Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

1242527293057

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    Fine, I give up. As long as they keep it off the Rock Road and N11 Donnybrook, that's fine. Confine it to neighbourhoods and side roads.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    yeah, back on topic; i'm going to do a little calculation and this might be a bit wordy but i am laying out my calculations in the hope that if i've made a mistake, someone can spot it.

    the usual example i use of driving in urban traffic is DCU to UCD or vice versa. it's approx 11km, and currently google maps is estimating 31 minutes to drive it. that's an average speed - on a summer saturday afternoon - of 22km/h. most roads used have a speed limit of 50km/h (with the stretch between UCD and donnybrook at 60km/h IIRC), so cars are reaching less than half the average speed that the speed limits would allow.

    let's say the car could only do 50km/h or zero. no inbetween speeds. that implies that the car would spend 13 minutes moving and 18 stopped (it takes 13 minutes to drive 11km at 50km/h). it'd take 9 minutes longer if the car was limited to 30km/h instead of 50km/h (and this may not be accurate - that is based on an the assumption that the time spent *stopped* would be the same)

    based on that, we've a theoretical max difference of nine minutes. and that's a *maximum* - in reality, the difference would be a lot less because a lot of the time spent moving would be well under 50km/h anyway. and it's also worth pointing out that (AFAIK!) most of the roads used in that particular example will remain at 50km/h anyway.

    add heavy traffic, and the difference will shrink even further.

    or, TL;DR - if you were only allowed drive at 30km/h instead of 50km/h, it'd cost you a theoretical *max* of 8 minutes for every 10km you drive. you'd drive clear across dublin in less than 20km (the M1/M50 roundabout to leopardstown racecourse is 19km)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,501 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    It'd be a bit weird to have a 30kph limit on a dual carriageway alright. There's probably plenty of other good examples of urban arterial roads that it shouldn't apply to either. Can't see it staying off the Rock road though. How could it be justified vs any other urban "R" road?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    yeah, it's not going to be policed. however, the sort of person who would do, say 60km/h in a 50 zone might end up doing 45 in a 30 zone, even without policing. i've noticed this where i grew up, when visiting my parents - they introduced a 30km/h limit on delwood road in blanchardstown and while people are still breaking the limit, the average speed you see cars doing on the road (in my experience) is noticeably reduced.

    a reduction of 60 to 45 is a 44% reduction in kinetic energy of the vehicle - with a similar reduction in braking distances, etc.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Funny you mention it...

    Some of the most interesting speeds caught included:


    87km/h in a 50km/h Zone on the R118 Rock Road Dublin 4 Dublin

    6. Rock Road 50 km/h to 30 km/h, St. Mary's Boys National School, Booterstown Parish Youth Club ,Willow Park Junior School, Blackrock Clinic Bariatric Surgery , Blackrock Park

    This seems to be an older report though...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    those chicanes have been there for many years; if you go back to the 2009 imagery on street view, they're there - just in case anyone reading your post assumed they were introduced along with the 30km/h limit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Good point.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,501 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    Yeah, but the thread was started in 2022 and the title says "for all urban areas". I wasn't sure if we're only discussing certain urban areas defined 2 years previously? Quite a bit of the rock road is flanked by houses so it'd probably be weird not to include it?

    (actually, maybe it makes no difference? If they limit every other road, the traffic might migrate to the roads remaining at 50kph and thereby increase volume and reduce overall speed due to stop/start nature of these roads with various traffic lights, wardens and awkward junctions.)



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the stretch of the rock road between the toyota garage (carroll and kinsella, IIRC) and the turnoff for the village wouldn't be badly affected anyway - i used to commute to and from work along it, and it was usually well jammed up. i was on the bike and would usually easily outpace a car along that stretch.

    the section past the clinic (with the red brick houses opposite) was hairy at times with people swapping lanes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,845 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Car traffic doesn’t travel at 50 kmph in Dublin. 1/10th of that would be more accurate.


    Do you not pull over in traffic to let faster cyclists through from behind?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    If I'm stationary, I am most likely at a red light. Also, it depends on the labe width. With a cycle lane present, I will keep it clear. Anyway, we'll leave it there. No winning here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,845 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Not stationary, just the usual crawling in traffic, noted in the data in the article quoted. Do you not have the courtesy to pull in to let faster cyclists through from behind?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    Usually, they pass left and right of me negating any need to pull aside. So, I amn't particularly bothered as long they stop at the red lights ahead which many do actually. In crawling conditions, I would consider the safety aspect pretty self regulated. I do check my mirrors and blind spots to see if who is coming up behind me and if I can pull aside, I will space permitting.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,942 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So, I amn't particularly bothered as long they stop at the red lights ahead which many do actually.

    ...and yet you still have to get a dig in. No mention of the drivers who break red lights which is a very frequent and much more dangerous occurrence - it's just about making a dig at people on bikes who do it (not that anyone should!).



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,942 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So, I amn't particularly bothered as long they stop at the red lights ahead which many do actually.

    ...and yet you still have to get a dig in. No mention of the drivers who break red lights which is a very frequent and much more dangerous occurrence - it's just about making a dig at people on bikes who do it (not that anyone should!).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    Funny you mention that seth as I frequently refer to this fact (drivers breaking red lights etc.) and the inherent dangers it creates as I realise that motorists are far from being angels on the road. By reading my from start to finish, you might actually see this. End of!



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,942 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I realise that motorists are far from being angels on the road. By reading my from start to finish, you might actually see this. End of!

    Forgive my perspective which was based on your initial contributions to the thread which included you describing double standards being applied when cyclists travel legally either in pairs on towards the middle of the lane (and as recommended by the RSA) but using this to state that "they get to act what ever way they want regardless of whether or not they are being an inconvenience. This reeks of freeloading and a sense of entitlement. It is also a very infantile attitude." - which to be honest is a feckin stupid perspective purely because it completely ignores all safety advise and reeks of driver entitlement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,845 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I guess the cyclists cycling two abreast that you were moaning about assume that drivers behind them will pass right, negating any need to pull aside. Just like you really.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    I'm done with you. You're just being a smart ass. The calibre of comments in this thread are beyond childish. Cyclists and motorists are 2 different classes of road user each with their own set of rules apparently.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Ironically you are correct.

    Consider then why cyclists are irrelevant in a conversation about a 30kph limit. Can you join the dots why that is?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Cyclists and motorists are 2 different classes of road user each with their own set of rules apparently.

    hard to tell whether you're stating this as fact or being ironic?

    because it's bare fact. there are rules pertaining to cyclists which don't apply to motorists, and vice versa.

    there are significant sections in the road traffic acts which pertain only to cyclists. they are treated differently in law too. speed limits don't apply to cyclists. to make any suggestion that they're not different classes of road user (again, apologies if i'm reading you wrong) is absurd.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,845 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    There is no 'apparently'. Motorists and cyclists ARE two different classes of road users, each with their own set of rules. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists. Licensing and insurance requirements don't apply to cyclists. Cycling two abreast rules don't apply to motorists.

    And then there's pedestrians. So yes, perhaps you need to get your head around this basic concept before you get behind the wheel.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    You have fundamentally misunderstood my point, which I thought was quite clearly explained by magicbastarder.

    I have not been referencing any law about allowing cyclists to cycle 2 abreast. I was referencing the law regarding safe overtaking of a pedal cyclist. It is an "incorrect perception of unfairness" because the only thing cyclists 2 abreast is stopping you doing is dangerously and illegally overtaking them. You're annoyed because you can't squeeze past a single cyclist - either too close to them or crossing over the middle line of the road anyway (the amount of times I see this against oncoming traffic is staggering). Complaints about cycling 2 abreast aren't a difference of opinion, they are just wrong. It makes zero difference to a driver intending to obey the law.

    Of course, the reality is that most of them are not intending to obey the law. Much like there is a significant proportion of cyclists who don't intend to re red lights before we go down that road.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    You realize you're being repeatedly dragged into talking cyclists two a breast in 80kph zone.

    When the thread is about 30 kph zones. It's mostly got nothing to do with cyclists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    I realize that standard road lanes aren't designed for cars abreast. That is what dual carriageways are for. Less abreast but for overtaking. Cyclists aren't subjected to speed limits due to their inherently slower nature. So, unless you're an avid incredibly fit cyclist, it will be very unlikely to be travelling over 30. With this in mind, policing it would be a waste of time. It would also seriously undermine the fitness which comes with it.

    Let's go back to basics, do you think cyclists and pedestrians should be allowed to proceed into the path of moving traffic without looking?

    Going by your logic, you will probably think the pedestrian and cyclist in the following 2 videos are victims:

    (The driver's quick reactions prevented the man from being hit)

    Assuming the light is green for a motorist at a crossroads, do you still think the motorist is at fault if a cyclist dashes out in front of them from the perpendicular road?

    Going by your double standards, red lights should absolutely be option to pedestrians and cyclists?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    'cyclists are a different class of road users with differing sets of laws applying' is not the same as 'cyclists can run reds'. My 6 year old niece doesn't have trouble with that level of logic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Misrepresenting fraud scams on a thread about road safety, is about as low as you can get.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,384 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Besides what have red lights go to do with 30kph zones.



Advertisement