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

20 km is absolutely ridiculous - everyone wants no accidents , but lets police properly a reasonable speed limit , 30 would be ok. the real problem I see are lunatics driving at weekends way over the speed limits throughout Ireland. SinnFein have latched on to an emotive issue , playing the moral police. No one wants accidents , but unfortunately they do happen. Lets stamp out serious dangerous driving , not nanny state proposals. Rant over.

Grayson wrote: »

30km would be 50% over a speed limit of 20km.

so you agree with proposal of implement a speed limit of 20 km throughout estates in Ireland ?

as I said the main issue is lunatics driving at high speeds at weekends , not sober drivers at 25 kmh

Viper_JB wrote: »

Ya and it seems to be the situation that as soon as you say anything to anyone about where they're parked you instantly become the bad guy, doesn't matter if they were parked over your grand mother. Just seems to be out of sheer ignorance that no lobby group brings this up, I feel that a lot of people who demand a slower limit would park like this themselves and not see any problems with it.

The absolute worst and most dangerous parking/driving can be found in and around estates situated near schools,creches etc.

On the speed issue, the problem I have is a preschool at the end of the road, I live on the corner and people take the corner at speed, that coupled with cars parked arseways makes it very dangerous for many small kids who frequent the street both those who live here and those attending preschool.

The only conclusion I can come to is that 'people' don't care.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yes, physics have a big part to play. Heavy objects travelling at high speeds cause more carnage than those travelling at lower speeds.

Common sense and being more self aware on both parties make up the rest.

The_Captain wrote: »

If we ban cars, vans, bikes and trucks completely, road traffic deaths will decrease by 100%

It's a small inconvenience to save thousands of lives

Yeah but it's not about preventing accidents - accidents will always happen, even if people drove at 5km/hr. Its the severity of the accident that increases exponentially with the speed of the vehicle causing it, be it a bike, car, lorry or motorbike.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Not really if you take the Physics involved even at low speed's. A child under a wheel at any speed would more than lightly result in death. The weight of the car is a factor also maybe one people have been dancing around.

I think a guy called Isaac Newton pretty much nailed the relationship between speed and mass in the 1660's.

It's a bit like saying what's heavier - one tonne of bricks or one tonne of feathers. Both gonna crush the bejaysus out of you.

SeanW wrote: »

Only this is a false dichotomy because 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time there will be nothing to justify the "two minutes to your journey"

That wasn't a false dichotomy. Stating that banning cars would reduce accidents (as someone did) is a false dichotomy because it ignores the fact that simply slowing down is sufficient to reduce them.

It can be shown that most of the time when someone breaks a speed limit there is no accident. Does that mean that people should be allowed to break the speed limit? many cars could do far more on the motorway and it would be considered safe for them. The reason we don't double the speed limit is because even though the cars can handle that speed the drivers can't.

Likewise in a build up area there are more risks. It makes sense to go slow. Even if you and i disagree on what the limit is, we both agree that the standard speed limit for open roads should not be allowed in an estate.

Once you agree with that, you're accepting my premise even if you don't accept my conclusion.

I haven't seen the figures but as i said above, if it will result in less accidents then it's worth it. It's a short part of a journey. It's only a couple of minutes longer. Those couple of minutes aren't worth someone life.

The_Captain wrote: »

But a child is massively more likely to die from being hit by a car a 5kmph than by not being hit by a car at all.

So let's ban cars

Close, but not quite. In the context of a car hitting a child:

1. Accidents will continue to happen and are unavoidable.

2. When accidents do happen, the severity of the injury resulting from that accident will be related to:

• The speed of the object hitting it
  
• The mass of the object hitting it.

Lower speeds result in less significant injuries.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Really... An object in motion that weights 1.5 tones allowed to continue in motion will crush a small child under the wheels resulting in death. Regardless of the speed 1 kph or 100 kph. Now we all understand this changes if the person is struck by the Car, That's a different kettle of fish. But saying 20 kph will stop deaths is nonsense, It all depends if you are struck or are you crushed.

Yes this may sound gruesome.

Perhaps, but a child may also be brushed out of the way but the front bumper as well.

20 km/hr is not non-sense - it's implemented in a lot of EU countries from which we could learn from in our attitudes towards motorized vehicles and their interaction with pedestrians.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_Netherlands (15 kph in certai n residential areas)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1547009 (15 kph in some areas)

banning driving altogether would be far preferable to driving at 15 kmp or under - ridiculous ;