Dan Boyle - Green Party Suggestion - Reduce Speed Limits

Polar101 · 25-08-2008 2:31pm

Interesting - it is difficult to see much support for this idea, especially since he chose not to play the Road Safety card at all. I'd argue that there are quite a few roads in the country where you couldn't drive at the speed limit, even if you were a very skilled driver, and there was no other traffic on the road.

djpbarry · 25-08-2008 2:56pm

da7a wrote: »

There is no way of life coming to an end here. That is an idiotic statement to be honest, typical of a green car hater.

The use of private motor vehicles is in no way going to decline. The oil will dry up but alternative fuel technology will soon replace petrol and diesel. Biofuels and electric cars in the near future, but most importantly hydrogen fuel cell cars will eventually replace our lovely sounding dohc twin turbo petrol engines.

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

da7a · 25-08-2008 3:05pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

The stone age didnt end beacuse we ran out of stones.

New technology is coming down the road to relieve our dependency on oil.

SeanW · 25-08-2008 3:33pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's clear from reading this thread that there's a lot of anger and denial out there. A way of living that people thought would last forever, is coming to an end. Change is always difficult, and I think it could take a generation or so for outmoded attitudes to die out.

The party's over. Grow up. Move on.

That's the advice I was about to give you.
First of all, the private car isn't going anywhere, worldwide car use is growing and it will continue to do so by all realistic (i.e. adult) analyses.

I also notice from another thread that as well as hating car owners, you also have a quarrel with motorcyclists, which I find strange since they're much smaller, more fuel efficient than cars and can park in a much smaller space.

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

General Motors has already built a prototype car that runs on seawater.

Not only is the private car here to stay - worldwide - but in Ireland public transport is so sketchy, poor quality and expensive that in many cases it makes more sense financially, convenience and comfort wise to give it a wide berth.

I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of posts on the "Pay And Display parking on the way" thread on the forums of Rail Users Ireland.
http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=34956&postcount=50

And just in case anyone thought they can get the bus to the train station to avoid CIEs new "let's fleece our commuters a little more for parking" charge. Forget it, connecting buses to railway stop in most cases don't exist.

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=35864&postcount=88

Getting motorists to leave their cars at home is a 'carrot and stick' process. But what we've had in the past few years has been mostly stick. And Dan Boyle just wants to use yet more stick to penalise motorists yet further by yet another pointless round of speed limit lowering that will do less than nothing for road safety, but would no doubt make a nice little earner for the Guards speed traps. The Green's are nothing but a bunch of reactonaries grabbing the low hanging fruit.

And for the record, I gave the Green candidate in my constituency a 2nd preference vote in the last election despite grave reservations about doing so. I will not be making that mistake again.

serfboard · 25-08-2008 3:40pm

da7a wrote: »

I also have no problem with the government doing its best to achieve the kyoto targets but this measure is daft and unhelpful. The reduction in c02 emissions will be a drop in the ocean compared to what we actually need to achieve and it will inrage the majority of the travelling public who have no other choice but to drive due to our woefully inadequate public transport system.

The real way to achieve the targets is to tackle the massive c02 emissions from industry, in particular, power generation and construction. The government should be ploughing ahead with as many windfarms as possible both on and offshore and should provide fast track planning and massive tax incentives to achieve this. This however would cost some money so instead, morons like Dan Boyle come up with this free of charge way to be seen to be reducing emissions. It is unhelpful and simply the easy way out for the moronic greens.

Making Solar panels available to all households should be a priority for the government. They would provide almost all the hot water required and would massively reduce each homes draw on the national grid and thus reducing c02 emissions at the powerplants. They should be provided either free of charge or through a tax rebate scheme as the money it would cost would easily be offset by the savings made through reducing our dependence on imported energy.

At the end of the day the blame lies with the previous government for not planning ahead in time to achieve the targets but these half brained ideas the greens are coming up with are not the solution. All they will do is punish the ordinary person with no real benefit to environment or the country as a whole.

+1. As I've said before, solar panels and windmill(een)s on every house in Ireland and you would reduce demand.

As regards construction, remember that the CIF (current chairman Tom Parlon - enough said) fought tooth and nail to resist building energy regulation. And since their buddies in Fianna Fail have been in power for the past 20 years (roughly) this was delayed and delayed. Make every new house a passive house - or as close as possible.

I have to say I agree with all the other posters here who say that this is a cheap way of reducing emissions. However, because of the lobbying by Fianna Fails construction industry buddies leading to bad/overruled planning, too many people live too far from work, with inadequate public transport, thus driving

car dependency.

The increasing price of fuel has changed people's behaviour more than anything else - witness the fact that General Motors are closing 4 SUV/truck plants in the US in favour of making more small/fuel-efficient cars. The doubling in a year of the price of a gallon of petrol has also killed off the "Summer Driving Season" in the US this year, reducing demand and resulting in the recent fall in oil prices.

djpbarry · 25-08-2008 4:24pm

da7a wrote: »

Making Solar panels available to all households should be a priority for the government. They would provide almost all the hot water required and would massively reduce each homes draw on the national grid and thus reducing c02 emissions at the powerplants. They should be provided either free of charge or through a tax rebate scheme as the money it would cost would easily be offset by the savings made through reducing our dependence on imported energy.

Grants are available to homeowners wishing to install solar panels:
http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=758&docID=-1

da7a wrote: »

The stone age didnt end beacuse we ran out of stones.

Maybe not, but around about 1500, Europe was faced with a fuel and nutritional disaster because the continent had been almost completely deforested.

da7a wrote: »

New technology is coming down the road to relieve our dependency on oil.

Is it? What technology is this? When will it get here? Will it be as economical as oil? Will people be willing to make the switch from oil? How exactly will the roll-out of this technology be implemented?

It’s all very well saying that our way of life will be saved by new technology (I am well aware that alternatives exist), but that is essentially absolving people of responsibility for their own actions.

SeanW wrote: »

General Motors has already built a prototype car that runs on seawater.

And how much does this vehicle cost?

cyclopath2001 · 25-08-2008 6:35pm

SeanW wrote: »

I also notice from another thread that as well as hating car owners, you also have a quarrel with motorcyclists, which I find strange since they're much smaller, more fuel efficient than cars and can park in a much smaller space.

I think you must have been in an very angry frame of mind when you wrote this. If you had read the thread on motorcyclists properly and calmly, you'd know that my only quarrel was with with motorcyclists who break road safety laws. As for my 'hating' car owners, you are so wrong, I don't know where to begin to rebut this stupid remark.

And Dan Boyle just wants to use yet more stick to penalise motorists yet further by yet another pointless round of speed limit lowering that will do less than nothing for road safety, but would no doubt make a nice little earner for the Guards speed traps. The Green's are nothing but a bunch of reactonaries grabbing the low hanging fruit.

This would be the denial phase.

It's quite simple: lowering the higher speeds will improve fuel efficiency and lower speeds will result in a decrease the severity of trauma in accidents. They might also improve reaction times in unexpected circumstances.

Arguments such as I've seen in thread, that drivers would behave dangerously out of a sense of frustration are absurd and if even true, point to the need for phychological assessment of those drivers who frequently break the law.

_Kaiser_ · 25-08-2008 6:57pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think you must have been in an very angry frame of mind when you wrote this. If you had read the thread on motorcyclists properly and calmly, you'd know that my only quarrel was with with motorcyclists who break road safety laws. As for my 'hating' car owners, you are so wrong, I don't know where to begin to rebut this stupid remark.

This would be the denial phase.

It's quite simple: lowering the higher speeds will improve fuel efficiency and lower speeds will result in a decrease the severity of trauma in accidents. They might also improve reaction times in unexpected circumstances.

Arguments such as I've seen in thread, that drivers would behave dangerously out of a sense of frustration are absurd and if even true, point to the need for phychological assessment of those drivers who frequently break the law.

Leaving aside the amateur psychology... :rolleyes: I think it's been well established on this forum and over on Motors that you do indeed seem to have a problem with car owners, motorcyclists, or in fact anyone who disagrees with you.

But anyway, just like Mary White's idea of a two-tier licensing system to favour "isolated rural dwellers", or "free shuttle buses for those country people who just want a drink", this'll be forgotten about in the next few days and the rest of us will remind ourselves why the Greens shouldn't be let near the controls.

Calina · 25-08-2008 7:17pm

Arguments implying increased frustration are misplaced. However, regardless, this idea is starting to strongly give me the impression that the environmental movement, such as it exists in Ireland today, enjoys tunnel vision that fails to recognise how it stamples on individual rights. There are many more effective targets in terms of emissions. When the GP faces up to them I might have some respect for their policies. Until then, I will classify them with An Taisce as a bunch of principled but frequently misguided interfering goodbodies with an inability to deal with reality.

We need a balance between emissions, lifestyle, human and individual rights. The GP does not provide it. We need viable public transport. The GP shies away from providing it. They seem to aspire to it but it's much easier to avoid doing it.

I'd also add that it's denial to fail to recognise that necessity is the mother of invention. Whether you like it or not an alternative energy source will be developed. It's just a question of when.

There is no point in crying about how people don't have alternative fuelled cars because they are too expensive now proving how it's not going to work. There was a time a computer cost the same price as a small house.

You can buy a laptop in Harvey Normans for under 300 euro now.

BluntGuy · 25-08-2008 9:19pm

The main issue here is that it's unreasonable to even consider the lowering speed limits now, as we have such inaqeduate public transport. Perhaps in ten years time when public transport has improved the issue should be considered. For now, the speed limits are fine.

25-08-2008 9:51pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7562819.stm

^^^ check out the Irish entry ^^^^

It will, there is enough people on this thread who demand to have a car, the motivation is there for innovation and this isnt some selfish motive. A private car is FREEDOM!!

where is Braveheart!!

You`ll Never take our Freedoooooooooooooooooooooooooom!!!

25-08-2008 10:03pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think you must have been in an very angry frame of mind when you wrote this.

Arguments such as I've seen in thread, that drivers would behave dangerously out of a sense of frustration are absurd

Its a threat to freedom, may sounds over the top but its true. Any increase in car tax or car exclusion zone or speed limit decrease affects

Calina wrote: »

individual rights.

people need their cars. Individual houses and estates are dotted around the nation. Whether you like it or not people will always need transport to town centers. A public transport system that could replace the car ? Not going to happen.

And houses are built to last a long time so forget about this changing anytime soon.

This IS about freedom, we could all live in tower blocks with shared heating around city centers to concentrate spending in the one area with minimum impact on the environment....

I dont want some green fantasy enforced on me. Not when we can use innovation to make current living and standards sustainable.

HonalD · 25-08-2008 10:05pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

The main issue here is that it's unreasonable to even consider the lowering speed limits now, as we have such inaqeduate public transport. Perhaps in ten years time when public transport has improved the issue should be considered. For now, the speed limits are fine.

Stunned! What is the problem here? "Reducing speed limits will increase accidents?!?" What planet of information is this from? Why is reducing the speed limit an "anti-motorist" policy? Ok so adequate enforcement is a problem but - What is the alternative?

HonalD · 25-08-2008 10:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a threat to freedom, may sounds over the top but its true. Any increase in car tax or car exclusion zone or speed limit decrease affects

people need their cars. Individual houses and estates are dotted around the nation. Whether you like it or not people will always need transport to town centers. A public transport system that could replace the car ? Not going to happen.

And houses are built to last a long time so forget about this changing anytime soon.

This IS about freedom, we could all live in tower blocks with shared heating around city centers to concentrate spending in the one area with minimum impact on the environment....

I dont want some green fantasy enforced on me. Not when we can use innovation to make current living and standards sustainable.

No, I'm still not with you - freedom has what exactly to do with driving below the posted speed limit? If there is a problem reducing speed limits are you saying that they should be increased or should we have the "freedom" to drive as fast as we like.....................................

Tipsy Mac · 25-08-2008 10:17pm

Why don't we all just return to the caves from where we all began, I've had enough of this green mentality sweeping the country with people actually believing that lifestyles in Ireland could control the weather of the world :rolleyes:

I think the Greens are in danger of going the way of the PD's in that they are shooting themselves in the foot and limiting their appeal to the general population.

25-08-2008 10:19pm

HonalD wrote: »

What is the alternative?

LOADS of alternatives. Do you want me to list them out?
Where is their imagination? is a reduction of speed limits the best they can do?
Their lack of innovation and real leadership disgusts me

BluntGuy · 25-08-2008 10:21pm

HonalD wrote: »

Stunned! What is the problem here? "Reducing speed limits will increase accidents?!?" What planet of information is this from? Why is reducing the speed limit an "anti-motorist" policy? Ok so adequate enforcement is a problem but - What is the alternative?

The point I'm making, is that reducing speed limits slows down journeys, therefore you take longer to get to your place of work. That's obvious. But's it's not the main problem.

The problem is that without adequate public transport, people are not going to be willing to SLOW DOWN on their already long journeys. There is currently no viable alternative to driving for many, so asking them to slow down is nothing more than an insult. Besides, motorways are designed for 120 kmp/h and more, therefore they should be utilised as such. Not doing so is a wasted investment.

BluntGuy · 25-08-2008 10:26pm

Their lack of innovation and real leadership disgusts me

Same here.

But that is typical when it comes to this government. Innovation and creative new thinking rarely seem to be on the agenda. Everything is always the quickest, cheapest, most short-term option available.

Cutting speed limits is a lame, lazy copout alternative to REAL ideas. Biofuels, electric cars, hydrogen-fuel. All of these are viable alternatives that should be researched and properly considered. Instead, however, we're stuck with a group of politicians that don't seem to have any real desire to adopt proper long-term changes when it comes to issues like this.

25-08-2008 10:35pm

Someone needs to do a President Kennedy on it
In ten years we will land on the moon

with
In ten years we will be energy independent

Get the lead out these things CAN be done. Where is the "can do" attitude? They(all politicians) promised us everything at election time

Koyasan · 25-08-2008 10:42pm

Was listening to this story on Newstalk while driving home. I think Deirdre DeBurca was on second, and it could have been Dan Boyle himself on before.

The controversy struck me as odd considering that we were traveling at, at most, 15km/h.

But I also noted a lot of disingenuousness from irate motorists texting in.

This is what the Green Party does, what they are famous for, and why so many people respect them: They throw out crazy ideas in the hope of sparking debate, often amongst themselves. We all know this o we should stop acting surprise. Just look at the other idea they had to replace the Year part of a car's reg with it's CO2 rating to give people a different reson to keep up with the Joneses. They are the only party in Ireland I know of that respects the right of their members to disagree with each other and official party policy in public.

This is just the latest example of a a foreign idea that has been accepted elsewhere, that is repulsive to many people here, and that may become quite neccessary in the not to distant future for the same reasons it became neccessary before in the UK, USA and Spain: fuel shortages.

In couple of years time when we might start to feel another fuel shortage, this will be about as controversial as not using a plastic bag.

I'm glad they started the debate now, and not then.

BluntGuy · 25-08-2008 10:45pm

There is no 'can-do' attitude with politicians. They just sit back and complain along with the rest of us when they should be triumphantly leading us into better times. We need politicians with a bit of vision and insight.

Carawaystick · 25-08-2008 10:45pm

maybe we could lower the speed limits of all public transport too- surely a train travelling at 160kmh is more polluting and emmits more carbon dioxide than one going slower, ad what about only allowing planes fly at the same speed, 100kmh on the main interurban routes Dub -Ork and at 80kmh to the sticks of Donegal and Farranfore

you know it makes as much sense a nd will prevent flooding just as much as slowing cars.

25-08-2008 10:52pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

maybe we could lower the speed limits of all public transport too- surely a train travelling at 160kmh

Irish trains dont do 100mph much, seriously

BluntGuy · 25-08-2008 10:55pm

Well, my point remains the same. Until there is adequate public transport, they should NOT even CONSIDER lowering speed limits and forcing us to go slower.

As for the fact that Spain did it, what on Earth does it matter here? That was their choice. We don't have to blindly follow them. Yes, I agree that we have to look at other countries to see what they're doing and how they're dealing with these issues. But we also need to have some of our own ideas.

If the government had a cohesive, innovative plan for dealing with these issues, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

gman2k · 25-08-2008 11:26pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Grants are available to homeowners wishing to install solar panels:
http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=758&docID=-1

Actually, grants for solar panels have been stopped. Happened the same day that all the big cutbacks were announced a few months back...
They are becoming mandatory under new building regs, so attitude from SEI was literally - why should we provide grants for a mandatory item....

Getting back to topic...
The proposal is to cut back 120km roads to 100km, and 100km roads to 80km?????
Well, which is the most economic speed Dan? is it 100 or 80? It can't be both. If 100 is the most economical then we should not lower the 100k roads to 80.... etc etc etc
Lets not beat around the (green) bush here. The Greens don't want cars. FULL STOP. Let's just ban cars on Tuesdays and Thursdays - sounds easy?
Let's all go buy feckin horses and bikes for going to work on (It's not like public transport is ever going to happen). Oh wait, horses pollute too... just like the verbal diarrhea from Dan the Man.

Let's look at it from another angle...
What happens when they reduce the speed limits, and you get done for speeding on a motorway at 105km/p/hr. Can they justifiably give you penalty points now? It's not like it's dangerous or anything? On what justifiable grounds could you be prosecuted - penalty points for climate change?

Another Green Party spazzer was on the radio this evening going on with the same sh1t3, and she made out that if we all changed our ways, climate change would be reversed...

And then Duncan the TV architect came on, giving out about the Guinness TV ad with the all the lights on in the high rise.....
Duncan: IT'S AN ADVERT F.F.S. NO POLAR BEARS DIED DURING THE MAKING OF IT.

Oh, and PS, I've already altered the way I drive so as to be more economical. I get nearly 60mpg in my car now. And I'm building a passive house (with no grant for solar). And I recycle, and I compost, and tun off my pc at night.
Good night and good luck!

BluntGuy · 25-08-2008 11:34pm

To be honest, I don't know what I think about the Greens now. All I know is that it's sure saving Fianna Fail a lot of slack. Now all blame for the Government's crappy environmental policies can be funnelled through the Greens. The Greens don't help themselves with their lack of apparent care on almost all the major environmental issues. Are they really trying to protect the environment? If so, then it's time to prove it and stop trying to force crappy, ill-thought ideas down our throats.

bk · 25-08-2008 11:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

with in ten years we will be energy independent

Unfortunately it will take more then 10 years to build the Nuclear power plant

I care about the environment, I don't own a car and cycle to work (out of choice, not a lack of money for a car ) and I despise the Green Party.

Most of their policies are completely impractical and ridiculous, it is the sort of idealist bs you use to hear all the time back in college, that grown ups in the real world know will never work.

Difficult decisions need to be made if we really want to reduce our impact on the environment. This sort of small ineffectual pr grabbing headlines is what I have come to expect from the green party when what we really need is strong and decisive leadership.

BluntGuy · 26-08-2008 12:22am

what we really need is strong and decisive leadership

Isn't going to be happening anytime soon.

The government is too afraid to address the problem seriously, and until it does we're going to continue to have same low-grade, badly thought-out drivel being shoved in our face and passed off as 'solutions' to the climate change crisis.

If even a raindrop of innovation fell into the swimming pool of grey matter that is the government's collective thinking on this issue we might get somewhere.

26-08-2008 12:43am

I'll repeat a comment I made on the "M6 to Athlone" thread in infrastructure.

"Since the new road opened I have noticed a significant reduction in my fuel consumption, despite the fact that I now go at 120 the whole way and save 15 minutes on the journey".

msg11 · 26-08-2008 1:29am

Lennoxschips wrote: »

It's been proven again and again that driving slower can reduce emissions by 1/3. Boyle is correct. It wouldn't be a popular measure amongst drivers, because drivers don't give a **** about emissions.

Respect to Dan Boyle for saying something which he knew wouldn't be popular. He's done his research and come to a conclusion which people mightn't like the sound of. So don't slag him for it.

I won't slag him.. Your right I don't care, I did before this display, now I really could not care, this comes in. I'll happily drive around in second gear just to piss him off. :mad:

Dan Boyle - Green Party Suggestion - Reduce Speed Limits

Comments