Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 01:32AM

pablo128 wrote: »

Yeah. Driving on a roadway designed for vehicular traffic. Often with crossing points for pedestrians.

You can stop banging on about 1 tonne lumps of metal too. The average diesel car is roughly 1.5 tonnes now. A Yaris weighs more than a tonne.

Ok thanks for pointing out that they're potentially more lethal than I may have originally portrayed.

Kids are kids and no matter how much you teach them they will do what kids do. To think they are responsible for accidents that injure them I don't agree with.

As I said other countries have models where kids and cars intermingle successfully (as well as other pedestrians and cyclists). We're just slow to catch up here and put the car on a pedestal that every other class of road user is subservient to

deandean · 18-02-2015 01:33AM

yea max speed 20. and all cars shall have a man walking in front with a red flag.
sorry but there is Personal Responsibility.
Don't walk out in front of a car. It's simple really.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 01:35AM

deandean wrote: »

yea max speed 20. and all cars shall have a man walking in front with a red flag.
sorry but there is Personal Responsibility.
Don't walk out in front of a car. It's simple really.

Actually it's not

pablo128 · 18-02-2015 01:42AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ok thanks for pointing out that they're potentially more lethal than I may have originally portrayed.

Kids are kids and no matter how much you teach them they will do what kids do. To think they are responsible for accidents that injure them I don't agree with.

As I said other countries have models where kids and cars intermingle successfully (as well as other pedestrians and cyclists). We're just slow to catch up here and put the car on a pedestal that every other class of tiad user is subservient to

I'll be straight here. I grew up in areas well known for joyriding, Ballyfermot, and then to Clondalkin when I was 8. It was the golden era if you like for that activity. Porsches, Cosworths, RX7s, all the best of cars of the time were a regular sight being hammered around the estates and main roads. Not a single person I grew up with was knocked down as far as I am aware. I now live in Tallaght in a rough enough estate, and while the robbed cars are generally ageing Micra's, they still pelt around the estate every so often. My 6 yr old daughter has had it drummed into her not to go near the road, let alone cross it without one of us there. And she doesn't. The rest of the kids run all over the place, on mini motos, quads, bicycles etc. None have been hit in the 6 years we are here.
Amazing, isn't it?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 01:43AM

It's not personal responsibility?
What are you saying?
You're not responsible for your child's welfare?
You're not responsible for keeping your child out of danger?
It's other people's responsibility to babysit your child?

YOU have a duty of care to your child. With rights, comes responsibility. You, as their parent, are solely responsible for your child. Nobody else.
As a motorist, there is a duty of care towards all other road users, not just kids, to drive in a safe manner. That's all. To drive safely. Not to second guess the movements of an unsupervised 5 year old that just ran out between two cars.

It's not unreasonable to expect a parent to provide adequate supervision to stop this happening.
It is unreasonable to blame a motorist for the actions of a child.

The fault lies with the parents

Zab · 18-02-2015 01:59AM

I've no issue with debating whether 20 is good limit or not but ...

LordSutch wrote: »

Doing 20 km/h is the same as a fast walk or a slow jog.

No, it isn't, you clearly have no idea how fast you can walk.

LordSutch wrote: »

Well if this bill goes through, you will be using 1st gear every time you enter an estate @ 12 mph.

So stay in first gear. If your engine is "revving too high" then go into second. Your wish to move to second gear isn't a concern.

That said I'd have to see more data to be convinced that such a low speed limit would be a good thing (I haven't really researched this one)

doopa · 18-02-2015 02:15AM

Zab wrote: »

That said I'd have to see more data to be convinced that such a low speed limit would be a good thing (I haven't really researched this one)

Some stats... However, this looks at the effect of the average actual speed of traffic in the vicinity of an accident rather than the actual speed limit.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214000235

Anyway - all the evidence points at lower speeds = lower fatalities. Which is something we should probably try and optimise for.

Crooked Jack · 18-02-2015 08:43AM

LordSutch wrote: »

As the title says, ever tried it?

I had a go in our estate tonight and I couldn't get out of 1st gear.

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

All the time. In the tractor. Its exhilerating

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 08:56AM

pablo128 wrote: »

I'll be straight here. I grew up in areas well known for joyriding, Ballyfermot, and then to Clondalkin when I was 8. It was the golden era if you like for that activity. Porsches, Cosworths, RX7s, all the best of cars of the time were a regular sight being hammered around the estates and main roads. Not a single person I grew up with was knocked down as far as I am aware. I now live in Tallaght in a rough enough estate, and while the robbed cars are generally ageing Micra's, they still pelt around the estate every so often. My 6 yr old daughter has had it drummed into her not to go near the road, let alone cross it without one of us there. And she doesn't. The rest of the kids run all over the place, on mini motos, quads, bicycles etc. None have been hit in the 6 years we are here.
Amazing, isn't it?

Guess we can scrap all the studies and statistics and just formulate policy around your personal experience so.

guapos · 18-02-2015 09:11AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Doing 20 km/h is the same as a fast walk or a slow jog. Its not realistic, its not practical, and its on the cusp of 2nd gear in many cars, which has your engine revving too high.

30 km/h would make perfect sense IMO.

Go down to your local gym and set the treadmill to 20 km/h and see how long you last walking or slow running, you'll be on your ass in seconds

inforfun · 18-02-2015 09:41AM

I ll just use the horn continuously in estates.
Cant make it any safer than that.

I leave at 7 am.

Another rule to accommodate the irresponsibles in society.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 10:32AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not personal responsibility?
What are you saying?
You're not responsible for your child's welfare?
You're not responsible for keeping your child out of danger?
It's other people's responsibility to babysit your child?

YOU have a duty of care to your child. With rights, comes responsibility. You, as their parent, are solely responsible for your child. Nobody else.
As a motorist, there is a duty of care towards all other road users, not just kids, to drive in a safe manner. That's all. To drive safely. Not to second guess the movements of an unsupervised 5 year old that just ran out between two cars.

It's not unreasonable to expect a parent to provide adequate supervision to stop this happening.
It is unreasonable to blame a motorist for the actions of a child.

The fault lies with the parents

I'm sorry I don't agree and this goes along the victim blaming and deflection of responsibility from motorists. It is the motorist who is responsible for his / her actions. This is borne out by the concept of strict liability that operates in almost every other EU jurisdiction when it comes the the injury of vulnerable road users.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 10:35AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't agree and this goes along the victim blaming and deflection of responsibility from motorists. It is the motorist who is responsible for his / her actions. This is borne out by the concept of strict liability that operates in almost every other EU jurisdiction when it comes the the injury of vulnerable road users.

Haha it's "victim blaming" to expect a parent to mind their sprogs. What a complete idiotic statement. Are you the type of parent that would call a solicitor before an ambulance?

I can't believe you actually think chilfren should be allowed play on the road and their parents free from all responsibility? This is what's wrong with this country.

Caliden · 18-02-2015 10:40AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Haha it's "victim blaming" to expect a parent to mind their sprogs. What a complete idiotic statement. Are you the type of parent that would call a solicitor before an ambulance?

I can't believe you actually think chilfren should be allowed play on the road and their parents free from all responsibility? This is what's wrong with this country.

The same type of people who encourage 'nanny estate' policies, i.e. porn filters, minimum pricing on alcohol. Anything to remove personal responsibility.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 10:43AM

Easy to spot the people without kids on this thread.

Methinks they'd be changing their tune quite sharpish after they pop out a couple of ankle-biters.

The only people who wouldn't be in favour of a speed reduction in residential estates are self-entitled [EMAIL="w@nkers"]w@nkers[/EMAIL] who believe their needs trump those of the most vulnerable in our society.

That's what's wrong with this Country.

MarkR · 18-02-2015 10:44AM

Truffle Pig wrote: »

If a child is not on the road they have almost 100% chance of not being hit by a vehicle.

Almost, but not quite.

Hoop66 · 18-02-2015 10:46AM

force eleven wrote: »

I walk faster.

LordSutch wrote: »

Doing 20 km/h is the same as a fast walk or a slow jog. Its not realistic, its not practical, and its on the cusp of 2nd gear in many cars, which has your engine revving too high.

30 km/h would make perfect sense IMO.

20pm/h = 12mph. If you can "fast walk" at that speed congratulations, you should be a shoo-in for the Irish team at the next Olympics.

It's not that difficult to do 20 km/h: second gear and run on tickover. Of course you'll constantly be looking at the speedo, just like you do when the limit is 50 or 60...:rolleyes:

If you're in a housing estate where there may be kids running around, doesn't matter whether they should be running around or not, it's not that difficult to have a bit of responsibility and slow down.

CramCycle · 18-02-2015 10:49AM

pablo128 wrote: »

I'll be straight here. I grew up in areas well known for joyriding, Ballyfermot, and then to Clondalkin when I was 8. It was the golden era if you like for that activity. Porsches, Cosworths, RX7s, all the best of cars of the time were a regular sight being hammered around the estates and main roads. Not a single person I grew up with was knocked down as far as I am aware. I now live in Tallaght in a rough enough estate, and while the robbed cars are generally ageing Micra's, they still pelt around the estate every so often. My 6 yr old daughter has had it drummed into her not to go near the road, let alone cross it without one of us there. And she doesn't. The rest of the kids run all over the place, on mini motos, quads, bicycles etc. None have been hit in the 6 years we are here.
Amazing, isn't it?

So what you are saying is that because some motorists behave like lunatics and act illegally, we should stop our children from going outside to socialise with other kids on what should be quiet streets with little traffic.

You are of course right, we should alter our behaviour to accomodate those who force their idiot actions upon us rather than growing up and saying no, its not acceptable.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 10:52AM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Easy to spot the people without kids on this thread.

Methinks they'd be changing their tune quite sharpish after they pop out a couple of ankle-biters.

The only people who wouldn't be in favour of a speed reduction in residential estates are self-entitled [EMAIL="w@nkers"]w@nkers[/EMAIL] who believe their needs trump those of the most vulnerable in our society.

That's what's wrong with this Country.

Bull****. I'm completely in favour of lowering the speed limit however I don't think any sane reasonable person should need speed limits. Its not a shock to most people to realise you can't bomb through a residential area. However, what I do take issue with is people trying to make it so as a complete stranger is made 100% responsible for a child they may not even see darting out underneath it, while assuming expecting the parents to supervise said child is "victim blaming".

JohnnyChimpo · 18-02-2015 10:53AM

force eleven wrote: »

I walk faster.

You walk faster than the world record marathon running pace? Fair play man

SeanW · 18-02-2015 10:53AM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Easy to spot the people without kids on this thread.

Methinks they'd be changing their tune quite sharpish after they pop out a couple of ankle-biters.

The only people who wouldn't be in favour of a speed reduction in residential estates are self-entitled w@nkers who believe their needs trump those of the most vulnerable in our society.

That's what's wrong with this Country.

30kph is a "reduction" no one is opposing that. 20kph is a pisstake, and "strict liability" is a moral hazard.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 10:56AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Haha it's "victim blaming" to expect a parent to mind their sprogs. What a complete idiotic statement. Are you the type of parent that would call a solicitor before an ambulance?

I can't believe you actually think children should be allowed play on the road and their parents free from all responsibility? This is what's wrong with this country.

No, what's wrong with this country is that we're one of the 4 EU jurisdictions that doesn't operate the principle of "strict liability" (look this up before you launch personal attacks) when it comes to road accidents and who is culpable - here, the victim has to prove the loss, which is the direct opposite to other EU jurisdictions. This is what generates a lot of the irresponsible driving you see out there daily. Hence the genesis of the term 'victim blaming'.

As an example of a near EU neighbour, the Dutch in particular (and other EU countries) have actively protected the child as the most vulnerable of road users and the law as well as street design is biased accordingly. Also well recognized in Denmark - children are actively encouraged to play in the streets

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/playing-in-street-smacking-culture-of.html

Here, people traditionally freak out with the concept of personal responsibility as a driver - it is easier (in their myopic minds) to blame the children for what befalls them - other countries have recognized this and children actively play in vehicular areas, look up the "Woonerfs" in Holland for a bit more insight into this. We could learn a lot from it.

The majority of EU countries have recognized that cars in residential areas have the potential to cause carnage - they've amended their driving laws (some as low as 15km/hr) as well as their residential street scape design to accommodate this. As far as I know, the sky hasn't falllen in when I last visited these places - it makes for a more pleasant atmosphere.

In Ireland, we are heavily car dependent and the private car is put up as the magic carpet on a pedestal that is used to ferry people distances that can be usually walked or cycled. In the use of the private car, we are definitely closer to Boston Than Berlin - a vicious circle - twice the number of cars on the roads since the mid-1990's, but with the space unable to accommodate them. Lack if investment in quality public transport probably goes a long way to this problem but, in my experience anyway, where this is provided it is not always availed of to its full potential.

And what is the rush? what is possibly so urgent that people have to hare around in housing estates where children are playing?

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 10:56AM

I'm sure if one of these 'parental responsibility' types mow down a 3 year old child while driving at 50kph in their estate tomorrow, they'll be quite comfortable berating the distraught parents and will sleep soundly that night knowing they were 100% in the right.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 11:11AM

SeanW wrote: »

30kph is a "reduction" no one is opposing that.

Lot of the residents in my locality against it (propsoed by the local authorithy). Mind you, strangely enough, Id say a lot of these don't have kids.

SeanW wrote: »

20kph is a pisstake,

Yeah not really considering the amount of EU countries that have already implemented this

SeanW wrote: »

and "strict liability" is a moral hazard.

Not really, if you reverse the burden of proof and responsibility in an accident, you'll find people act more responsibly. It's my own experience walking and cycling in a lot of EU countries anyway - there's more of an air of 'oh look, a walker or cyclist - I better slow down and pass them safely" rather than the attitude you find here "oh look, a walker or cyclist - I must do everything in my power to pass them, even if it endangers them, myself and the traffic coming against me. They probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place anyway - it's for cars".

Neamhshuntasach · 18-02-2015 11:14AM

I drive a 5.0 liter car in excess of 500 BHP and done 20 kph in 2nd gear no problem last night. Granted it's crawling along and i think 30 is fine if used with caution. Even now i always slow down when passing vehicles or areas that kids could dart out from. Not every part of a residential estate is gonna be a danger zone for hitting kids. There are plenty of walled or fenced areas where you have a clear view in front with no obstructions.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 11:15AM

That's a bit sick no? Saying a person doesn't care if they kill a child?? That's a horrific thing to say. Could the parent have prevented such an accident?

Our EU neighbours also know how to be parents and teach their kids right from wrong. We are in ireland and it is not safe to let your child play in the street. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Prevention is better than crying and laying blame after an accident. Everyone work together to reduce accidents. Fact is, it's not always the drivers fault.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 11:15AM

That's a bit sick no? Saying a person doesn't care if they kill a child?? That's a horrific thing to say. Could the parent have prevented such an accident?

Our EU neighbours also know how to be parents and teach their kids right from wrong. We are in ireland and it is not safe to let your child play in the street. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Prevention is better than crying and laying blame after an accident. Everyone work together to reduce accidents. Fact is, it's not always the drivers fault.

SeanW · 18-02-2015 11:20AM

CramCycle wrote: »

You are of course right, we should alter our behaviour to accomodate those who force their idiot actions upon us rather than growing up and saying no, its not acceptable.

Of course, if you read pumpkinseeds post, you'd see that it's your side that's guilty of the above.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah not really considering the amount of EU countries that have already implemented this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Easy to spot the people without kids on this thread.

Methinks they'd be changing their tune quite sharpish after they pop out a couple of ankle-biters.

I already subsidise your offspring with my taxes. I don't think its unreasonable not to want to babysit them as well.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 11:21AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

. We are in ireland and it is not safe to let your child play in the street.

Yes, and some of us would quite like to change that.

Not easy with the 'What was the kid doing running into the road' brigade and their sense of entitlement around driving..

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 11:23AM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Yes, and some of us would quite like to change that.

Not easy with the 'What was the kid doing running into the road' brigade and their sense of entitlement around driving..

Do you know what the definition of "street" actually is? What is a street, dog of tears?

Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

Comments