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

doopa · 18-02-2015 04:41PM

inforfun wrote: »

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.

Exactly - since the accidents are impossible to prevent then surely we should try to mitigate against the impact?

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 04:43PM

jack presley wrote: »

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.

You sure about that? My own estate was designed on the principles of the Essex design guide (It was built in 1999) which is considered a good example of sustainable planning with the needs of those living there at its core.

Many other estates are good examples of where the estate has been built for the benefit of those living there as a whole, rather than the car as a sole means of transport. I agree that some huge mistakes were made here - we are hopelessly wedded to the car and it's top be seen in many poor examples here. But these could be rectified by altering the streetscape to encourage slower driving and integrating people with the wider streetscape.

It's not as common here as other EU countries where this has become the norm years ago.

Tedddy · 18-02-2015 04:46PM

This is the most stupidest law trying to be introduce. Yes, people should feel sorry for the family but emotions are getting in the way of logic. You will spend more time looking at your speedometer than looking at the road. Sinn Féin have shown there populism by jumping on this campaign as well.

jack presley · 18-02-2015 04:46PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You sure about that? My own estate was designed on the principles of the Essex design guide (It was built in 1999) which is considered a good example of sustainable planning with the needs of those living there at its core.

Many other estates are good examples of where the estate has been built for the benefit of those living there as a whole, rather than the car as a sole means of transport. I agree that some huge mistakes were made here - we are hopelessly wedded to the car and it's top be seen in many poor examples here. But these could be rectified by altering the streetscape to encourage slower driving and integrating people with the wider streetscape.

It's not as common here as other EU countries where this has become the norm years ago.

Maybe newer housing estates but where I grew up the road was the equivalent of 3 lanes wide and that was probably the norm for estates back rhen

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 04:49PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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.

I don't think Europeans coming here will agree with that. I have driven a good bit on the continent (France, Italy, Spain and Germany) and find the experience on motorways much more reassuring than here.

People can merge properly, use the appropriate lanes properly and ensure (generally) that their cars are lit appropriately in poor lighting / weather conditions. How many times have you been undertaken or tail gated by a lunatic on the M6 on a rainy day doing 140km/hr with no lights on?

Mind you, the chances of being pulled here are virtually nill, whereas on the continent you will not get far on one light, using fog lights incorrectly or driving erratically. Enforcement is way higher - I would say that explains our lack of statistics to back up real observations here.

Glinda · 18-02-2015 04:54PM

I seem to recall that the woman on the Right Hook (referenced earlier) also said that half of the children killed by motor vehicles in housing estates were killed by a vehicle in, or moving into or out of a driveway (and that it was most often, tragically, their own driveway).

I think this call for such a low speed limit is a very typical Irish approach (seek a system wide solution rather than one that holds any individual responsible) and won't fix anything. I can understand a desperate bereaved parent seeking to fix responsibility on anyone and anything other than herself for the tragedy that happened, that is only natural, but I don't think this is the answer.

Dangerous driving is dangerous regardless of whether you are under the speed limit or not. There are some places in the estate where I live where it would be criminally irresponsible to drive anywhere near 20kph.

But we need a solution that works (and I think that has to be much more than a blanket speed limit change). It would need to include tackling safety aspects of different types of vehicles (SUVs for example have an appalling safety record around children in driveways) and how they are parked, as well whether permission should be granted for housing estates that have no proper provision for safe parking of realistic numbers of cars for the numbers of people who are likely to live there, and including responsible supervision of very tiny children around motor vehicles (the Right Hook lady described a horrible scenario where a toddler sees the parent's car approaching and runs out to meet it, but is too small to be seen over the bonnet).

inforfun · 18-02-2015 04:54PM

doopa wrote: »

Exactly - since the accidents are impossible to prevent then surely we should try to mitigate against the impact?

True.

But i made that remark because people are advocating the liability should always be with the motorist.
So it is the motorist fault, even if it isnt.

And that is just BS.

doopa · 18-02-2015 05:03PM

inforfun wrote: »

True.

But i made that remark because people are advocating the liability should always be with the motorist.
So it is the motorist fault, even if it isnt.

And that is just BS.

I haven't made any claims about liability. This is conflagrating the issue (IMO).

The issue that this campaign aims to address is reducing the severity/impact of an accident in a housing estate context. It isn't about apportioning blame or liability. It is saying that given that we can't eliminate the risk of children (mostly!) running out in front of cars then we should try to lower the risk of any collision causing serious damage and that the best way to achieve this is by asking the person driving the car to reduce their speed. To reiterate it isn't about fault/blame.

ABC101 · 18-02-2015 05:09PM

It has not helped that Councils have allowed developers to build housing estates where houses no longer have a front garden.

The footpath is about 5 feet away from the front door, and then there is the road with parked cars on it.

If this state is really serious about toddlers / children and motor traffic in housing estates... then new houses should be built with...

1) A front garden at least 20 foot of grass.
2) A small wall to seperate the front garden from the footpath 3 1/2 foot high etc
3) A gated driveway, so that gates can be closed / locked to keep the young ones inside the property, under the eye of a parent etc.

Try talking to your County Council / Borough Council and their eyes just glaze over. They are not interested.

A small park near me... in a residential area... had a dwarf wall around it. On top of the dwarf wall was cast iron railings about 6 foot high. Children play there. There was no chance of running out onto the road after a ball, because of the raillings.

Guess what the council did?????

They removed the railings!

The enemy is with us!

CramCycle · 18-02-2015 05:12PM

SeanW wrote: »

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

Children, not toddlers, not sure who started this toddler thing, children are aged up to their teens. I wouldn't let my toddler out because he would not have the common sense to come back, know where back is etc. etc. A 6 - 14 year old chatting to his mates on the green, or kicking a ball back and forth on a quiet estate, of course I would let them out on their own. They are with others, they are nearby, its not like I am leaving a 2 year old on the street and flagging you down to look after them. I am letting a 10yo function as a growing person in society, interacting with other people in what should be a relatively safe environment. All I am asking is that you don't drive to fast for the conditions of a typical housing estate. Obviously people have different beliefs about what is safe, much like many speeders on rural roads think they can speed because they are OK at it. Its not the way laws for societies are drafted and not the way they are implemented. The law has to account for the driver that thinks they are better than they are, that thinks they are more observant than they are.

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

Where is this babysitter BS from?

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."

No, but if I am walking with my 3yo and they break my grip and I just can't get to them in time, I expect you to be going slow enough to stop in the majority of incidences.

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

Its how society is meant to function.

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

Yes we do, hence why we try and impose laws to reduce these activities rather than just let people rot at the side of the road, welcome to society.

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

Thats a sad state of affairs if this is the way the rest of the country decide to operate, good bye to charities, goodbye to giving someone a hand if they trip and fall, goodbye to those benefits ever helping you out should you should for whatever reason you need them.

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

I haven't but i am sure there are many who may have parents, family or old friends who have fallen into this situation, but, as you said, your liability isn't there, who cares if they raised you, who cares if they supported you in your youth, who cares if they were an ear when you needed it, they are not your "liability".

CramCycle · 18-02-2015 05:23PM

jack presley wrote: »

Maybe newer housing estates but where I grew up the road was the equivalent of 3 lanes wide and that was probably the norm for estates back rhen

True, so was mine, the kids around mine still manage to play games on the narrower roads nowadays though.

Glinda wrote: »

I seem to recall that the woman on the Right Hook (referenced earlier) also said that half of the children killed by motor vehicles in housing estates were killed by a vehicle in, or moving into or out of a driveway (and that it was most often, tragically, their own driveway)

Another pet hate of mine, your meant to reverse into your drive if you can't turn around in it as reversing onto a road is dangerous and stupid. Its not hard. Its not like there is a crowd of cars being delayed for the extra 10 seconds it takes to reverse in.

I think this call for such a low speed limit is a very typical Irish approach (seek a system wide solution rather than one that holds any individual responsible) and won't fix anything. I can understand a desperate bereaved parent seeking to fix responsibility on anyone and anything other than herself for the tragedy that happened, that is only natural, but I don't think this is the answer.

So what your saying is a system wide solution is silly? I don't think you understand what is meant by solution. Regardless, its not a solution but it is a stepping stone to safer roads on estates. It won't be enforced but it does mean that at least some faster drivers will slow in estates as they know if they cause any incident, it won't be hard to prove their speed/negligence.

inforfun wrote: »

True.

But i made that remark because people are advocating the liability should always be with the motorist.
So it is the motorist fault, even if it isnt.

And that is just BS.

Thats not how the liability works. If the motorist can show it was not their fault, then they are not blamed. The head of transport in Amsterdam gave a talk explaining it, that its not absolute but in practicality it becomes almost absolute as so few investigations show the fault to be anyone but the drivers.

jack presley · 18-02-2015 05:31PM

CramCycle wrote: »

True, so was mine, the kids around mine still manage to play games on the narrower roads nowadays though.

Kerbs must be very easy on a narrow road though. And getting a double score for throwing over a car will have to eliminated if the cars are crawling along at 20kmph

The_Captain · 18-02-2015 05:58PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I don't think Europeans coming here will agree with that. I have driven a good bit on the continent (France, Italy, Spain and Germany) and find the experience on motorways much more reassuring than here.

People can merge properly, use the appropriate lanes properly and ensure (generally) that their cars are lit appropriately in poor lighting / weather conditions. How many times have you been undertaken or tail gated by a lunatic on the M6 on a rainy day doing 140km/hr with no lights on?

Mind you, the chances of being pulled here are virtually nill, whereas on the continent you will not get far on one light, using fog lights incorrectly or driving erratically. Enforcement is way higher - I would say that explains our lack of statistics to back up real observations here.

No one who has actually driven around a city in Italy or France will say they're better drivers than us. It can be absoultely terrifying watching them merge at will and lanes are largely optional

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 06:13PM

The_Captain wrote: »

No one who has actually driven around a city in Italy or France will say they're better drivers than us. It can be absoultely terrifying watching them merge at will and lanes are largely optional

I was talking about motorways as a comparison - that comment was generated by an earlier poster who suggested lifting speed limits on motorways here. I

Im sure anyone from abroad tackling one of our own roundabouts would find them entertaining to say the least as well.

fxotoole · 18-02-2015 07:01PM

Can't see this working. Anytime I'm doing 30 kph in a housing estate I get blasted out of it and overtaken by people who must be doing well over 40 kph.

Enforcing it will be impossible.

RDM_83 again · 18-02-2015 08:01PM

Can any poster here who hates the idea of a lower speed limit in estates at least be consistent and promise they won't complain about childhood obesity and kids stuck inside playing XBOX all day.
Either you have kids (thinking say 8+) stuck inside or extremely strictly supervised and therefore with a very restricted amount of time outside (if parents hold full time jobs) and getting overweight. Or you can have kids that play outside in the areas they live and kids being kids sometimes their concentration will lapse even if they are normally aware.
How many people complaining about this measure played outside.
The vast majority of estates aren't large its only going to be a couple of hundred meters at most to a main road where you can hit higher speeds its not going to be that much of an inconvenience, if you can't drive a car at 20kph thats not a good sign.

jack presley · 18-02-2015 08:19PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Can any poster here who hates the idea of a lower speed limit in estates at least be consistent and promise they won't complain about childhood obesity

Funniest line in this thread so far by a mile.

darkpagandeath · 18-02-2015 08:19PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Can any poster here who hates the idea of a lower speed limit in estates at least be consistent and promise they won't complain about childhood obesity and kids stuck inside playing XBOX all day.
Either you have kids (thinking say 8+) stuck inside or extremely strictly supervised and therefore with a very restricted amount of time outside (if parents hold full time jobs) and getting overweight. Or you can have kids that play outside in the areas they live and kids being kids sometimes their concentration will lapse even if they are normally aware.
How many people complaining about this measure played outside.
The vast majority of estates aren't large its only going to be a couple of hundred meters at most to a main road where you can hit higher speeds its not going to be that much of an inconvenience, if you can't drive a car at 20kph thats not a good sign.

As long at they are not let run around unattended.

LordSutch · 18-02-2015 08:19PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

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.

Depends on the car, depends on the gearing too, on my Diesel you would change up into 2nd at about 18 or 20 km/h . . .

As I said earlier, 20 km/h equates to just 12 mph which is jogging pace > Too Slow!

doopa · 18-02-2015 08:22PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Depends on the car, depends on the gearing too, on my Diesel you would change up into 2nd at about 18 or 20 km/h . . .

As I said earlier, 20 km/h equates to just 12 mph which is jogging pace > Too Slow!

jogging pace!:eek:

LordSutch · 18-02-2015 08:30PM

doopa wrote: »

jogging pace!:eek:

OK, maybe I'm using a bit of artistic licence there and exaggerating my point, but 12 mph is still pretty slow.. I tried it again in our estate tonight and its just too slow. 30 km/h would make more sense.

doopa · 18-02-2015 08:33PM

LordSutch wrote: »

OK, maybe I'm using a bit of artistic licence there and exaggerating my point, but 12 mph is still pretty slow.. I tried it again in our estate tonight and its just too slow. 30 km/h would make more sense.

Define sense? Because unless sense has suddenly become make something more likely to cause serious injury I don't think 30km/h makes sense. The thing that makes sense to me is a desire to reduce the impact of accidental collisions in housing estates.

What doesn't make sense to me is why one would prioritise the person driving the car over the person (child most likely) walking.

AndonHandon · 18-02-2015 08:39PM

Why not force cars to be padded with pillows around the outside of the vehicle when in an estate? Or ban sprinting in an estate? Cyclists should surely be forced to dismount when in residential areas too going by the logic in reducing the speed limit to such a low, unmanageable number.

LordSutch · 18-02-2015 08:39PM

As an experienced driver, I think 20 km/h is just too slow to maintain for any length of time.

Stinicker · 18-02-2015 08:39PM

Speed limits in estates are ridiculous, if parents kept their children in out of the streets they mightn't get knocked down then. Typical Nanny State trying to legislate for bad parenting.

doopa · 18-02-2015 08:54PM

LordSutch wrote: »

As an experienced driver, I think 20 km/h is just too slow to maintain for any length of time.

You aren't being asked to maintain it for long periods of time. Typically it would be for a few hundred metres at most! For a distance of 300 metres it would make a difference of 18 seconds. Hardly life altering.

doopa · 18-02-2015 08:54PM

Stinicker wrote: »

Speed limits in estates are ridiculous, if[\b] parents kept their children in out of the streets they mightn't get knocked down then. Typical Nanny State trying to legislate for bad parenting.

Given that, as previously discussed, this is impossible to do what alternative solutions do you propose?

Stinicker · 18-02-2015 08:56PM

doopa wrote: »

Given that, as previously discussed, this is impossible to do what alternative solutions do you propose?

Nothing just let darwinism take its toll. People kill other people accidentally every single day on the road, accidents happen and parents should have responsibility. The needs of the minority should not dictate to the majority.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 09:00PM

Stinicker wrote: »

Nothing just let darwinism take its toll. People kill other people accidentally every single day on the road, accidents happen and parents should have responsibility. The needs of the minority should not dictate to the majority.

poor effort.

pablo128 · 18-02-2015 09:10PM

doopa wrote: »

Given that, as previously discussed, this is impossible to do what alternative solutions do you propose?

It doesn't really matter. Who is going to police this new speed limit?

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

Comments