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

TheDoc · 18-02-2015 01:00PM

I live in a high density residential area that also has a very large school right beside me. There is an unfortunate trend in the area of young lads wheel spinning away from stationary positions and ripping up and down the road outside my house.

Personally I always take it handy when I'm in that area being aware of whats going on around me. I don't think this is anything to get worked up over. If your not an arsehole you'll reduce your speed to a safe limit and be vigilant of activity around you in a housing estate.

This won't be resourced or in anyway enforced. The Gardaí are severly underfunded and can barely meet the demand at present for things like crime and traffic offences, so they can't take on anything extra.

This morning saw a northern reg Audi blast past a traffic corp car at 120 on the M50 segment that is 100kmph. Garda car just moved into the exit for Blanch and didn't bother it's hole. Meh.

SeanW · 18-02-2015 01:15PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Apologies, I forgot the sarcasm :pac: Really did not think it was needed.

???

The same way my parents taxes subsidised the roads you drive on and the education you were open to.

No, I pay a silly amount of (use of the road) "motor" tax on what is by international standards a poverty spec car for relatively infrequent use, another grand or so again in other motoring taxes and regulatory costs, plus many thousands in income tax, social charges, VAT and the like to subsidise the kind of people in pumpkinseeds' post.

According to your arguments, I should also be forced to act as babysitter in addition to my already large regulatory and taxation burdens.

You being a cyclist, I also subsidise you, because you don't pay to put your Road Vehicle on the road whereas I do. But (shock of horrors) I also expect you to obey the few laws that actually apply to you and also to take responsibility for any stupid/irresponsible behaviour on the roads that you engage in, instead of looking to dump the consequences of same on others.

Dempsey · 18-02-2015 01:18PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

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.

What planet are you on?

How does any driver, regardless of speed or speed limit be 100% right in that situation?

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 01:25PM

Dempsey wrote: »

What planet are you on?

One where people understand sarcasm.

You?

SeanW · 18-02-2015 01:25PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Why don't you expand your analogy to include instances where Scotty beams children down directly in front of you - it would make as much sense.

Makes plenty of sense if a child runs out from a place the motorist cannot see into the road.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 01:32PM

SeanW wrote: »

Makes plenty of sense if a child runs out from a place the motorist cannot see into the road.

Like Scotty's transport beam?

SeanW · 18-02-2015 01:36PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Like Scotty's transport beam?

If someone runs onto the road from a blind spot, it might as well be.

doopa · 18-02-2015 02:00PM

SeanW wrote: »

If someone runs onto the road from a blind spot, it might as well be.

Accidents will always happen - which is why this mechanism tries to address the severity of the risk.

CramCycle · 18-02-2015 02:01PM

SeanW wrote: »

???

No, I pay a silly amount of (use of the road) "motor" tax on what is by international standards a poverty spec car for relatively infrequent use, another grand or so again in other motoring taxes and regulatory costs, plus many thousands in income tax, social charges, VAT and the like to subsidise the kind of people in pumpkinseeds' post.

Same here, I drive my car on average once, or twice a week, still pay full motor tax, I also pay all the things you do.

According to your arguments, I should also be forced to act as babysitter in addition to my already large regulatory and taxation burdens.

No, no one said that, just go slower in estates, line of sight is generally reduced, alot have fam ilies living in them. Even if it wasn't kids playing, you can have a kid break out from the house or jerk a parents hand and bolt, they are fast over short distances. Going a bit older where they should have more knowledge and common sense not to do those things, are you saying that they don't forget. FFS, drive or cycle in a city, every morning I see people walk out in front of moving traffic. I might glare, I might even let off a comment, but I stop in time, this is achieved by driving/cycling for the conditions at hand. Unfortunately, some people cannot understand this basic necessity of using a vehicle on the road, and therefore we have to legislate for those who are a danger as they don't understand that sh*t happens but if you are driving within specific safe confines, the chances of sh*t happening with dire consequences are reduced.

You being a cyclist, I also subsidise you, because you don't pay to put your Road Vehicle on the road whereas I do. But (shock of horrors) I also expect you to obey the few laws that actually apply to you and also to take responsibility for any stupid/irresponsible behaviour on the roads that you engage in, instead of looking to dump the consequences of same on others.

I do all of these things, nice that you had to look for another angle of attack (your a cyclist) rather than debate my post. Not only do I pay my motor tax, but I don't use it that much, so if anything, I benefit you if you drive everywhere by reducing traffic volume (not numbers, I am still traffic before that comes up), if the typical cyclist is anything to go by, they all subsidise you if your car is your only means of movement and you seem to be in a rush to get everywhere.

But listen, lets derail another thread over motor/road tax, subsidising others through tax instead of discussing the actual OP and subsequent points raised, because that always leads to an interesting debate *

*Italics are there to represent sarcasm in case it is not noted.

SeanW · 18-02-2015 02:04PM

doopa wrote: »

Accidents will always happen - which is why this mechanism tries to address the severity of the risk.

As your spiritual brother Iwannahurl never fails to repeat, "accidents" implies random events without a cause.

"Collisions" happen because of a cause, usually someone is at fault. End of. (and not always a motorist)

paulbok · 18-02-2015 02:41PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

If you can only see 0-1m in front of you - you shouldn't be driving at any speed.

Why don't you expand your analogy to include instances where Scotty beams children down directly in front of you - it would make as much sense.

No, that makes no sense and is just rubbish.

Again I'm not on about being able to 'see' at any distance, it's the zone right in front of your vehicle that someone can run into from behind a parked vehicle that gives you no chance to react.
If you are driving a high vehicle such as a SUV or jeep then you actually will not see a 2ft child immediately in front of your vehicle. It's not bad driving, it's just reality, you cannot see behind the parked vehicle and you cannot see through your bonnet.
It's not a sci-fi type scenario at all.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 03:02PM

paulbok wrote: »

If you are driving a high vehicle such as a SUV or jeep then you actually will not see a 2ft child immediately in front of your vehicle. .

How did the child get immediately in front of your vehicle without you seeing him?

Did he tunnel up from below?

Skylinehead · 18-02-2015 03:46PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

How did the child get immediately in front of your vehicle without you seeing him?

Did he tunnel up from below?

Dart out from behind a parked van? Hardly unbelievable.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 03:50PM

SeanW wrote: »

???

No, I pay a silly amount of (use of the road) "motor" tax on what is by international standards a poverty spec car for relatively infrequent use, another grand or so again in other motoring taxes and regulatory costs, plus many thousands in income tax, social charges, VAT and the like to subsidise the kind of people in pumpkinseeds' post.

According to your arguments, I should also be forced to act as babysitter in addition to my already large regulatory and taxation burdens.

You being a cyclist, I also subsidise you, because you don't pay to put your Road Vehicle on the road whereas I do. But (shock of horrors) I also expect you to obey the few laws that actually apply to you and also to take responsibility for any stupid/irresponsible behaviour on the roads that you engage in, instead of looking to dump the consequences of same on others.

I could never subscribe to that 'I pay therefore I'm more entitled' approach trotted out on this site. So I pay for hospitals for people with the high levels of preventable heart disease, diabetes and lung problems brought on by smoking, obesity and poor diet. Where can I get a tax rebate? Last time (and only time) I was in hospital was in hospital was 1978 while getting my tonsils out. Why am I like an eejit still paying for the health service in my 40's haven only used it once? Why is my tax euro being used to subsidize these sick people? Or should I have more entitlement because I pay more tax euros than my neighbour who earns less?

It's utter clap trap as an argument. Unless you're a mé féiner I suppose.

SeanW · 18-02-2015 03:57PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I could never subscribe to that 'I pay therefore I'm more entitled' approach trotted out on this site. So I pay for hospitals for people with the high levels of preventable heart disease, diabetes and lung problems brought on by smoking, obesity and poor diet.

Thank you for proving my point. You're not expected to babysit those people. Your obligation to them ends with the bottom line on your tax bill.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 04:05PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Dart out from behind a parked van? Hardly unbelievable.

How is he managing to get from the parked van to "immediately in front of your vehicle" - which is apparently travelling at 10kph - without anyone seeing him?

Has this child powers of invisibility as well as superhuman speed?

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 04:07PM

SeanW wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point. You're not expected to babysit those people. Your obligation to them ends with the bottom line on your tax bill.

You seem to be under the impression that being in the PAYE net entitles you to drive like a maniac.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 04:09PM

SeanW wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point. You're not expected to babysit those people. Your obligation to them ends with the bottom line on your tax bill.

I was actually batting back the fallacy of your own arguments. I have no issue taking responsibility for my own actions - I suppose I'm in the relative minority here. Other people find it easier to blame others. It's an Irish thing.

I suppose there have to be a few that believe them, seething behind their wheel, resenting everyone around them, from free loading cyclists to school aged children.

SeanW wrote: »

You being a cyclist, I also subsidise you, because you don't pay to put your Road Vehicle on the road whereas I do. But (shock of horrors) I also expect you to obey the few laws that actually apply to you and also to take responsibility for any stupid/irresponsible behaviour on the roads that you engage in, instead of looking to dump the consequences of same on others.

Its hard to believe people hold these view. A few do obviously, but hard to believe.

Now, who do I ring about my tax rebate on those hospitals I've being funding? must be a tidy sum over these past years.

paulbok · 18-02-2015 04:09PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

How is he managing to get from the parked van to "immediately in front of your vehicle" - which is apparently travelling at 10kph - without anyone seeing him?

Has this child powers of invisibility as well as superhuman speed?

no, just runs out. Not magic or anything.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 04:10PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that being in the PAYE net entitles you to drive like a maniac.

The King of Entitlement. I think it's enshrined in the constitution somewhere.

doopa · 18-02-2015 04:10PM

SeanW wrote: »

As your spiritual brother Iwannahurl never fails to repeat, "accidents" implies random events without a cause.

"Collisions" happen because of a cause, usually someone is at fault. End of. (and not always a motorist)

Can you stop with the strawmanning and please let me put forward my own arguments or in this case definition of an accident... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident)

"An accident or a mishap is an incidental and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention"

Since one assumes neither the child or the person driving the car wanted to crash into each other in this case it is not useful to address blame. i.e. regardless of the cause of the accidental collision the system should be optimised to reduce the impact/severity of such incidents. This is best (most rigorously) achieved through speed limits as has been shown anywhere that it has been introduced.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 04:12PM

paulbok wrote: »

no, just runs out.

At which point you can apply the brakes and safely stop.

SeanW · 18-02-2015 04:17PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that being in the PAYE net entitles you to drive like a maniac.

"Driving like a maniac" and "babysitting toddlers left to play in traffic" are extreme ends, you just happen to call for the latter.

I want motorists to be expected to be somewhere in between. Cautious yes, but not to the point of being a free babysitter.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I was actually batting back the fallacy of your own arguments. I have no issue taking responsibility for my own actions - I suppose I'm in the relative minority here. Other people find it easier to blame others. It's an Irish thing.

But isn't that what you're trying to promote? "Sure, I can let my 3 year old play in traffic, with 20kph speed limits and strict liability, it's the motorists job to look out for 'em."

Its hard to believe people hold these view. A few do obviously, but hard to believe.

Now, who do I ring about my tax rebate on those hospitals I've being funding? must be a tidy sum over these past years.

There isn't any. As I said, you have a liability to the people who smoke, drink are obese for their healthcare.

But your liabilities begin and end with your tax bill. That's the difference.

If you've had to babysit a fat, drunk, smoker without pay, I suggest getting onto your lawyer for compensation.

inforfun · 18-02-2015 04:17PM

Can you guys really not imagine a scenario where it is almost closer to the kid running into the car (from between 2 parked cars) than the car running into the kid?

I can. I did it myself as a kid. Car had no chance to stop in time at any speed.

FunLover18 · 18-02-2015 04:22PM

20km/h in first gear!? Are ye mad? My car strains once over 15. Tried it today cruising at 20 in second gear, basically same as driving the M50 in rush hour traffic.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 04:27PM

SeanW wrote: »

But isn't that what you're trying to promote? "Sure, I can let my 3 year old play in traffic, with 20kph speed limits and strict liability, it's the motorists job to look out for 'em."

Its hard to believe people hold these view. A few do obviously, but hard to believe.

Yes, I sort of got converted haven lived in Germany for a few years, so apologies if I'm a bit biased - I've seen how this can and does work safety in other jurisdictions. It's hard to implement in such a car dependent country like Ireland. But it does work. It needs the buy in of people that think more 'us' than 'me'.

A few people out there see the cars as less important than others. They want neighborhoods that are not overrun by traffic, where their children can play safely (even if that is on roads as they do in other EU countries). I'm talking about roads and residential areas designed for this - not dual carriageways - like your 'car hostile' Essex design that you so loath.

Much more pleasant and safe for all concerned. The car takes a back seat and the area is developed for the benefit of the community - cyclists, pedestrians, people with prams, children playing - not just one mode of transport.

SeanW wrote: »

There isn't any. As I said, you have a liability to the people who smoke, drink are obese for their healthcare.

I don't think you're getting my point. Keep building those straw men though - they look good.

Flem31 · 18-02-2015 04:34PM

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.

Fast walking\slow jog at 20km/h is no mean feat.
If you had entered last year's Dublin City Marathon you would have finished ahead of the winning Kenya who ran the whole 42km. He will learn the error of his ways

The_Valeyard · 18-02-2015 04:37PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Driving standards are waaaaaaaaaaay higher on the continent. It would mean instant carnage here. People can't even merge or even use the overtaking lane properly here ffs

Arse to that! We are just as good drivers as any European driver. This smells like inferiority complax that we Irish must be worse that our Euro cousins.

jack presley · 18-02-2015 04:38PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

But it does work. It needs the buy in of people that think more 'us' than 'me'.

I'm talking about roads and residential areas designed for this

This is where I see the problem. Irish roads and housing estates for the most part haven't been designed with the utopia you describe in mind.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 04:39PM

SeanW wrote: »

But isn't that what you're trying to promote? "Sure, I can let my 3 year old play in traffic, with 20kph speed limits and strict liability, it's the motorists job to look out for 'em."

Its hard to believe people hold these view. A few do obviously, but hard to believe.

Believe it.

It's most amusing to see self-entitled car users struggle to get their heads around a concept that the residential estate doesn't revolve around them and their car.

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

Comments