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

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The Dutch have a simple solution - 15kmhr in "woonerven" (housing estates). Seems to work for them - they put the responsibility on those driving the potentially lethal machines and not on the young children.

But then again they look a long way beyond the magic carpet a private car is considered to be here

I live in Holland for 8 years and I haven't seen a car or even a bicycle doing 15km/h in a housing area.

The Dutch see speeding fines as a tax.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

So a child was killed by someone going 80km/h in a 50km/h zone and dropping the speed limit to 30 or 20 km/h would have prevented this?
...

It might - read this posted earlier on :

"Considering serious injuries alone, a very high reduction of 78% was found."

Originally Posted by Pinch Flat ........................


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1547009

keithclancy wrote: »

I live in Holland for 8 years and I haven't seen a car or even a bicycle doing 15km/h in a housing area.

What's your own opinion having lived there, compared to what we have here?

Is Dutch residential design all it's cracked up to be? I have only seen on brief visits - my own experience would relate to living in southern Germany where similar principles of residential design would have been evident

keithclancy wrote: »

The Dutch see speeding fines as a tax.

Maybe so, but completely avoidable if you stay within the limit

SeanW wrote: »

Only if you are happy to kill more people in a single city (500 people in London) than all of the people who die on the roads of Ireland (<400).

I always suspected you and your kind were about ideology first and people last. Now I have proof! .

My own view is that any death on the roads is a tragedy. If caused by speed ramps even more so. If you want to work the statistics to a Dublin city setting, perhaps factor in the chronic traffic congestion which I would imagine also hampers significantly access for the emergency services.

So, why are these speed ramps put in firstly? To reduce the speed of motorists who are incapable of driving within the prescribed speed limit, especially in residential areas. If motorists were able to adhere to these limits, there would be no need for them in the first place. Problem solved and everyone gets to hospital on time.

I agree they are not the most elegant of solutions - put in as a cheap and cheerful (and usually urgent) measure to react against accidents (or collisions if you prefer) caused by speeding motorists in particular spots. Apparently a lot of local residents around the country want them as the concern with speeding is real.

http://thecorknews.ie/articles/local-campaign-calls-speed-ramps-17607

http://www.tipperarystar.ie/news/your-community/nenagh-residents-demand-speed-ramps-be-installed-in-their-estate-1-5636616

http://northcountyleader.ie/index.php/news/15147-residents-welcome-new-speed-ramps-in-balbriggan.html

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local-news/ashleigh-gardens-residents-pay-for-speed-ramps-1-2049810

As pointed out, there are other solutions such as speed cushions, speed bumps both of which emergency vehicles can easily pass over.

As a permanent solution, although very expensive one to retro fit, I would like to see the street scape redesigned in these problems areas but this is often not practical as speeding is such a huge issue local authorities / the NRA would be going around constantly retro fitting these roads – not practical given that maintaining the roads we have at the moment would appear to be a struggle.

Do you have any other suggestions for giving local residents comfort that the speed limits, regardless of how low are set, will be adhered to? Can we rely on personal responsibility of motorists? Unlikely reading some of the posts here.

SeanW wrote: »

Could also be avoided if speed limits were appropriate ... .

Yes I agree. 100km/hr on a dual carriageway is going to cause more carnage to a pedestrian than a 50km/hr limit in a residential area. Slower speed, less carnage. It’s that simple.

SeanW wrote: »

False. Your side, including Iwannahurl and the RSA who shares his/her policy, does not use the term accident, because accident implies unavoidable, random chance - don't take it from me, PM Iwannahurl about the useage of the term "accident" if you don't believe me. Both IWH and the RSA prefer terms such as "incident" or more likely "collision" which confirms that each event has a cause.

Accidents don't happen. Collisions happen because someone causes them. Often that's a motorist. But also often is that a motorist is in a collision that is a non-motorists fault. Blame is constructive in either case because it identifies the cause, rather than, as you suggest, punishing one group becuase of the actions of another.

Its these sort of posts where your true colours are shown. I don’t see a “them” and “us” or ‘your side’ and ‘our side’ on the roads. I see the roads as common space to be shared by all users. So I will show equal respect regardless of what means of transport I’m using. We are all people first and foremost who interact with the road infrastructure in different ways.

Whether you talk about an accident of a collision – the end result is the same. Some one is more than likely injured, sometimes killed. There is usually a causal factor in the collision. So you will see “Boy 'critically injured' after serious road traffic collision”….. “Male cyclist fighting for life after collision with van” or “Pedestrian dies in Co Galway collision”. Rarely is blame apportioned unless a causal factor is identified after an investigation. More often than not though it is speed (or the consequences of) that are complicit

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Yet, this whole "Jake's Legacy" campaign is based on an incident whose investigation is still ongoing; further, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm open to correction if appropriate), the incident did not involve speeding.

Yeah I'm not going to speculate on a single incident. However, my own experience of a death of a child in our locality, it was attributed to speeding.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Incorrect. The best figures we have indicate that driving in excess of the posted limit is a CAUSE of about 5% of fatal crashes (compared to about 40% being due to driving on the wrong side of the road). Speed undoubtedly has a significant effect on the outcome of a crash, but solely focussing on speed as a 'road safety' issue is addressing the wrong problem - it's treating the symptoms of an illness, but not the illness itself (poor driver education and behaviour) if you like.

According to the RSA, "Of all fatalities and serious injuries recorded between 1997 and 2011, speed was a contributory factor in 22% of fatalities and in 19% of serious injuries. The most recent RSA Free-Speed Surveys (an observational survey) indicates that speeding rates on rural roads, where most accidents occur, declined from a high of 22% in 2009, to 15.7% in 2011, but increased to 19.8% in 2012."http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Provisional_Review_of_Road_Crash_2013.pdf

But I agree - iof we used the roads more responsible, these issues wouldn't arise in the first place. Or if they did, the outcome would be different.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The current limit of 50 km/h in many estates is not a carte blanche to race between houses at that speed - the legislation already in place mandates drivers to driver slower if the conditions (such as children playing, cars parked blocking view, etc) dictate. Those that still insist on bombing through at the limit do so because they are ignorant and / or twats. Do you really think a lower limit will make them suddenly decide to drive with consideration?

My own estate has a speed limit of 50km/hr. Given that every second house has a few kids aged 10 or less due to the profile of the area, I'll happily drive the 200 yards or so to the main road at low speed - perhaps 30km/hr, maybe less - but always expecting the unexpected - a kid to dart after a football, or run after another kids playing tag. These things do and can happen. Others not so and will drive in their own bubble, oblivious of what's around them. More often or not the profile of these drivers will be different - young, more often than not without children of their own.

Some people have a strong concept of personal responsibility - others not so and find it easier to blame others, especially the kids, for what befalls them. People react differently in person than they do online - I'm sure if some one hit and injured or killed a kid, the reaction to the distraught parents be unlikely to be " ah sure he shouldn't be there in the first place, see you now" and drive off.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah I'm not going to speculate on a single incident. However, my own experience of a death of a child in our locality, it was attributed to speeding.



According to the RSA, "Of all fatalities and serious injuries recorded between 1997 and 2011, speed was a contributory factor in 22% of fatalities and in 19% of serious injuries. The most recent RSA Free-Speed Surveys (an observational survey) indicates that speeding rates on rural roads, where most accidents occur, declined from a high of 22% in 2009, to 15.7% in 2011, but increased to 19.8% in 2012."http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Provisional_Review_of_Road_Crash_2013.pdf

But I agree - iof we used the roads more responsible, these issues wouldn't arise in the first place. Or if they did, the outcome would be different.



My own estate has a speed limit of 50km/hr. Given that every second house has a few kids aged 10 or less due to the profile of the area, I'll happily drive the 200 yards or so to the main road at low speed - perhaps 30km/hr, maybe less - but always expecting the unexpected - a kid to dart after a football, or run after another kids playing tag. These things do and can happen. Others not so and will drive in their own bubble, oblivious of what's around them. More often or not the profile of these drivers will be different - young, more often than not without children of their own.

Some people have a strong concept of personal responsibility - others not so and find it easier to blame others, especially the kids, for what befalls them. People react differently in person than they do online - I'm sure if some one hit and injured or killed a kid, the reaction to the distraught parents be unlikely to be " ah sure he shouldn't be there in the first place, see you now" and drive off.

Some blame national speed limits for their child running out in front of a car unattended

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What's your own opinion having lived there, compared to what we have here?

Is Dutch residential design all it's cracked up to be? I have only seen on brief visits - my own experience would relate to living in southern Germany where similar principles of residential design would have been evident

Planning in the Netherlands makes Ireland's planning look like it was drawn up using some Crayolas by a blind man.

All of the things necessary for a residential area are thought of in advance in the Netherlands.

In Ireland the houses are built first and then stuff is tacked on afterwards, thats why you usually see a massive housing estate in Ireland with f*ck all in them, most of the time they have to block off parts of the estate because people start using them as rat runs to beat traffic jams.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Maybe so, but completely avoidable if you stay within the limit

That's if you know what the limit is, I drove from Amsterdam to Eindhoven last night and the A2 has 20 kms of average speed cameras and also a speed limit of 100km/h between 0900 and 1900 on various parts of it :P

The rest is 130km/h if not marked and 120 if marked .... nobody .. not even the Dutch are sure what the speed limit is some of the time

Most speed limits in the Netherlands are for residential noise reasons as well, not for road safety.

SeanW wrote: »

Just going by what I read on boards, one account said the driver was visibly speeding according to witness, I also read the figure of 80kph mentioned.

If that's true then speed limits had nothing whatsoever to do with it because the maximum limit is 50 kph but you're really speeding if the conditions don't warrant 50kph (which they wouldn't have).

Irrelevant.

Other than mentioning what's already published, it is not appropriate to discuss this on Boards.ie at this time. All I'll say is, you're talking bull. By conditions, you can only mean visibility and weather conditions.......but it was a sunny, blue sky, June evening - If you can't drive to the speed limit in those perfect "conditions", then the speed limit is wrong, which is the point of the campaign.

Also there has never been a published witness account of what happened in respect to what speed the driver was doing. All I'll refer to is what's already published out there; the car had traveled only 35 meters from its stationary position to the time it hit Jake. So between that, and the conditions, you can make your own deductions (from the information that's actually out there - not the stuff that's made up) as to whether the speed limit mattered in this instance. And there is a lot more that will come out about it all eventually.

I actually tried, as a test, to go 50 KPH in my estate one day and I couldn't (even though some people do). There no way on this wide Earthly World that anyone of any sane mind can consider that to be safe....as local Government has for the last 11 years - and national level Government did before that.