students in the netherlands are more than ten times as likely to cycle to school as primary school students in ireland, as an example. primary school students in the netherlands are nearly ten times as likely to cycle to school as *secondary* school pupils are in ireland.

your repeated hearkening back to the fatality figures as if they occur on a similar playing field is misleading. the fatality rates in ireland are lower because active travel is lower. we're going back to the shark filled pool (analogy) again, but that's because you keep talking about fatality rates as if they're the only metric worth talking about.

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 11:31pm

SeanW wrote: »

My first question would be why said child could not use the school bus - because in countries where education is planned properly there is a system of municipal schools that guarantee places to all students in the municipality so the need for students to make their own way to school is much more limited. In such a country, she would simply take the school bus and that would be the end of the matter. In this country of course, where a child goes to school can be a crap-shoot of school place availability especially in growing Dublin suburbs, so you have students going from here and there to everywhere. Naturally it's much harder to plan a school transport system around that mess - and any issues one has with cycling to school are most likely secondary problems caused by the first.

As to the cycling specifically, I understand some routes are better than others in terms of cycle lanes etc. So my answer after "why can't she use the school bus" would be "it depends."

You're correct. It's not "binary" - global air quality conventions generally go from "Good" to "Hazardous" based on various indexes. At any rate, pollution has many causes and given the manner in which modern Irish motor vehicles are regulated with regard to environmental standards, it's safe to assume that power plants, incinerators, home heating, what little industry we haven't lost to Asia, occasional Southern/Eastern winds etc are all contributing factors.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Irish air is causing widespread health problems. Maybe for people that insanely unhealthy with the worst possible case of asthma or something and lives in a hotspot (where pollution might be moderate), but even in those extreme cases their problems could be solved by moving away from the hotspot.

Sorry bud, but you need to do some reading on this topic. Here’s a quick starter:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/13/air-pollution-particles-linked-to-brain-cancer-in-new-research?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Regardless, this is a red herring anyway, the speed reductions are happening to reduce more direct dangers:

consideration is been given to temporarily reducing vehicular speed limits on many of the routes to 30km per hour, in order to protect the larger numbers of pedestrians, cyclists and vulnerable road users moving around in these areas and on the road carriageway due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and social distancing requirements.

https://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-dublin-city-covid-mobility-programme/reduce-speed-limits

SeanW · 10-09-2020 1:43am

magicbastarder wrote: »

because there is no 'school bus' in dublin.

Maybe that's the main problem.

your repeated hearkening back to the fatality figures as if they occur on a similar playing field is misleading. the fatality rates in ireland are lower because active travel is lower. we're going back to the shark filled pool (analogy) again, but that's because you keep talking about fatality rates as if they're the only metric worth talking about.

I post the evidence of global traffic fatalities because it's common for cyclists to condemn Irish motorists as basically being the scum of the universe, so the data and evidence is necessary to provide context. But yes, I consider the fact that people are not dying to be relevant.

If I understand your "shark filled pool" analogy correctly, what you are suggesting is that active travel carries inherent risks in all parts of the world (i.e. comparable to swimming in a pool that has at least some sharks, and because more people die in other countries) but it appears to be extra-dangerous in this country (i.e. more sharks in the Irish swimming pool than other countries where there appears to be fewer sharks) so fewer people do it, leading to fewer fatalities than other countries?

Given how many people - myself included - regularly take to the streets and roads on foot, and feel perfectly safe (at least where motorists are concerned) in so doing, I'm not sure I accept that analogy, but surely fewer people being eaten by sharks is a good thing, no?

MJohnston wrote: »

Sorry bud, but you need to do some reading on this topic. Here’s a quick starter:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/13/air-pollution-particles-linked-to-brain-cancer-in-new-research?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Seems a little preliminary and it does not show a large risk. But the article mentions diesel specifically while petrol seems to be less of a concern. Thus even if this study does indicate anything, it should be to encourage drivers to use petrol instead of diesel? It should be noted that the government here promoted diesel cars in 2008 as being better for the climate, but have signaled a volte-face owing to pollution concerns. Long term, as you likely know the government has put a sunset date on all petrol/diesel powered cars: the last will be sold in 2030 and they won't get NCT certificates after 2045.

Of course, the social costs of doing this (i.e. putting lots of poor people off the road, because batteries are stupidly expensive) far outweigh any societal benefit, but hey, we have to keep Greta Thunberg happy so **** the poor.

Regardless, this is a red herring anyway, the speed reductions are happening to reduce more direct dangers:

https://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-dublin-city-covid-mobility-programme/reduce-speed-limits

It's happening alright, regardless of it being disproportionate, but it is being written about as a "temporary" measure related to "COVID-19" ... and if anyone actually believes that ... I've got a bridge to sell, and it's a bargain. :rolleyes:

magicbastarder · 10-09-2020 7:53am

SeanW wrote: »

Given how many people - myself included - regularly take to the streets and roads on foot, and feel perfectly safe (at least where motorists are concerned) in so doing, I'm not sure I accept that analogy, but surely fewer people being eaten by sharks is a good thing, no?

do you want to go for a cycle with me?

MJohnston · 10-09-2020 8:11am

SeanW wrote: »

Maybe that's the main problem.

I post the evidence of global traffic fatalities because it's common for cyclists to condemn Irish motorists as basically being the scum of the universe, so the data and evidence is necessary to provide context. But yes, I consider the fact that people are not dying to be relevant.

If I understand your "shark filled pool" analogy correctly, what you are suggesting is that active travel carries inherent risks in all parts of the world (i.e. comparable to swimming in a pool that has at least some sharks, and because more people die in other countries) but it appears to be extra-dangerous in this country (i.e. more sharks in the Irish swimming pool than other countries where there appears to be fewer sharks) so fewer people do it, leading to fewer fatalities than other countries?

Given how many people - myself included - regularly take to the streets and roads on foot, and feel perfectly safe (at least where motorists are concerned) in so doing, I'm not sure I accept that analogy, but surely fewer people being eaten by sharks is a good thing, no?

Seems a little preliminary and it does not show a large risk. But the article mentions diesel specifically while petrol seems to be less of a concern. Thus even if this study does indicate anything, it should be to encourage drivers to use petrol instead of diesel? It should be noted that the government here promoted diesel cars in 2008 as being better for the climate, but have signaled a volte-face owing to pollution concerns. Long term, as you likely know the government has put a sunset date on all petrol/diesel powered cars: the last will be sold in 2030 and they won't get NCT certificates after 2045.

Of course, the social costs of doing this (i.e. putting lots of poor people off the road, because batteries are stupidly expensive) far outweigh any societal benefit, but hey, we have to keep Greta Thunberg happy so **** the poor.

It's happening alright, regardless of it being disproportionate, but it is being written about as a "temporary" measure related to "COVID-19" ... and if anyone actually believes that ... I've got a bridge to sell, and it's a bargain. :rolleyes:

I think it’s great that these kinds of changes are being smuggled in under the pretext of being temporary, saves us from disingenuous objectors like yourself who will roll out any old nonsense to ruin progress.

El Tarangu · 10-09-2020 8:22am

SeanW wrote:

My first question would be why said child could not use the school bus

Why would a child who lives 2 or 3 kms from school need a bus? They would be quicker cycling - and more probably would cycle if the roads were not so dangerous.

Because of motorists.

VonLuck · 10-09-2020 8:23am

MJohnston wrote: »

I’m genuinely not sure what the argument against all of this is that you’re making? You accept that it will be safer, right?

My original point was that a number of the roads that are being reduced from 50kmph to 30kmph are not suited for driving at 30kmph.

Driving slower will always be safer, but can't see how many of these roads are considered dangerous at 50kmph.

I see the Navan Road is to stay at 50kmph. Do you think that's excessive?

VonLuck · 10-09-2020 8:25am

El Tarangu wrote: »

Why would a child who lives 2 or 3 kms from school need a bus? They would be quicker cycling - and more probably would cycle if the roads were not so dangerous.

Because of motorists.

The main issue is cycling infrastructure.

magicbastarder · 10-09-2020 8:58am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

i'm curious now as to how often cars crash into buildings in ireland. it seems weirdly common in the US and canada, if that video is to be believed.

anyway, an interesting message about managing traffic flows and speed.

Duckjob · 10-09-2020 12:37pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

i'm curious now as to how often cars crash into buildings in ireland. it seems weirdly common in the US and canada, if that video is to be believed.

anyway, an interesting message about managing traffic flows and speed.

I've seen that before. Excellent video that really highlights how you get the type of city you plan for.

Ultimately the question is which direction do we want out cities to go - the American way or the Dutch way. Having spent quite some time in both American and Dutch cities, I know which one I would like to see for Ireland, and it doesn't include monster trucks.

John_Rambo · 10-09-2020 2:11pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Why would a child who lives 2 or 3 kms from school need a bus? They would be quicker cycling - and more probably would cycle if the roads were not so dangerous.

Because of motorists.

If there was a lower speed limit the roads could be safer for kids cycling to school. The lower speed limit might even encourage some drivers to cycle shorter "bread & milk" non essential distances.

WAITASECOND........

Amirani · 10-09-2020 2:28pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

i'm curious now as to how often cars crash into buildings in ireland. it seems weirdly common in the US and canada, if that video is to be believed.

anyway, an interesting message about managing traffic flows and speed.

https://twitter.com/abnerbrowns/status/1303779852143726595

Right on cue...

magicbastarder · 10-09-2020 2:39pm

yeah, i think the video was linked in a tweet replying to the above, which is where i saw it.

i do like the fact that there's a chap in there who has decided 'sod that, i'm still getting my hair cut'.

magicbastarder · 14-09-2020 10:03pm

well, it seems that this has been voted down for now. people need more time to think about it or something.

magicbastarder · 16-09-2020 1:56pm

https://twitter.com/naoiseomuiri/status/1306194432648241153

Infini · 17-09-2020 8:56am

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, it seems that this has been voted down for now. people need more time to think about it or something.

An arbitrary enforced limit that more than half of people opposed was never going to pass. The 40km/h on main roads might have made it more accceptable but this was never considered by those advocating 30km/h.

magicbastarder · 17-09-2020 9:04am

it's been successfully rolled out in several other european cities. they didn't pick 30 simply because they liked the shape of the numbers.

MJohnston · 17-09-2020 10:01am

Infini wrote: »

An arbitrary enforced limit that more than half of people opposed was never going to pass. The 40km/h on main roads might have made it more accceptable but this was never considered by those advocating 30km/h.

The problem here is that you (and many councillors) are making the mistake of thinking that public consultations are referenda of the plans they relate to. That's not true!

They're a process that should be used to add context to a project, rather than veto or approve it.

The authorities should then weigh the available evidence and make an informed decision based on all of it.

Instead, with politicians, the public become the primary decision makers. Which is a terrible idea!

MJohnston · 17-09-2020 10:08am

Here's an example:

There was a plan for Merrion Gates, to grade separate the road crossing with a flyover, and provide an excellent pedestrian and cycling underpass.

It would have: drastically improved traffic in the area with a requisite hugely positive effect on buses; allowed the DART to operate at increased speeds and perhaps eventually improved frequencies (if all other level crossings were removed); made this horrible junction much safer for people walking and cycling.

But it was abandoned because all of these objectively incredibly positive changes for thousands of people daily were outweighed by the voices of a few local, vocal residents during the public consultation.

Duckjob · 17-09-2020 10:21am

MJohnston wrote: »

Here's an example:

There was a plan for Merrion Gates, to grade separate the road crossing with a flyover, and provide an excellent pedestrian and cycling underpass.

It would have: drastically improved traffic in the area with a requisite hugely positive effect on buses; allowed the DART to operate at increased speeds and perhaps eventually improved frequencies (if all other level crossings were removed); made this horrible junction much safer for people walking and cycling.

But it was abandoned because all of these objectively incredibly positive changes for thousands of people daily were outweighed by the voices of a few local, vocal residents during the public consultation.

I don't think its been abandoned (at least not yet) I think it was delayed so they can gather more data before deciding how to proceed, but otherwise I agree with your point - far too much attention given to a vocal minority. Similiar happened in Malahide.

MJohnston · 17-09-2020 10:31am

Duckjob wrote: »

I don't think its been abandoned (at least not yet) I think it was delayed so they can gather more data before deciding how to proceed, but otherwise I agree with your point - far too much attention given to a vocal minority. Similiar happened in Malahide.

The 30kph change hasn't been abandoned, no, what happened is that a FF councillor made an amendment to adjust some arterial routes to 40kph, but by the rules of whatever, the amendment passed, and that meant the whole thing had to go back to public consultation again.

The councillor claims that they believed the 40kph amendment was the only way the thing would get passed, but that just raises a whole bunch of questions considering how the "Dublin Agreement" had the 30kph changes at its core.

Can't stop politicians from chasing votes instead of making progress, I suppose.

liamog · 17-09-2020 4:00pm

MJohnston wrote: »

The 30kph change hasn't been abandoned, no, what happened is that a FF councillor made an amendment to adjust some arterial routes to 40kph, but by the rules of whatever, the amendment passed, and that meant the whole thing had to go back to public consultation again.

The councillor claims that they believed the 40kph amendment was the only way the thing would get passed, but that just raises a whole bunch of questions considering how the "Dublin Agreement" had the 30kph changes at its core.

Can't stop politicians from chasing votes instead of making progress, I suppose.

I think it's a logical change, most of the 30km/h changes were completely sensible, some of the arterial roads are clearly not designed to handle 30km/h traffic, and as such any change was premature.

MJohnston · 17-09-2020 4:05pm

I don't know about that, to me that just sounds like the same "chicken and egg" situation we have with reducing car access to the city centre to facilitate public transport.

I definitely agree that speed limit changes won't be effective without design changes to the relevant roads, but at the same time I'm not sure it's worth delaying the whole thing when we could lower the limits now and make the design changes as a follow-up.

CatInABox · 17-09-2020 9:28pm

MJohnston wrote: »

The 30kph change hasn't been abandoned, no, what happened is that a FF councillor made an amendment to adjust some arterial routes to 40kph, but by the rules of whatever, the amendment passed, and that meant the whole thing had to go back to public consultation again.

The councillor claims that they believed the 40kph amendment was the only way the thing would get passed, but that just raises a whole bunch of questions considering how the "Dublin Agreement" had the 30kph changes at its core.

Can't stop politicians from chasing votes instead of making progress, I suppose.

Minor correction, it was a FG councillor that proposed the amendment, and as he points out, the Dublin Agreement crowd mostly voted for it, so it was a cross party failure

MJohnston · 23-09-2020 5:12pm

So many little towns around Ireland ruined by that kind of layout. Just conduits for cars.

Thelonious Monk · 23-09-2020 5:20pm

MJohnston wrote: »

So many little towns around Ireland ruined by that kind of layout. Just conduits for cars.

It looks like every other horrible car park of an Irish town

magicbastarder · 23-09-2020 5:36pm

on that note:

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1308707024012746752

liamog · 23-09-2020 11:23pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

on that note:

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1308707024012746752

I much prefer the system they use in other European cities, I remember being in Torremolinos a few years back, there was a major construction project to install underground car parks that were built below the roadway, they would then remove surface lanes and improve the streetscape.

I remember seeing something similar in The Netherlands, surface streets within communities were designed as low traffic routes which kept traffic speeds naturally lower, vehicle traffic and storage were hidden underground. That map of Finglas reminds me of Belfast where they used to replace damaged buildings with surface car parks.

30kph coming to Dublin road near you? (note warning in post #254)

Comments