Dan Boyle - Green Party Suggestion - Reduce Speed Limits

AugustusMaximus

After Spain I could see it coming.

Dan Boyle is after suggesting that we reduce all 120kph motorways to 100kph and potentially other 100kph to 80kph. :mad: It was on Today FM this morning.

This is all a big ****ing joke. Practically all the texts that came in where laughing at the suggestion and saying they would never vote for them again. The point was also made by another panelist that all the Green Party ever seems to do is to chastise the already tax-heavy burdened motorist with this being a further penalty for a group that provide less than 10% of the country's carbon emissions.

Here's is Dan's email address. dboyle@oireachtas.ie

I've let him know what I think. I basically pointed out to him that his idea is crazy and that the Green Party's time in power will be soon over if the party wants to keep chastising the honest worker of this country.

is_that_so

Can't comment on Boyle as I didn't hear it but in fairness to the Spanish their need was greater, however daft it seemed and there was an economic justification. It also covered a much wider range of targets.

Spain to cut speed limit in bid to reduce oil imports

Spain's energy minister intends to lower the speed limit on the country's motorways to 80 km/h in order to reduce fuel consumption.

Spain has launched an ambitious plan to reduce energy consumption and save millions of euros on oil imports by cutting the speed limit to 50mph and handing out millions of low-energy use light bulbs.

With the introduction of a broad swathe of measures between now and 2014, Spain's socialist government hopes to reduce Spain's oil imports by 10% per year, cutting consumption by 44m barrels and saving €4.14bn (£3.25bn).

During the country's sweltering summers, air conditioning systems in public buildings will be set no lower than 26C (79F). In winter, Spaniards will be allowed to turn the heating no higher than 21C (70F), with hospitals being the only exception.

Street lighting is to be reduced by up to 50% and the metro system in many cities will stay open later at weekends to encourage people to leave the cars at home. The government is also to introduce a pilot project for the manufacture of 1m electric or hybrid cars.
...

Full story.

AugustusMaximus

Here's an article from the Times Online about the proposal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4597538.ece

Mind, the Times say "temporary" yet Dan never said anything about it being temporary.

Ham'nd'egger

In all fairness to DB, Augustus, his approach is from a conservation aspect and his points are all proven energy saving ideas. Back in the 1970's speed limits were lowered from 60MPH to 55MPH when there was savage fuel shortages and while a small drop in speeds to a motorist, it does make a significant cut in fuel consumption.

AugustusMaximus

Hamndegger wrote: »

In all fairness to DB, Augustus, his approach is from a conservation aspect and his points are all proven energy saving ideas. Back in the 1970's speed limits were lowered from 60MPH to 55MPH when there was savage fuel shortages and while a small drop in speeds to a motorist, it does make a significant cut in fuel consumption.

A reduction in speed limits, especially on national routes is a guarunteed way of increasing road deaths.

The levels of bad overtaking and road rage will increase as frustrated motorists don't make good decisions.

You seriously think its a good idea ?

We have spent Billions in improving our road network in order to reduce travel times. We now want to increase them again ?

AlekSmart

Quote : "Street lighting is to be reduced by up to 50% and the metro system in many cities will stay open later at weekends to encourage people to leave the cars at home."

Forget about Mister Boyle and Green Party posturing,the reality of just how different our national thinking is contained in the above quote..

Dublin City Council already employs the first point along College Green-Nassau St which has been enveloped in darkness for as long as I can remember.
Plenty of lamp units but only a few working which results in a very dangerous situation for wandering pedestrians.

The City Council`s professional branch are all far to busy in their attempts to justify their involvement in a deeply suspicious "arrangement" with JC Deacaux to bother with frivolities such as public lighting and a safe environment.

The second and REALLY important difference between Us (Paddy) and Them (Foreigners) is in how they view their Public Transport and its opportunities to allieviate the oil use conundrum.

It needs to recognized that CURRENT Department of Transport policy is focused VERY keenly on securing REDUCTIONS in Bus Service levels through restrictive measures such as the laying up of existing vehicles and the non-sanctioning of potential future expansion plans for Dublin Bus-Bus Eireann.

There is absolutely NO chance of this present Administration seeing any sense in INCREASING public transport levels because they are managed by people who hold a very strong view that private car ownewrship and use is the true barometer of Irelands success... :eek:

markf909

Dan, the clueless git, said that the taxsaver ticket scheme needed to be extended to be multi model so that people could uses both buses and trains.

Ignoring the fact that those tickets already exist.

This is the level of cluelessness we are up against

Calina

I am not in favour of over all blanket changes to speed limits again until someone does some joined up thinking about transport in this country. It is sadly lacking.

Our interurban routes, when they are all built properly - if ever - should have a 130kph speed limit which should be rigorously enforced. The current haphazard nonsense is crazy. Some sections of he N7 which I drove yesterday feel like they are constantly bombed the surface is so messy but it doesn't stop people flying past me far beyond the speed limit.

I see suggestions of this nature as bandwagon hopping. The French chopped their road fatality rate not by introducing lower speed limits like this but by enforcing the laws they already had. I want to know why it cannot be done in this country.

With respect to conservation issues, I think this is a low hanging fruit issue. We don't have viable public transport in this country and no one has the balls to face up to why and how we might fix it. It's easier to trash on the drivers again. I drive because public transport here is laughable. I survived in rural parts of France on public transport and maybe I was lucky but I live 10km from the GPO and can't rely on public transport. And allegedly where I live is well served. One hour into town for 10km is crazy. A non-integrated and haphazard system is what we have. I would like to know why DB isn't railing against that.

I'd have more time for the GP if they were pro-active on that front rather than reactive on other fronts such as like this, or like carbon taxes or like possibly banning freezers.

da7a

This is a bloody joke. The greens seem determined to make every motorists life a misery, from higher taxes to reduced speed limits.

Its no surprise really I suppose, since most of them are blatent car haters and would have us all back to donkeys and carts in the morning if they thought they could get away with it.

Instead of focusing thier energies on tormenting motorists out of existense they should instead look at the construction industry where massive c02 reductions could be made practically overnight. The production of portland cement is the second largest c02 emitter in Ireland after fossil fuel burning power stations. If portland cement was banned and replaced by GBBS cement, there would be a reduction in the millions of tonnes of c02 per annum.

The c02 emitted by the majority of cars is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of c02 generated by the construction industry.

Going after the motorists is a softer target for the greens since we have no strong lobby group. I imagine the CIF would be kicking down the door of Leinster house if the Greens tried to impose any major changes on them.

Hopefully now people are starting to realise what a crowd of wackos the Greens are and we will only have to suffer them for another few years. The problem is, what Minister in the next Government would be willing to overturn any policies which are generating revenue for the government. Probably none.

With any luck Noel Dempsey will tell them where to go.

SeanW

So, you'll be punished for driving with lower speed limits, but also punished if you decide to leave your car at the train station with clamper enforced parking charges. If you walk, where possible, you'll also be punished (in Dublin City at least) by an advertising company being allowed to place massive ad signs in such as way as to prevent motorists from seeing you (and applicable traffic lights). Nice little setup they've got. With any luck we'll give these w***ers the boot in 2012.

1huge1

Odd considering how the speed limits on many dual carriageways are being increased to 120km/hr on the 22nd of September I think, hope that is still happening.

I'm all for making more people use public transport but the fact is that public transport in Ireland is very poor and they should not be trying so hard to stop motorists until they have a good public transport system in place.

Rowley Birkin QC

I was reading that the M50 is going to 100km speed limit once the upgrade is finished, unbelievable.

jd

bigkev49 wrote: »

I was reading that the M50 is going to 100km speed limit once the upgrade is finished, unbelievable.

Lanes are narrower, not up to standard for a HQDC (you are going from 2 lanes to 3+an auxilary). Between Shankill and Sandyford will stay at 120.

Proposals by the greens are annoying. A 250 km drive on an N road will take over 3 hours as against 2 1/2 hours

BrianD

jd wrote: »

Proposals by the greens are annoying. A 250 km drive on an N road will take over 3 hours as against 2 1/2 hours

Not too many journeys in Ireland that you would be able to do a straight line point to point journey of 250km.

The greens have a point and this is a tactic that another poster states has been used in the past. The liklihood is that in 10 years time you won't be able to afford to do dive on the roads anyway.

Rowley Birkin QC

The frustration at having to travel at that speed on roads capable of a much higher limit would be terrible though.

cobweb

bigkev49 wrote: »

I was reading that the M50 is going to 100km speed limit once the upgrade is finished, unbelievable.

that'll be an increase then from the standstill to 15 miles hour it is at the moment
was on it other day nightmare whats the point of barrier free toll when traffic at standstill

BrianD

The 100km limit on the M50 or sections of is appropriate. While some people like to call it a national route it is a lot different to inter-urban motorways. It is carrying commuter traffic with multiple and closely spaced exits. It makes a lot of sense to have the 100k limit.

At 120km you'd only do the journey from end-to-end 5min quicker than if it was 100km.

Perhaps they should have variable speed limits that would be displayed on VMS signs. The speed limit could then be varied according to road conditions and time of day.

L1011

We already cut masses of speed limits 3 and a half years ago. It is NOT time for another go...

darkman2

The Green Party makes some more suggestions as daft, antagonising and infuriating as this and they will soon be out the door. Good riddance. It would actually be funny if it did not sound so moronic. Drivers are more then capable of deciding for themselves which speed they deem to be fuel efficient if they care.

Dan Boyle - unelected....Nuff said.

L1011

More specifically, he lost his seat. Worse than unelected, and he wasn't even the next best, he was 2 places adrift in a 5 seater!

AugustusMaximus

MYOB wrote: »

We already cut masses of speed limits 3 and a half years ago. It is NOT time for another go...

I seriously think that the honest Irish motorist needs to almost unionise and make its voice be known.

The Green Party's ultimate intention would be to get everyone out of their cars. At this stage I think it has little to even do with emissions at all. Its like a crusade against the private motorist.

I'm actually tempted to call into Dan Boyles office and give me a word or two.

is_that_so

darkman2 wrote: »

The Green Party makes some more suggestions as daft, antagonising and infuriating as this and they will soon be out the door. Good riddance. It would actually be funny if it did not sound so moronic. Drivers are more then capable of deciding for themselves which speed they deem to be fuel efficient if they care.

Dan Boyle - unelected....Nuff said.

Eh he's a senator, who was nominated under the Taoiseach's Seanad quota and is currently Deputy leader of the Seanad. So he does get to say things whether we like it or not. He was also the one who handled their negotiations for government.

I agree with Calina on this, it's the lack of any real planning coupled with their obsessions on emissions that makes this so dubious.

E92

MYOB wrote: »

We already cut masses of speed limits 3 and a half years ago. It is NOT time for another go...

That's so true. We cut the speed limit over 90,000 km of the 96,000 km road network that exists in this country in 2005 by 10 mph.

We brought down the 40 mph speed limit to just 37, which lets be honest is hardly any faster than 30 mph.

We introduced a speed limit of just 18.5 mph for the very first time(most people could cycle as fast as that), around 35% slower than the old lowest speed limit of a not at all fast 30 mph.

The M50 is going down from 75 to 62 mph when it'll be done around the whole thing. When new roads are opened the old ones that the new roads replace get their speed limit reduced by 20% automatically even though there are far fewer cars on the road.

We are easily the most "progressive":rolleyes: country on this whole thing if you like.

Fore urban areas we increased the speed limit by 1 mph, which as near as makes no difference, and similarly on some roads we increased it by just 2 mph, which again is as near as makes no difference.

It's only right therefore now that we have the chance to go and increase the speed limit by re-classifying 180 odd miles of dual carriageway to motorway and increase the speed limit by 13 mph, and not all of those re-classified roads will even have the increased speed limit either.

I'm glad to see that there is such resistance amongst the masses to such a proposal, I'm not surprised to see that in motors, but I am so to see that the ordinary person on the street is as annoyed about it as I am.

E92

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I seriously think that the honest Irish motorist needs to almost unionise and make its voice be known.

The Green Party's ultimate intention would be to get everyone out of their cars. At this stage I think it has little to even do with emissions at all. Its like a crusade against the private motorist.

I'm actually tempted to call into Dan Boyles office and give me a word or two.

You mean it's taken you that long to figure that one out?

Because if they were really concerned they'd acknowledge how much the car industry has improved in every conceivable measure in terms of safety and the environment, yet none of them seem to acknowledge this and seem to be making it out as though cars are even worse than ever before for the environment.

monument

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Practically all the texts that came in where laughing at the suggestion and saying they would never vote for them again.

It sounds like the texters were (a) not too green in the first place and did not know what they were voting for OR (b) were talking ****e when they implied they voted for for the party before.

Victor

markf909 wrote: »

Dan, the clueless git, said that the taxsaver ticket scheme needed to be extended to be multi model so that people could uses both buses and trains.

While you can get IÉ+DB, you can't get IÉ+DB+BÉ+Luas.

cyclopath2001

E92 wrote: »

the car industry has improved in every conceivable measure in terms of safety and the environment,

Even if that were true, the nut behind the wheel remains the same.

E92 wrote: »

Sweden, possibly the world's safest country to travel in has decided to raise their Motorway speed limit by 10 km/h

Sweden has an interesting and effective range of penalties.

It's clear from reading this thread that there's a lot of anger and denial out there. A way of living that people thought would last forever, is coming to an end. Change is always difficult, and I think it could take a generation or so for outmoded attitudes to die out.

The party's over. Grow up. Move on.

_Kaiser_

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Even if that were true, the nut behind the wheel remains the same.

It also has an interesting and effective range of penalties.

It's clear from reading this thread that there's a lot of anger and denial out there. A way of living that people thought would last forever, is coming to an end. Change is always difficult, and I think it could take a generation or so for outmoded attitudes to die out.

The party's over. Move on.

Ah it just wouldn't be the same without a "cars are bad and the people who drive them are evil" post like the above! :rolleyes:

As I said over in the Motors thread on this, it's yet another unenforceable (after all, they can't enforce the limits we have now) bit of nanny-state muppetry from the Greens but it won't go anywhere.

It's just so the politicians can be SEEN to be doing something rather than ACTUALLY doing something - and it gets Dan in the papers/media.. must be another local elecction coming up? - which is after all, about all our politicians are good at anyway!

Lennoxschips

It's been proven again and again that driving slower can reduce emissions by 1/3. Boyle is correct. It wouldn't be a popular measure amongst drivers, because drivers don't give a **** about emissions.

Respect to Dan Boyle for saying something which he knew wouldn't be popular. He's done his research and come to a conclusion which people mightn't like the sound of. So don't slag him for it.

da7a

There is no way of life coming to an end here. That is an idiotic statement to be honest, typical of a green car hater.

The use of private motor vehicles is in no way going to decline. The oil will dry up but alternative fuel technology will soon replace petrol and diesel. Biofuels and electric cars in the near future, but most importantly hydrogen fuel cell cars will eventually replace our lovely sounding dohc twin turbo petrol engines. I am not against this, in fact I'd jump at the chance to own a tesla roadster if the cost wasn't so insane at the moment.

I also have no problem with the government doing its best to achieve the kyoto targets but this measure is daft and unhelpful. The reduction in c02 emissions will be a drop in the ocean compared to what we actually need to achieve and it will inrage the majority of the travelling public who have no other choice but to drive due to our woefully inadequate public transport system.

The real way to achieve the targets is to tackle the massive c02 emissions from industry, in particular, power generation and construction. The government should be ploughing ahead with as many windfarms as possible both on and offshore and should provide fast track planning and massive tax incentives to achieve this. This however would cost some money so instead, morons like Dan Boyle come up with this free of charge way to be seen to be reducing emissions. It is unhelpful and simply the easy way out for the moronic greens.

Making Solar panels available to all households should be a priority for the government. They would provide almost all the hot water required and would massively reduce each homes draw on the national grid and thus reducing c02 emissions at the powerplants. They should be provided either free of charge or through a tax rebate scheme as the money it would cost would easily be offset by the savings made through reducing our dependence on imported energy.

At the end of the day the blame lies with the previous government for not planning ahead in time to achieve the targets but these half brained ideas the greens are coming up with are not the solution. All they will do is punish the ordinary person with no real benefit to envoirnment or the country as a whole.

Steviemak

Emmissions can be reduced by

1). Better and more efficient roads - the less stop start a journey is the less emmissions. Therefore, we should be investing more in roads.
2). Investing in public transport such as the Metro.
3). Investing in more fuel efficient cars or alternative fuelled cars. Cars are here to stay.
4). Alternative energy etc

Dan Boyle is looking for the cheap way out here at the expense of the public and avoiding making real investment.

In the states in the 70's they reduced speed limits from 65 to 55 to address the oil crisis at the time. All that happened was that the big car companies as a result didn't invest in fuel efficiency. i.e. short term gain. The speed limits were duly increased back to 65 and no change to cars were made. Meanwhile in Germany no speed restrictions were in place at all but the big car companies invested in diesel efficiencies and they are now at the cutting edge of the most fuel-efficient cars currently on sale.

Polar101

Interesting - it is difficult to see much support for this idea, especially since he chose not to play the Road Safety card at all. I'd argue that there are quite a few roads in the country where you couldn't drive at the speed limit, even if you were a very skilled driver, and there was no other traffic on the road.

djpbarry

da7a wrote: »

There is no way of life coming to an end here. That is an idiotic statement to be honest, typical of a green car hater.

The use of private motor vehicles is in no way going to decline. The oil will dry up but alternative fuel technology will soon replace petrol and diesel. Biofuels and electric cars in the near future, but most importantly hydrogen fuel cell cars will eventually replace our lovely sounding dohc twin turbo petrol engines.

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

da7a

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

The stone age didnt end beacuse we ran out of stones.

New technology is coming down the road to relieve our dependency on oil.

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's clear from reading this thread that there's a lot of anger and denial out there. A way of living that people thought would last forever, is coming to an end. Change is always difficult, and I think it could take a generation or so for outmoded attitudes to die out.

The party's over. Grow up. Move on.

That's the advice I was about to give you.
First of all, the private car isn't going anywhere, worldwide car use is growing and it will continue to do so by all realistic (i.e. adult) analyses.

I also notice from another thread that as well as hating car owners, you also have a quarrel with motorcyclists, which I find strange since they're much smaller, more fuel efficient than cars and can park in a much smaller space.

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

General Motors has already built a prototype car that runs on seawater.

Not only is the private car here to stay - worldwide - but in Ireland public transport is so sketchy, poor quality and expensive that in many cases it makes more sense financially, convenience and comfort wise to give it a wide berth.

I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of posts on the "Pay And Display parking on the way" thread on the forums of Rail Users Ireland.
http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=34956&postcount=50

And just in case anyone thought they can get the bus to the train station to avoid CIEs new "let's fleece our commuters a little more for parking" charge. Forget it, connecting buses to railway stop in most cases don't exist.

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=35864&postcount=88

Getting motorists to leave their cars at home is a 'carrot and stick' process. But what we've had in the past few years has been mostly stick. And Dan Boyle just wants to use yet more stick to penalise motorists yet further by yet another pointless round of speed limit lowering that will do less than nothing for road safety, but would no doubt make a nice little earner for the Guards speed traps. The Green's are nothing but a bunch of reactonaries grabbing the low hanging fruit.

And for the record, I gave the Green candidate in my constituency a 2nd preference vote in the last election despite grave reservations about doing so. I will not be making that mistake again.

serfboard

da7a wrote: »

I also have no problem with the government doing its best to achieve the kyoto targets but this measure is daft and unhelpful. The reduction in c02 emissions will be a drop in the ocean compared to what we actually need to achieve and it will inrage the majority of the travelling public who have no other choice but to drive due to our woefully inadequate public transport system.

The real way to achieve the targets is to tackle the massive c02 emissions from industry, in particular, power generation and construction. The government should be ploughing ahead with as many windfarms as possible both on and offshore and should provide fast track planning and massive tax incentives to achieve this. This however would cost some money so instead, morons like Dan Boyle come up with this free of charge way to be seen to be reducing emissions. It is unhelpful and simply the easy way out for the moronic greens.

Making Solar panels available to all households should be a priority for the government. They would provide almost all the hot water required and would massively reduce each homes draw on the national grid and thus reducing c02 emissions at the powerplants. They should be provided either free of charge or through a tax rebate scheme as the money it would cost would easily be offset by the savings made through reducing our dependence on imported energy.

At the end of the day the blame lies with the previous government for not planning ahead in time to achieve the targets but these half brained ideas the greens are coming up with are not the solution. All they will do is punish the ordinary person with no real benefit to environment or the country as a whole.

+1. As I've said before, solar panels and windmill(een)s on every house in Ireland and you would reduce demand.

As regards construction, remember that the CIF (current chairman Tom Parlon - enough said) fought tooth and nail to resist building energy regulation. And since their buddies in Fianna Fail have been in power for the past 20 years (roughly) this was delayed and delayed. Make every new house a passive house - or as close as possible.

I have to say I agree with all the other posters here who say that this is a cheap way of reducing emissions. However, because of the lobbying by Fianna Fails construction industry buddies leading to bad/overruled planning, too many people live too far from work, with inadequate public transport, thus driving car dependency.

The increasing price of fuel has changed people's behaviour more than anything else - witness the fact that General Motors are closing 4 SUV/truck plants in the US in favour of making more small/fuel-efficient cars. The doubling in a year of the price of a gallon of petrol has also killed off the "Summer Driving Season" in the US this year, reducing demand and resulting in the recent fall in oil prices.

djpbarry

da7a wrote: »

Making Solar panels available to all households should be a priority for the government. They would provide almost all the hot water required and would massively reduce each homes draw on the national grid and thus reducing c02 emissions at the powerplants. They should be provided either free of charge or through a tax rebate scheme as the money it would cost would easily be offset by the savings made through reducing our dependence on imported energy.

Grants are available to homeowners wishing to install solar panels:
http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=758&docID=-1

da7a wrote: »

The stone age didnt end beacuse we ran out of stones.

Maybe not, but around about 1500, Europe was faced with a fuel and nutritional disaster because the continent had been almost completely deforested.

da7a wrote: »

New technology is coming down the road to relieve our dependency on oil.

Is it? What technology is this? When will it get here? Will it be as economical as oil? Will people be willing to make the switch from oil? How exactly will the roll-out of this technology be implemented?

It’s all very well saying that our way of life will be saved by new technology (I am well aware that alternatives exist), but that is essentially absolving people of responsibility for their own actions.

SeanW wrote: »

General Motors has already built a prototype car that runs on seawater.

And how much does this vehicle cost?

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

I also notice from another thread that as well as hating car owners, you also have a quarrel with motorcyclists, which I find strange since they're much smaller, more fuel efficient than cars and can park in a much smaller space.

I think you must have been in an very angry frame of mind when you wrote this. If you had read the thread on motorcyclists properly and calmly, you'd know that my only quarrel was with with motorcyclists who break road safety laws. As for my 'hating' car owners, you are so wrong, I don't know where to begin to rebut this stupid remark.

And Dan Boyle just wants to use yet more stick to penalise motorists yet further by yet another pointless round of speed limit lowering that will do less than nothing for road safety, but would no doubt make a nice little earner for the Guards speed traps. The Green's are nothing but a bunch of reactonaries grabbing the low hanging fruit.

This would be the denial phase.

It's quite simple: lowering the higher speeds will improve fuel efficiency and lower speeds will result in a decrease the severity of trauma in accidents. They might also improve reaction times in unexpected circumstances.

Arguments such as I've seen in thread, that drivers would behave dangerously out of a sense of frustration are absurd and if even true, point to the need for phychological assessment of those drivers who frequently break the law.

_Kaiser_

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think you must have been in an very angry frame of mind when you wrote this. If you had read the thread on motorcyclists properly and calmly, you'd know that my only quarrel was with with motorcyclists who break road safety laws. As for my 'hating' car owners, you are so wrong, I don't know where to begin to rebut this stupid remark.

This would be the denial phase.

It's quite simple: lowering the higher speeds will improve fuel efficiency and lower speeds will result in a decrease the severity of trauma in accidents. They might also improve reaction times in unexpected circumstances.

Arguments such as I've seen in thread, that drivers would behave dangerously out of a sense of frustration are absurd and if even true, point to the need for phychological assessment of those drivers who frequently break the law.

Leaving aside the amateur psychology... :rolleyes: I think it's been well established on this forum and over on Motors that you do indeed seem to have a problem with car owners, motorcyclists, or in fact anyone who disagrees with you.

But anyway, just like Mary White's idea of a two-tier licensing system to favour "isolated rural dwellers", or "free shuttle buses for those country people who just want a drink", this'll be forgotten about in the next few days and the rest of us will remind ourselves why the Greens shouldn't be let near the controls.

Calina

Arguments implying increased frustration are misplaced. However, regardless, this idea is starting to strongly give me the impression that the environmental movement, such as it exists in Ireland today, enjoys tunnel vision that fails to recognise how it stamples on individual rights. There are many more effective targets in terms of emissions. When the GP faces up to them I might have some respect for their policies. Until then, I will classify them with An Taisce as a bunch of principled but frequently misguided interfering goodbodies with an inability to deal with reality.

We need a balance between emissions, lifestyle, human and individual rights. The GP does not provide it. We need viable public transport. The GP shies away from providing it. They seem to aspire to it but it's much easier to avoid doing it.

I'd also add that it's denial to fail to recognise that necessity is the mother of invention. Whether you like it or not an alternative energy source will be developed. It's just a question of when.

There is no point in crying about how people don't have alternative fuelled cars because they are too expensive now proving how it's not going to work. There was a time a computer cost the same price as a small house.

You can buy a laptop in Harvey Normans for under 300 euro now.

BluntGuy

The main issue here is that it's unreasonable to even consider the lowering speed limits now, as we have such inaqeduate public transport. Perhaps in ten years time when public transport has improved the issue should be considered. For now, the speed limits are fine.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old “I don’t have to change my lifestyle – technology will fix everything.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7562819.stm

^^^ check out the Irish entry ^^^^


It will, there is enough people on this thread who demand to have a car, the motivation is there for innovation and this isnt some selfish motive. A private car is FREEDOM!!

where is Braveheart!!

You`ll Never take our Freedoooooooooooooooooooooooooom!!!

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think you must have been in an very angry frame of mind when you wrote this.

Arguments such as I've seen in thread, that drivers would behave dangerously out of a sense of frustration are absurd

Its a threat to freedom, may sounds over the top but its true. Any increase in car tax or car exclusion zone or speed limit decrease affects

Calina wrote: »

individual rights.

people need their cars. Individual houses and estates are dotted around the nation. Whether you like it or not people will always need transport to town centers. A public transport system that could replace the car ? Not going to happen.

And houses are built to last a long time so forget about this changing anytime soon.

This IS about freedom, we could all live in tower blocks with shared heating around city centers to concentrate spending in the one area with minimum impact on the environment....

I dont want some green fantasy enforced on me. Not when we can use innovation to make current living and standards sustainable.

HonalD

BluntGuy wrote: »

The main issue here is that it's unreasonable to even consider the lowering speed limits now, as we have such inaqeduate public transport. Perhaps in ten years time when public transport has improved the issue should be considered. For now, the speed limits are fine.

Stunned! What is the problem here? "Reducing speed limits will increase accidents?!?" What planet of information is this from? Why is reducing the speed limit an "anti-motorist" policy? Ok so adequate enforcement is a problem but - What is the alternative?

HonalD

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a threat to freedom, may sounds over the top but its true. Any increase in car tax or car exclusion zone or speed limit decrease affects



people need their cars. Individual houses and estates are dotted around the nation. Whether you like it or not people will always need transport to town centers. A public transport system that could replace the car ? Not going to happen.

And houses are built to last a long time so forget about this changing anytime soon.

This IS about freedom, we could all live in tower blocks with shared heating around city centers to concentrate spending in the one area with minimum impact on the environment....

I dont want some green fantasy enforced on me. Not when we can use innovation to make current living and standards sustainable.

No, I'm still not with you - freedom has what exactly to do with driving below the posted speed limit? If there is a problem reducing speed limits are you saying that they should be increased or should we have the "freedom" to drive as fast as we like.....................................

Tipsy Mac

Why don't we all just return to the caves from where we all began, I've had enough of this green mentality sweeping the country with people actually believing that lifestyles in Ireland could control the weather of the world :rolleyes:

I think the Greens are in danger of going the way of the PD's in that they are shooting themselves in the foot and limiting their appeal to the general population.

HonalD

HonalD wrote: »

What is the alternative?

LOADS of alternatives. Do you want me to list them out?
Where is their imagination? is a reduction of speed limits the best they can do?
Their lack of innovation and real leadership disgusts me

BluntGuy

HonalD wrote: »

Stunned! What is the problem here? "Reducing speed limits will increase accidents?!?" What planet of information is this from? Why is reducing the speed limit an "anti-motorist" policy? Ok so adequate enforcement is a problem but - What is the alternative?

The point I'm making, is that reducing speed limits slows down journeys, therefore you take longer to get to your place of work. That's obvious. But's it's not the main problem.

The problem is that without adequate public transport, people are not going to be willing to SLOW DOWN on their already long journeys. There is currently no viable alternative to driving for many, so asking them to slow down is nothing more than an insult. Besides, motorways are designed for 120 kmp/h and more, therefore they should be utilised as such. Not doing so is a wasted investment.

BluntGuy

Their lack of innovation and real leadership disgusts me

Same here.

But that is typical when it comes to this government. Innovation and creative new thinking rarely seem to be on the agenda. Everything is always the quickest, cheapest, most short-term option available.

Cutting speed limits is a lame, lazy copout alternative to REAL ideas. Biofuels, electric cars, hydrogen-fuel. All of these are viable alternatives that should be researched and properly considered. Instead, however, we're stuck with a group of politicians that don't seem to have any real desire to adopt proper long-term changes when it comes to issues like this.

Someone needs to do a President Kennedy on it
In ten years we will land on the moon

with
In ten years we will be energy independent

Get the lead out these things CAN be done. Where is the "can do" attitude? They(all politicians) promised us everything at election time

Koyasan

Was listening to this story on Newstalk while driving home. I think Deirdre DeBurca was on second, and it could have been Dan Boyle himself on before.

The controversy struck me as odd considering that we were traveling at, at most, 15km/h.

But I also noted a lot of disingenuousness from irate motorists texting in.

This is what the Green Party does, what they are famous for, and why so many people respect them: They throw out crazy ideas in the hope of sparking debate, often amongst themselves. We all know this o we should stop acting surprise. Just look at the other idea they had to replace the Year part of a car's reg with it's CO2 rating to give people a different reson to keep up with the Joneses. They are the only party in Ireland I know of that respects the right of their members to disagree with each other and official party policy in public.

This is just the latest example of a a foreign idea that has been accepted elsewhere, that is repulsive to many people here, and that may become quite neccessary in the not to distant future for the same reasons it became neccessary before in the UK, USA and Spain: fuel shortages.

In couple of years time when we might start to feel another fuel shortage, this will be about as controversial as not using a plastic bag.

I'm glad they started the debate now, and not then.