30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

See the end of my comment, https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118760115/#Comment_118760115.

Also, I don't know what the point of the rest of your comment is given that the driver in each case was clearly at fault for breaking a red light and wasn't paying attention. As usual, you are spinning things well out of context when I have clearly mentioned numerous times that I don't advocate for motorists who break the rules of the road.

Is this because on another thread, I expressed disgust at parent pedestrians who cross on red with their prams in tow?

If motorists have to obey traffic signals which the majority do, it is not unreasonable to expect other road user groups to do the same. Otherwise, the road system continues to be plagued by double standards.

My aunt had her arm broken by a guy on bike, old lady living next to my inlaws was hit buy one when she had green man to cross broke her arm and cracked her pelvis.

My kids and a lot of others I see don't look when crossing, if they step out in front of a car do we blame them or driver.

Less so now that bikes have disk brakes but it was very common to see bikes be broken or opened front brakes.

Where I work you often can't see bikes in winter because they are to cheap to have lights that work. That should be enforced. I nearly hit one dressed as ninja in all black with no light in the pissing rain.

Guy I work with has been in too many crashes where he was simply going to fast, somebody around him makes a mistake but he's going to fast to deal with it. He killed a dog on lead where the owner stepped of the path and he went into the lead dragging the dog for bit. He got doored when a car stopped infor of him. He came off when a lady stepp infot of him, he's alway going at max pace. All of these weren't his fault but if he's been going 10K slower they probable wouldn't have happened.

Like I said I read the road but a lot of drives aren't great at it and are very reactionary so if they are focused on keeping below 30 their eye is not on the road. Also cars aren't geared to drive at 30 so it's not going to be easy.

I'm not really sure there's any point arguing against this point of view.

The only annoying thing about having to slow down the vehicles is that it means we all suffer and have to slow down. Obviously we can still cycle above 30 when the occasion arises, but still too many cars cluttering up the place.

I'd be more in favour of charging for city centre vehicle use (if it would actually reduce cars on the road). Happy to pay a couple quid when I need to drive in.

It's not the only measure on the books. Other areas can be tackled with other measures. We don't have to ignore this one just because it's not the biggest. And if it can make a dent in that quarter, then what's the problem?

I'm not going to argue whether this is a popular measure. That's irrelevant. If we based road safety rules on what was popular, we'd have no seat belts or alcohol limits and most roads would have a limit of at least 60km/h.

The maths on it is clear. Collisions at lower speeds cause lesser injuries. Most collisions with vulnerable roads users occur in urban areas. Therefore lower speeds in urban areas will result in fewer serious injuries.

Fairly straightforward. Can you provide any reason why such a limit would result in no change? Arguments about it being "hard" to drive at 30, or whataboutery is irrelevant. It's a simple ask - will a 30km/h limit result in less serious injuries and fatalities?

Oireachtas committees get submissions like this all the time and anyone can make a submission to a committee. They generally mean very little as they are aimed at informing the executive branch. All they can do is recommend policies and the government can simply ignore it.

As others have observed apart from national laws defining speed limits, it's councils who make the call on where to apply them and they are neither practical nor enforceable in most most parts large urban conurbations. As one of the 2% who respects the 30 kph it requires a lot of concentration to drive at 60% of the first national limit of 50 kph. TBH the DCC approach to it so far has been sensible and they have confined it to more residential and smaller streets where anything above that speed is really unjustified.

It's not even a proposal it's a bog standard submission to an Oireachtas committee, one of the very many they receive.

I'm also not sure about the claims about kids wanting to walk or cycle to school. In my experience it's proximity that decides that and some urban streets have challenges with car and bike traffic combined, regardless of the speed of vehicles.

As for the question of ability to drive at that speed it is not part of any training and it takes some effort to do so for an extended period, which would be the case if this became far more commonplace in urban areas.

How did you come up with this calculation exactly

At 9 the issue is you are going to get stuck at lights, that wouldn't be reduced by going at 30

You'd be down to about 20k average speed

The rest of the day throuhput would drop and traffic would be worse

The problem in Ireland is pedestrians crossing anywhere they want, walking between cars, crossing on the red light (even Garda), not the speed. We all know that nobody cares about these 30 km/h restrictions as no one is enforcing it.

Damn all those pedestrians killing hundreds of people a year by crossing where they want

They're killing themselves by not even both sides of the road before crossing the road! This isn't a room or a forest, pedestrians aren't wild animals either. However, they act like ones: without a common sense and caution, like if they'd be living in a civilisation for the first day in their lives. If they die due to their careless actions than it's a natural selection. Stupid ones don't get to survive.