Why 30 km/h speed limits are important in the context of Jake's Legacy vigil

_Kaiser_ · 15-07-2015 3:09pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Explain how a motorist could be injured by people playing there?
Now consider how a motorist could harm people playing there.
The responsibility is entirely with the motorist.

OK.. here's a perfect example from the news today (not my video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Uh2guTn-k

Now, explain to me how that's the motorists fault, or would have been if anything had happened? The responsibility lies with the driver of the van who pulled in at the edge of a roundabout, and the child themselves (who's old enough to know better by the looks of it)

Fair play to the guy with the dashcam for reacting as quickly as he did (not that he was "speeding" anyway) but this notion that pedestrians/children/cyclists don't also bear some responsibility for their own behaviour and safety on the road as well is just silly.

galwaycyclist · 16-07-2015 12:52pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

OK.. here's a perfect example from the news today (not my video)

<snip>

Now, explain to me how that's the motorists fault, or would have been if anything had happened? The responsibility lies with the driver of the van who pulled in at the edge of a roundabout, and the child themselves (who's old enough to know better by the looks of it)

Fair play to the guy with the dashcam for reacting as quickly as he did (not that he was "speeding" anyway) but this notion that pedestrians/children/cyclists don't also bear some responsibility for their own behaviour and safety on the road as well is just silly.

I have viewed this video and for the life of me I cannot see what the fuss is all about. Did the child not check to see if the way was clear and did he not react when he saw something coming?

It was very clear that someone was getting out of the van - the dashcam proves that - but the driver is a hero because he slowed down?

In other countries it would have been a clear offence if he had not slowed down.

Edit: I've had another look - the child was clearly visible to the dashcam driver well in advance - it also looks obviously like the car on the other side of the road was involved somehow with the halted van. That car was not stopped waiting to enter the roundabout. Anyone with two brain-cells to rub together would have proceeded with extreme caution - but its child who is "the idiot" (in the words of our dashcam hero) because dashcam dude doesn't want to slow to an appropriate speed for the situation?

galwaycyclist · 16-07-2015 2:06pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In other countries it would have been a clear offence if he had not slowed down.

German Traffic Law

I. Allgemeine Verkehrsregeln §3 Geschwindigkeit 3.(2a) German Road Traffic Regulations, Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung (StVO)

(2a) Die Fahrzeugführer müssen sich gegenüber Kindern, Hilfsbedürftigen und älteren Menschen, insbesondere durch Verminderung der Fahrgeschwindigkeit und durch Bremsbereitschaft, so verhalten, daß eine Gefährdung dieser Verkehrsteilnehmer ausgeschlossen ist.

In Germany, this traffic regulation creates a duty, that drivers of vehicles when encountering children, disabled or elderly persons, shall conduct themselves such as to ensure these road users' safety, specifically by slowing down and being ready to brake.

GTE · 16-07-2015 8:06pm

My take on that video is that I would have thought that rather than focusing on the driving of the dashcammed van, the conduct of the other van and Volvo would be more interesting.

- No hazard lights
- Both vehicles stopped where they shouldn't
- People in those vehicles facilitated the child crossing at a dangerous point
- The child had no intention of crossing the road safely.

There is a lot to make a fuss about. Sadly, it is not just about the why the child didn't know how to cross in a safe way. Perhaps it was a chance encounter and he was rushed into getting out and legging it to the Volvo. In many ways, we can not guarantee that a child will do the right thing. So;

- There can be a fuss about why they blocked a roundabout in an unsafe way for no good reason.
- There can be a fuss about why, after deciding to block the roundabout, they didn't bother to use hazard lights.
- There can be a fuss as to why they felt it appropriate to facilitate the child crossing the road where they did in the situation they created.

To me, the concept that it is entirely the motorists fault in incidents is a very simplistic one.

Consider a driver going through an estate safely and a pedestrian walking along the estate safely. By the two doing things safely there is an inherent and manufactured buffer between the two individuals which would allow them to meet in a safe way rather than a dangerous one.

The problem the video shows is that the contribution of the buffer made by the dash-cammed van is almost cancelled out by the collective problems I felt were there on the part of the other van, Volvo and child.

Essentially, even the safest driver can get caught out if someone crosses the road from behind a van at the wrong time.

For me, it shows that we need both sides situation to act properly. This is why speed bumps and heavily enforced speed limits on roads which guarantee compliance of one side are the wrong way to go when the other side do not have the skills, mentality or forced compliance to have this buffer zone of sorts maintained.

So, that is why I think the dashcammed driver was okay to reasonable in what he did and why the rest of the people were downright dumb in what they did.

Now, the concept of forced compliance on one or both sides is another debate as I feel all speed bumps do is slow people down without teaching them to be slow in the area they are installed in. Similar to having excessive amounts of railings on pathways so people don't cross.

galwaycyclist · 16-07-2015 9:06pm

bbk wrote: »

For me, it shows that we need both sides situation to act properly. This is why speed bumps and heavily enforced speed limits on roads which guarantee compliance of one side are the wrong way to go when the other side do not have the skills, mentality or forced compliance to have this buffer zone of sorts maintained.

A small child running across a road is acting properly - they acting according to childlike instincts - this is entirely to be expected and is proper.

bbk wrote: »

For me, it shows that we need both sides situation to act properly.

This sounds to me like someone is trying to put a small child and an adult with a driving permit on an equal footing. Thats just a little bit creepy.

GTE · 16-07-2015 11:38pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

A small child running across a road is acting properly

A young child; of course they are. Who is arguing against that?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This sounds to me like someone is trying to put a small child and an adult with a driving permit on an equal footing. Thats just a little bit creepy.

That is odd, how did you get to that conclusion?

In thinking about what you said I realised that you are just taking issue with the second section of my post and perhaps you are losing it's context which I don't mind clearing up.

With regards to the video specifically, if the child was overwhelmed & taken off guard by a chance encounter and asked to leg it to the Volvo, one can understand why they ran out without checking for traffic. This is something I already said and is why I question the actions of the van and Volvo driver which have a significant influence on the situation. Even if the child was older and checked for traffic, that does not absolve the mistakes which I think the parked van and Volvo drivers made. Not in the way that a young child or older child who has not been taught of the importance of this type of thing could be absolved.

In terms of the second part of my post where I am considering a safe driver and safe pedestrian; I am posing the circumstance where both parties have positive mentalities and how it results in a buffer before something terrible happens. So, the driver is not speeding and is taking care being attentive, the pedestrian has cop on. In the case of a child; if they are young enough I am talking about the person who has responsibility for them and for older children it is more on them to decide whether they run out on the road but still ultimately the responsibility of their parent or guardian as to why the child doesn't consider it important to check for traffic.

So, all that part of my post was doing is combating the premise that it is the motorists fault which I see mentioned earlier.

To apply that concept to the video, which you replied about and perhaps misunderstood me;
- the dashcammed van driver was driving reasonably to me as he had good reactions and stopped well short of the front of the parked van.
- the child seems young enough to do what he did without blame
- the parked van driver and Volvo drivers (people responsible for young children mentioned above) made a worrying number of mistakes.

SeanW · 17-07-2015 9:52am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

A small child running across a road is acting properly - they acting according to childlike instincts - this is entirely to be expected and is proper.

No-one is blaming the child, children are by definition not responsible and thus under the care/responsibility of guardians.

A child should be supervised properly if they're not old enough to use the roads safely, i.e. to understand the "Safe Cross Code".

You wouldn't let a child play in a kitchen with hot stoves, boiling cooking oil, sharp knives and other hazards everywhere? Why the hell would you let them use the roads in such a dangerous way?

As above, the behaviour of the parked van and car should also be called into question:

The child was effectively unsupervised and told to do something dangrous.
The van created a blind spot.
Neither the van nor the Volvo were using hazard lights.

This sounds to me like someone is trying to put a small child and an adult with a driving permit on an equal footing. Thats just a little bit creepy.

They're both road users. Very clearly, in that case, one road user behaved more responsibly than the others.

Padraig Mor · 17-07-2015 11:11am

expectationlost wrote: »

updates from jake's legacy campaign https://www.facebook.com/jakeslegacy/photos/a.771651756218718.1073741828.770043803046180/981757605208131/?type=1 meeting with Minister where he wouldn't agree to implement laws to make sure private estates are safe for kids

So a 30km/h limit would "make sure... estates are safe for kids"? Yip, every aspect of poor driving sorted out in a flash! (including the largest killer of kids in estates - poor attention when manoeuvring at low speed in driveways). A magic solution!

expectationlost · 17-07-2015 3:11pm

Padraig Mor wrote: »

So a 30km/h limit would "make sure... estates are safe for kids"? Yip, every aspect of poor driving sorted out in a flash! (including the largest killer of kids in estates - poor attention when manoeuvring at low speed in driveways). A magic solution!

if you want you can add an r

I think you should be more upset about the lack of action on private estates then a lack of an r

galwaycyclist · 17-07-2015 4:23pm

SeanW wrote: »

No-one is blaming the child, children are by definition not responsible and thus under the care/responsibility of guardians.

If nobody is blaming the child then why all the prominent references to the "safe cross code"?

Or could it be that some Irish "adults" like to use things like the "safe cross code" as an excuse for not behaving in an appropriate manner in the presence of children?

We teach ABC in baby infants - we don't expect children to deal with Shakespeare until they are at least 12 or 13. But it seems doing a nursery rhyme on crossing the road entitles some Irish "adults" to ascribe small children with the ability to understand complex traffic situations.

A child should be supervised properly if they're not old enough to use the roads safely, i.e. to understand the "Safe Cross Code".

You wouldn't let a child play in a kitchen with hot stoves, boiling cooking oil, sharp knives and other hazards everywhere? Why the hell would you let them use the roads in such a dangerous way?

Some kitchens are dangerous - some are not - it depends on what is happening in the kitchen. I frequently play with children in kitchens, if cooking is happening then we play somewhere else.

Just as kitchens are not inherently bad places for playing children, roads are not inherently bad places for playing children.

Unless they have a gun, a child playing is not doing anything dangerous. They may be exposed to dangers created by others but that is not the same thing.

As above, the behaviour of the parked van and car should also be called into question:
The child was effectively unsupervised and told to do something dangrous.

The van created a blind spot.

Neither the van nor the Volvo were using hazard lights.

They're both road users. Very clearly, in that case, one road user behaved more responsibly than the others.

If you look at the video the road off the roundabout is clearly within a residential area. There is a speed ramp 10m in front of where our dashcam hero came to halt. Roads with slower speeds, roads with traffic calming, are intended to be treated differently by the users than arterial roads.

That's why we put in traffic calming.

He has just entered a traffic calmed area and now he deserves praise for failing to hit a child on a traffic calmed residential road?

SeanW · 19-07-2015 1:03am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If nobody is blaming the child then why all the prominent references to the "safe cross code"?

The child did not know how to use the roads safely. That's why he should have been properly supervised. If you are a parent, or a babysitter/teacher/etc acting "in loco parentis" and you allow a child to do something stupid and they get hurt, it's your fault.

That's where the Safe Cross Code comes in. Parent, or acting in loco parentis for a child?

Does the child know how to use the roads safely?
If yes - let them use the roads unsupervised.
If no - supervise the child, holding their hand if necessary.

Or could it be that some Irish "adults" like to use things like the "safe cross code" as an excuse for not behaving in an appropriate manner in the presence of children?

No, rather it's a yardstick to determine whether a child can use the roads safely or not.

We teach ABC in baby infants - we don't expect children to deal with Shakespeare until they are at least 12 or 13.

Great, so you wouldn't expect a childrens' Christmas play to feature Hamlet or a Midsommer Nights Dream in 4th class. But you think that children who haven't been taught the basics of road safety should be allowed to use roads unsupervised?

Just as kitchens are not inherently bad places for playing children,

Yes, they are. I note you said you "play with children" in kitchens when it's safe so this is not aimed at you, but if someone would let those children play in the kitchen unsupervised, they would be a moron.

roads are not inherently bad places for playing children.

Provided that everyone involved is obeying the rules of the road, correct.

Unless they have a gun, a child playing is not doing anything dangerous. They may be exposed to dangers created by others but that is not the same thing.

Seriously, have you seen the video? Are you seriously suggesting that running into traffic, without looking, from a blindspot is "not doing anything dangerous"? On what planet was that not dangerous?

That's why we put in traffic calming.

And that's why it's not such a good idea, because all that traffic calming did was replace one hazard (fast traffic) with a "moral hazard" of pedestrians encouraged to act like morons. A bit like Anglo Irish Bank, these road users are over-protected and under-regulated. "Go ahead and act like a moron, if it all goes bad, it will be someone elses problem". We know how well that worked out?

He has just entered a traffic calmed area and now he deserves praise for failing to hit a child on a traffic calmed residential road?

You're damn right he does!

GTE · 19-07-2015 4:15pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If nobody is blaming the child then why all the prominent references to the "safe cross code"?

I blame the child, but because the child is a child that blame can be appropriately transferred to the parent/guardians for reasons that do not need to be repeated.

The safe cross code approach should be used by all, regardless of age so I do not get why you associate the safe cross code with children, only. I believe that parents and guardians should use it so the importance is shown to children.

monument · 19-07-2015 5:00pm

Recent posts on this thread are exactly why 30km/h on residential streets and town and village centre are a great idea.

30km/h will lower the chances of collisions and, when there is a collision, it lowers or cuts out the harm caused. This is record over and over across the world.

The safe cross code in the UK and Ireland on the other hand doesn't have such a great record.

And fighting about blaim is a load of nonsense when no collision happened, the boy was never further than the edge of the van, and both parties acted to prevent a collision from happening. Calling a child an idiot in such an non-event is moronic.

_Kaiser_ · 19-07-2015 7:17pm

monument wrote: »

Recent posts on this thread are exactly why 30km/h on residential streets and town and village centre are a great idea.

No it's not, because what causes accidents in residential streets is a bit more complex than the old "speed kills" mantra. It's inattention, reckless chance-taking, and not recognizing that ALL road users have a responsibility for their own safety and those they share the road space with.

30km/h will lower the chances of collisions and, when there is a collision, it lowers or cuts out the harm caused. This is record over and over across the world.

The safe cross code in the UK and Ireland on the other hand doesn't have such a great record.

I don't give a toss what they do "somewhere else".. are you saying we're incapable of determining an appropriate solution ourselves? We don't even need to - for generations kids have been/were taught about being careful when crossing the road (I certainly was) and being mindful of my own safety generally. What's wrong with that?

The notion that we must legislate for every potential eventuality is nonsense and unenforceable anyway. Those who behave recklessly in residential areas (again, this refers to ALL road users) will still do so regardless of whatever arbitrary numbers are on a road sign.

And fighting about blame is a load of nonsense when no collision happened, the boy was never further than the edge of the van, and both parties acted to prevent a collision from happening. Calling a child an idiot in such an non-event is moronic.

I don't see anyone calling the child an "idiot", merely a recognition that he and the other participants involved all share an element of responsibility for the near-incident that occurred.

Besides, somehow I think you'd be among the first to be calling for the head of the dashcam-owning driver if he hadn't reacted as quickly as he did or the child had made it a few feet further out into the road... and yet that - just as in your post above - would still not be recognizing the actual cause or issue that needs to be addressed.

galwaycyclist · 19-07-2015 10:56pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't give a toss what they do "somewhere else".. are you saying we're incapable of determining an appropriate solution ourselves? We don't even need to - for generations kids have been/were taught about being careful when crossing the road (I certainly was) and being mindful of my own safety generally. What's wrong with that?
.

There are several things wrong with the "Irish" view that child safety is primarily a matter for the children themselves or their guardians - thereby letting the rest of "adult" society off the hook.

It created a situation where we had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe, contributed to large drops to the number of children walking to school, creates unecessary traffic and is a fundamental contributor to a growing obesity problem.

_Kaiser_ · 20-07-2015 9:35am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are several things wrong with the "Irish" view that child safety is primarily a matter for the children themselves or their guardians - thereby letting the rest of "adult" society off the hook.

It created a situation where we had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe, contributed to large drops to the number of children walking to school, creates unecessary traffic and is a fundamental contributor to a growing obesity problem.

Ah but what I said is it's a shared responsibility - of the parents/guardians, motorists/other road users but yes the child themselves has a role to play too. Regardless of what speed limits or traffic calming measures you put in place, a child running out in front of a car is never going to end well!

I think your link between deaths and childhood obesity is a tenuous one TBH.. this is more the result of diet, lack of exercise and lazy/exhausted parents who are putting the kids in front of a TV/XBox or fast food meal as opposed to taking an active interest in their child's health/activity levels.That plus the availability of cheap credit/finance plans for oversized SUVs has far more to do with unnecessary traffic on the roads.
I will agree that there is a degree of scaremongering that comes into it alright.. not just about "maniac" drivers "speeding everywhere", but kids being snatched off the street.. that's not to say these things don't happen, but nowhere near as much as is made out sometimes.

Ultimately however the bottom line is that as long as there is a potential for human error or bad judgement, mistakes and accidents are going to happen.. but the way to deal with this is through education and responsibility of ALL parties for their own safety and that of others.

As you're a cyclist I'll give a comparable example.. if you break the lights and have a collision with a car that's turning the corner at the same time, are you going to tell me that it's the driver's fault for not reacting fast enough.. or your own for not obeying the rules of the road?

Padraig Mor · 20-07-2015 9:38am

expectationlost wrote: »

if you want you can add an r

I think you should be more upset about the lack of action on private estates then a lack of an r

I have small kids and live in a private estate so the issue is close to home. And I know that the same twats that bomb down busy residential roads currently, will do exactly the same no matter what the speed limits are - and in some cases, 30 km/h is too fast.

monument wrote: »

30km/h will lower the chances of collisions and, when there is a collision, it lowers or cuts out the harm caused. This is record over and over across the world.

The safe cross code in the UK and Ireland on the other hand doesn't have such a great record..

AFAIK the largest number of kids killed in estates are hit by relatives reversing in their driveway (who haven't paid sufficient attention) at very slow speeds. Lowering the speed limit will do precisely SFA to prevent this. Reversing cameras would be much better - should we make them mandatory? Maybe we should ban reversing in estates while children are out and about? I'm not being facetious here - these measures are far more likely to save kids' lives than just lowering the limit. Of course, many of those arguing for the lowered limit don't really care about kids - they're just taking advantage of the death of a child to bang their (pretty battered) anti-motorist drum.

As for kids on roads etc - as a parent of small kids, I know that they can dart onto a road even when being closely supervised. That's not their 'fault' - kids will be kids. Drivers in busy estates have to expect that this could happen - which is precisely why emphasising awareness of their surroundings is a far better solution to kids being knocked down than the lazy, ineffective, option of lowering the speed limit to a speed which may be too fast at times anyway. I'd much rather drivers were watching the roads and their surroundings than their speedo.

SeanW · 20-07-2015 10:24am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are several things wrong with the "Irish" view that child safety is primarily a matter for the children themselves or their guardians.

By definition, the guardian has primary responsibility. By. definition.

It created a situation where we had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe

How does promoting the kind of behaviour in Kaisers' video help with "child pedestrian death rates?"

patrickbrophy18 · 20-07-2015 11:55pm

Having watched the video again, the dash camera does catch sight of the child getting out of the white van as the driver is about to make his exit off the roundabout. If that were me, I would have taken note of this and anticipated that the child may cross the road at that point. In such a situation, I would have proceeded carefully passed the van at a speed where I wouldn't have to jam on the breaks. From the video, it appears the kid is going with their parent to his/her workplace. While there's every chance the the place of work is on the side of the road where they are parked, there is equal chance of it being on the right. So, there's a 50/50 chance of the alighting passenger wishing to cross the road.

With that said, I do think that parking in such close proximity to the circulatory carriageway of the roundabout gives any exiting motorist very little chance of reacting to hazards when they arise. It doesn't help the fact that vans being opaque and given their size make them something of a blind-spot to anyone approaching them from behind. The lack of windows which is often the case with vans completely blocks the view of anything ahead from that point in the road. This is probably one of many reason's for retro-fitting existing roundabouts with speed ramps to force the anticipation of a child (or any pedestrian for that matter) crossing.

Nevertheless, ALL road users should be a bit more observant than what is currently the case. Some of the messages which adverts invariably promote such as "expect the unexpected" in my opinion, indirectly discourages non-motorists from being observant road users. I say that because that particular message is primarily aimed at motorists. I do make a few major exceptions to this mindset such as stretches of road where children, mobility impaired and the elderly are most likely to congregate. This includes roads stretches that are next to facilities which include but is not limited to nursing homes, hospitals, schools, playgrounds, theme parks, sports grounds and amusement arcades.

galwaycyclist · 21-07-2015 4:24pm

SeanW wrote: »

By definition, the guardian has primary responsibility. By. definition.

Yes but not sole responsibility - wider adult society also has a responsibility in my view. However it seems that in Ireland some like to use the fact that they have just sat into a car as an excuse for no longer behaving like adults.

As has been pointed out, other countries expect adults to behave in a responsible manner in the presence of children and have laws creating such a duty.

How does promoting the kind of behaviour in Kaisers' video help with "child pedestrian death rates?"

What behaviour is being promoted? The child who correctly looked for, and reacted to, a potential threat? No that seems that is not what is being promoted?

Instead a "hero" is being made of some joker in van (who calls small children "idiots") because he managed to stop for a child whose presence he should have been well aware of.

If that is the extent of his understanding of risk assessment on public roads then maybe he should be invited to resit his driving test?

Edit: And preferably to sit it in a different country and see how he would get on.

Iwannahurl · 23-07-2015 7:33pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Instead a "hero" is being made of some joker in van (who calls small children "idiots") because he managed to stop for a child whose presence he should have been well aware of.

If that is the extent of his understanding of risk assessment on public roads then maybe he should be invited to resit his driving test?

Edit: And preferably to sit it in a different country and see how he would get on.

Such as France, perhaps, where I happen to be at present. The area I'm in is very car-dependent, and motorists' behaviour is far from perfect, but there are still numerous low-speed zones in urban areas. 30 km/h is commonplace, and I have also encountered plenty of 20 km/h zones, including in city centre areas.

The idea of 20 km/h seems to send Irish politicians and motorists into a state of apoplexy. It's as if they have never left the island and experienced life anywhere else in the EU.

Crumbs868 · 25-07-2015 5:18am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Such as France, perhaps, where I happen to be at present. The area I'm in is very car-dependent, and motorists' behaviour is far from perfect, but there are still numerous low-speed zones in urban areas. 30 km/h is commonplace, and I have also encountered plenty of 20 km/h zones, including in city centre areas.

The idea of 20 km/h seems to send Irish politicians and motorists into a state of apoplexy. It's as if they have never left the island and experienced life anywhere else in the EU.

Thanks for the post. Hope the holiday is going well look forward to hearing more of it

SeanW · 27-07-2015 11:06pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes but not sole responsibility - wider adult society also has a responsibility in my view. However it seems that in Ireland some like to use the fact that they have just sat into a car as an excuse for no longer behaving like adults.

As has been pointed out, other countries expect adults to behave in a responsible manner in the presence of children and have laws creating such a duty.

Have you ever actually used a road in Ireland? Becuase if you did you'd realise that we have more than enough muppetry from all road users - especially non-motorised ones who behave like the laws are theoretical -, both adults and children, and I fail to see how "strict liability" or similar would help this situation in any way.

What behaviour is being promoted? The child who correctly looked for, and reacted to, a potential threat? No that seems that is not what is being promoted?

Running across the road from a blind spot without looking is "correct?" Dafuq did I just read?

Instead a "hero" is being made of some joker in van (who calls small children "idiots") because he managed to stop for a child whose presence he should have been well aware of.

If that is the extent of his understanding of risk assessment on public roads then maybe he should be invited to resit his driving test?

Again, dafuq did I just read? The van driver was driving at a limited speed and reacted in good time to a hazard that came (from his perspective) out of nowhere. But because he wasn't feeling all warm and fuzzy about the morons who created that danger he should be "invited to resit his driving test?" Nothing about the adults in those two cars that told the child to behave a like a moron?

Are you ******* serious?

monument · 28-07-2015 9:07am

SeanW wrote: »

Have you ever actually used a road in Ireland? Becuase if you did you'd realise that we have more than enough muppetry from all road users - especially non-motorised ones who behave like the laws are theoretical -, both adults and children, and I fail to see how "strict liability" or similar would help this situation in any way.

Running across the road from a blind spot without looking is "correct?" Dafuq did I just read?

Again, dafuq did I just read? The van driver was driving at a limited speed and reacted in good time to a hazard that came (from his perspective) out of nowhere. But because he wasn't feeling all warm and fuzzy about the morons who created that danger he should be "invited to resit his driving test?" Nothing about the adults in those two cars that told the child to behave a like a moron?

Are you ******* serious?

Tone it down very quickly or expect an infraction.

Thinkingaboutit · 28-07-2015 5:56pm

If this means 30km in enclosed cul-de-sac-ed housing estates, maybe, (although I read 20km/h in some places which is just cretinous), but you cannot drive through any town or city without passing through residential areas. People just will not obey these limits. They do not obey them in those places with lowered speed limits, unless there are high car damaging speed bumps in place. 'What about the children' is an emotive argument used to attack basic decent freedoms. Driving at the established urban speed limit is not wrongdoing. Wide, reasonably fast roads and residential areas have co-existed for a long time. There are no issues as parents teach their children basic road sense or keep close supervision until they are old enough to learn it.

monument · 28-07-2015 6:40pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Driving at the established urban speed limit is not wrongdoing.

It is when that "established urban speed limit" is changed.

It's becoming a well-established trend to lower such speed limits in town centres and residential areas.

galwaycyclist · 28-07-2015 6:44pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Driving at the established urban speed limit is not wrongdoing. Wide, reasonably fast roads and residential areas have co-existed for a long time. There are no issues as parents teach their children basic road sense or keep close supervision until they are old enough to learn it.

It created a situation where the Irish republic had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe, where parents feel forced to drive children everywhere, where we are facing an obesity epidemic in part because children cannot play in their normal play areas - eg residential streets.

These are all "issues"

Iwannahurl · 29-07-2015 2:01pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

If this means 30km in enclosed cul-de-sac-ed housing estates, maybe, (although I read 20km/h in some places which is just cretinous), but you cannot drive through any town or city without passing through residential areas. People just will not obey these limits. They do not obey them in those places with lowered speed limits, unless there are high car damaging speed bumps in place. 'What about the children' is an emotive argument used to attack basic decent freedoms. Driving at the established urban speed limit is not wrongdoing. Wide, reasonably fast roads and residential areas have co-existed for a long time. There are no issues as parents teach their children basic road sense or keep close supervision until they are old enough to learn it.

Much of the above is reactionary and ill-informed. 30 and 20 km/h zones are supported by evidence and best practice.

There are no "basic freedoms" associated with driving mechanically-propelled vehicles. Children were children and play was play long before roads were invented, never mind cars.

Ireland is very backward on this issue compared to advanced EU countries, and the backwardness of our politics is one major reason for this state of affairs. This is a republic, allegedly, not a haven for reactionaries with American-style Republican mindsets.

expectationlost · 30-07-2015 3:54pm

*warning heads may explode*

Council planning to shut down streets so that children can play
http://www.herald.ie/news/council-planning-to-shut-down-streets-so-that-children-can-play-31414219.html

for acouple of hours every few few weeks

"It's an unfortunate reality of city life that it's no longer safe for children to go out to play on the street.

on the street or on the road?, kids shouldn't play on the road, we did it as kids we played 3 and in and tennis on the road, we have speed bumps now but I still wouldn't allow my nephews to do that when they come to visit. we do play curbs though

and im nervous with that. but luckily we do have a medium sized park right across the road from us.

are these for places that don't have green areas adjacent?

something that was first proposed back in 2013

TEMPORARY MINOR STREET PLAY ORDERS http://paschaldonohoe.ie/phibsborough-community-update-october-2013/

For example, if such a scheme is adopted, neighbours could formally close a street for a specified time period to enable local children to play freely. Other residents would continue to have car access during this time period but would be escorted onto the street by volunteer stewards.

Dublin City Council to trial ‘play orders’ – Heney
https://www.fiannafail.ie/dublin-city-council-to-trial-play-orders-heney/

The initiative, which was proposed by Cllr Heney in 2013, has now been progressed to pilot stage. Clancarthy Road in Donnycarney has been chosen as the location for the trial.

Clancarthy Road, Donnycarney https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Clancarthy+Rd,+Dublin+5/@53.37372,-6.2182206,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e4cb21f0a3f:0x46e3ca36e5faf1d6?hl=en its a road by itself, not a through road to anywhere.

Miontuairiscí Chruinniú Míosúil a tionóladh ar 4 Feabhra 2013
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//YourCouncil/LocalAreaServices/NorthWestArea/Documents/04022013MonthlyMeeting.pdf

It was proposed by Councillor D Heney and seconded by Councillor R McGinley “That the Manager examines the “Bristol Experiment” in relation to temporary planned road closures during off peak periods (with the agreement of residents) in areas of high child population, for the purpose of allowing children to play on the area of closed road, with a view to introducing a pilot scheme in a few appropriate localities to test its value” The motion was put and carried.

first tried to pass it in 10 Meán Fómhair 2012
https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/YourCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Documents/Adjourned%20Meeting%2010%2009%202012.pdf

this is the Bristol Scheme
Bristol City Council: Playing Out:Temporary Play Street Order (TPS) http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/transport-and-streets/playing-outtemporary-play-street-order-tps which is organised by a Communtiy interest company http://playingout.net/ which is non-profit social enterprise company

the groutch · 31-07-2015 8:39am

just came here to post that, and I think it's one of the dumbest ideas ever.
roads are for driving/cycling, and should be kept that way.

Why 30 km/h speed limits are important in the context of Jake's Legacy vigil

Comments