Have the Dublin 30KPH Zone removed! E-mail this councillor

?Cee?view

zynaps wrote: »

How sure are you though that the Gardaí are going to be tolerant of going 5kph above the limit? Someone told me a while back that there's a 10% leeway on speed limits, such that they won't stop you for doing 55kph or 66kph or, presumably, 132kph at various limits. I'd certainly find it hard to keep my car between 27-33kph without checking the speedo, but then I'm not a very experienced or skilled driver.

Speed Cameras won't give a 10% tolerance. When these are rolled out they quays will be a great earner.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Yes, but this isn't a competition to win an argument. It's a discussion on a 30kph limit.

Furthermore, logical fallacy requires an element of misconception. One can't but see empty stores in Grafton Street, and it's difficult to see how this fact can be misconceived.

Call it an argument, a discussion or whatever you will, but if you can't prove your points how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

You observing empty stores is simply anecdotal evidence, which is not statistically reliable.

zynaps

tomasrojo wrote: »

Mayer Hillman looked into the British record of child injuries and fatalities on the road in the early 90s. At the time, the British government were very proud of the falling statistics. Hillman found that the reason for the lower numbers of injuries and fatalities were because parents no longer let their children play on the road, because it was perceived as so dangerous.

Indeed, but this is probably in residential areas where the streets are narrow and crowded with parked cars. I used to dread the last minute or so of driving home (and reversing out of my driveway before I started to park the other way around) due to kids running all over the place without looking, often in the fading light, and too often behind my car as I reverse toward the driveway.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I did use to travel through town on my own as a ten year old. I think very few ten year olds do that now.

However, I think that the centre of town is perceived as being more dangerous than it is; fair enough.

Agreed - I often took the bus from East Wall to Liberty Hall then walked to Malborough Street on school mornings, aged 6 or so, with my little sister in tow. Very hard to imagine that happening now!

monument

seamus wrote: »

What's your point? This doesn't actually add much safety for cyclists at all because they're unlikely to be struck from behind by moving vehicles.

In fact, it doesn't really make a pedestrian much less likely to be hit by a car either.

The point is that a 30km/h collision is far less likely to kill a pedestrian than a 50km/h one.

It does reduce the chances of an accident happening in the first place. In a number of ways -- stopping speed being shortened for cars is likely key. You also have things like motorists are less likely to have a need to overtake cyclists and even if they do side swipes should be less likely to happen at lower speeds.

"And increase in average speed is directly related to both the likelihood of a crash occurring and to the severity of the crash consequences." -- SOURCE: GLOBAL STATUS REPORT ON ROAD SAFETY, TIME FOR ACTION, World Health Origination.

projectmayhem

churchview wrote: »

Sorry, but that's rubbish. There's probably one shop in Dundrum that you could do a weekly shop in.

Accessibility is the major draw for out of town centres, while the City Centre is actively being made more inaccessible.

Did you click the link or read anything I said? My main point here is the fallfall is the exact same on Grafton Street. People are spending less because they have less to spend. It's nothing to do with cars or speed limits.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

Call it an argument, a discussion or whatever you will, but if you can't prove your points how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

You observing empty stores is simply anecdotal evidence, which is not statistically reliable.

Yea, whatever.

Empty shops in Grafton Street - not statistically reliable. Fine.

seamus

monument wrote: »

It does reduce the chances of an accident happening in the first place. In a number of ways -- stopping speed being shortened for cars is likely key. You also have things like motorists are less likely to have a need to overtake cyclists and even if they do side swipes should be less likely to happen at lower speeds.

Actually I retract what I said.
I was thinking that since most collisions occur where the car cuts across the cyclist, then speed has no effect on it, but that's not true. If the car is moving slower, then he'll be unable to overtake and cut you off, and he will also be less likely to take a gamble and cut across oncoming traffic to make a right turn because his speed is slower.

Pedestrians the same occur where the driver or the pedestrian has underestimated the speed of the vehicle. If the vehicle is moving slower, this provides more room for error, and therefore less collisions.

blorg

churchview wrote: »

Empty shops in Grafton Street - not statistically reliable. Fine.

Empty shop units blight retail parks

?Cee?view

projectmayhem wrote: »

Did you click the link or read anything I said? My main point here is the fallfall is the exact same on Grafton Street. People are spending less because they have less to spend. It's nothing to do with cars or speed limits.

Sorry if I've upset you.

You're quoting the exact same Irish Times article citing CBRE as el tonto, so frankly I lost track of whether I was responding to you or him.

Dundrum's figures are much healthier...and no el tonto, I'm not going off to google that so you can just take it or leave it

zynaps

monument wrote: »

You also have things like motorists are less likely to have a need to overtake cyclists and even if they do side swipes should be less likely to happen at lower speeds.

I'm not so sure about that last part - when motorists do overtake cyclists (albeit perhaps less often), they will complete the manoeuvre at a lower speed, which means it will take slightly longer to get clear of the cyclist. So there might be a danger of drivers cutting back in too close to the bike or even clipping it.
OTOH, the lower speed will give them a chance to manoeuvre more carefully and with better observation, so perhaps it's not a problem.

projectmayhem

churchview wrote: »

Sorry if I've upset you.

You're quoting the exact same Irish Times article citing CBRE as el tonto, so frankly I lost track of whether I was responding to you or him.

Dundrum's figures are much healthier...and no el tonto, I'm not going off to google that so you can just take it or leave it

Dundrum's figures may be healthier in retail. I can't find specific figures via google (this thread is the top result ironically) but it appears the footfall and money spent in Dundrum is lower then Grafton st. (not by much) but the rent is much, much lower. Leading to healthier business.

But that's not the point here. The point here is that Grafton st. has been the same, thus not affected by speed limit changes or anything. It's only weaker compared to the shopping centers because of their rent for retailers and a weakened economy. Keep in mind most stores on Grafton st. are "boutique" and there to be seen.

Chips Lovell

Given that Dublin is not the first city to introduce a 30kph speed limit, has there been any studies done on other cities that prove such a measure leads to a reduction in the number of shoppers visiting the city centre?

malcolmtucker

Yup 30Kph zones in the Uk have lead to lower throughput of traffic but higher foot falls .... I would imagine that it is more likely pedestrians will stop and shop than drivers who are most likely using the route as a way through the city.

Graz which introduced this scheme a number of years ago found the presence of an attractive central area that is easy to get around by foot has helped to retain the economic viability of the case study areas, despite competition from out of town developments (as in Graz) and surrounding centres (as in Stuttgart).

These schemes also seem to cause a small volume of traffic to divert to other roads. This reduced use of the city centre as a crossing point may reduce the awful congestion on a Thursday evening and make late night shopping a more attractive option.

Also footfall on Grafton street increased after busgate....

JimsAlterEgo

malcolmtucker wrote: »

Yup 30Kph zones in the Uk have lead to lower throughput of traffic but higher foot falls .... I would imagine that it is more likely pedestrians will stop and shop than drivers who are most likely using the route as a way through the city.

uk is mph, big difference with 30kph vs 30 mph

blorg

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

uk is mph, big difference with 30kph vs 30 mph

The UK zones are 20mph, e.g. 32kph.

Chips Lovell

malcolmtucker wrote: »

Yup 30Kph zones in the Uk have lead to lower throughput of traffic but higher foot falls ....

Graz which introduced this scheme a number of years ago found ....

Also footfall on Grafton street increased after busgate....

Any links?

malcolmtucker

The UK equivalent are 20MPh zones which is roughly equivalent (30KPh is about 19MPh i think)

Locamon

malcolmtucker wrote: »

Graz which introduced this scheme a number of years ago found the presence of an attractive central area that is easy to get around by foot has helped to retain the economic viability of the case study areas, despite competition from out of town developments (as in Graz) and surrounding centres (as in Stuttgart).

difference is Graz has a transport system Dublin clearly does not. There is a better argument for introducing this in town centres than in a city centre where transport is key.

ectoraige

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

uk is mph, big difference with 30kph vs 30 mph

That's why they operate 20mph zones.

neutron

Speed limit restrictions must be set in a way that makes sense for the road conditions. To have Gardai act as revenue collecters at the behest of DCC Labour councillors (with some honourable exceptions) penalising motorists for straying a few kph above in an unwarrented 30kph zone is a disgrace. It is bringing the Gardai and DCC into disrepute.

The Gardai at the behest of DCC Labour/FG councillors (with some honourable exceptions) now dish out penalty points instead of protecting Dubliner's in a high crime area. They would be better employed in clamping down on the open drug dealing that may be witnessed along the Quays and opposite DCC's office at Christchurch/High ST.

Article here highlighting how badly designed and misguided the 30kph zone is for road users

email, telephone your councillors now to have the 30kph zone removed


http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/ive-tested-their-claim-3-times-that-by-driving-at-30kph-you-wont-hit-a-red-light--its-nonsense-2045740.html


By Aoife Anderson
Wednesday February 03 2010

THE ridiculous claim that if you drive under 30kph an hour through Dublin city centre you won't hit a red light is utter nonsense. And I've proved it...three times.
Sticking to the new speed limit driving up the Quays proved much harder than I expected . In fact it left me utterly perplexed.
It was gridlock but I still found it incredibly difficult not to break the law.
Foremost in mind was City Councillor Andrew Montague (Lab) whose madcap idea the speed limit is.
Andy boy, I certainly won't be voting for you - unless you reverse your crazy plan.
First of all, you said if I kept to 30km I wouldn't hit a single red light. WRONG!

monument

neutron wrote: »

Speed limit restrictions must be set in a way that makes sense for the road conditions. To have Gardai act as revenue collecters at the behest of DCC Labour councillors (with some honourable exceptions) penalising motorists for straying a few kph above in an unwarrented 30kph zone is a disgrace. It is bringing the Gardai and DCC into disrepute.

The Gardai at the behest of DCC Labour/FG councillors (with some honourable exceptions) now dish out penalty points instead of protecting Dubliner's in a high crime area. They would be better employed in clamping down on the open drug dealing that may be witnessed along the Quays and opposite DCC's office at Christchurch/High ST.

One is the work of the Garda Traffic Corps and the other is duty of the drug squad. If you see "open" or other drug dealing it's best to report it to the nearest Garda station, posting about it on boards will do little.

Also speeding fines go into central government funding, not to local government. Unless you have different info?

Article here highlighting how badly designed and misguided the 30kph zone is for road users

email, telephone your councillors now to have the 30kph zone removed

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/ive-tested-their-claim-3-times-that-by-driving-at-30kph-you-wont-hit-a-red-light--its-nonsense-2045740.html


By Aoife Anderson
Wednesday February 03 2010

THE ridiculous claim that if you drive under 30kph an hour through Dublin city centre you won't hit a red light is utter nonsense. And I've proved it...three times.
Sticking to the new speed limit driving up the Quays proved much harder than I expected . In fact it left me utterly perplexed.
It was gridlock but I still found it incredibly difficult not to break the law.
Foremost in mind was City Councillor Andrew Montague (Lab) whose madcap idea the speed limit is.
Andy boy, I certainly won't be voting for you - unless you reverse your crazy plan.
First of all, you said if I kept to 30km I wouldn't hit a single red light. WRONG!

It has already being pointed out that the green wave have not being set up yet.

Great investigative reporting by a great newspaper :rolleyes:

Locamon wrote: »

difference is Graz has a transport system Dublin clearly does not. There is a better argument for introducing this in town centres than in a city centre where transport is key.

A better argument than decreasing the likelihood of a crash and increasing the chances of death in the event of a crash? A better one then reducing noise pollution? A better one than making the city a nicer place to work, live and have fun in? Making it a more attractive environment for residents, shoppers, workers, tourists etc?

Public transport in Dublin already transports more people into and out of the city centre than cars ever could. And this does not ban private transport.

Paulw

Has anyone yet been stopped for speeding in the new 30kph zones? Just curious.

Noiz

Have to say it's my first time driving in city tonight since the new speed limit and keeping 30km/h is ridiculous and frustrating.

My experience tonight was have to maintain under the speed limit in 2nd gear, keeping my eye on the speedo every few seconds and while having this thought of a speed gun is somewhere pointing at you every moment, and there's not a single car in front of me but I just couldn't drive any faster along the Quay......combine of all these in my head just makes me feel an emotion that I can't explain...not just the frustration.

Ok maybe it's just me.

Run_to_da_hills

Paulw wrote: »

Has anyone yet been stopped for speeding in the new 30kph zones? Just curious.

They have to catch me first. Im on a motorbike

LibraMan

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They have to catch me first. Im on a motorbike

That's the spirit!

neutron

Noiz wrote: »

Have to say it's my first time driving in city tonight since the new speed limit and keeping 30km/h is ridiculous and frustrating.

My experience tonight was have to maintain under the speed limit in 2nd gear, keeping my eye on the speedo every few seconds and while having this thought of a speed gun is somewhere pointing at you every moment, and there's not a single car in front of me but I just couldn't drive any faster along the Quay......combine of all these in my head just makes me feel an emotion that I can't explain...not just the frustration.

Ok maybe it's just me.

Nope it's not just you

The off duty Garda (give hin is due) I had a word with isn't impressed either

Lots of fines will be collected from law-abiding motorists whilst the usualred light running by cyclists will be ignored, driving at 32kph on a perfectly safe road, while joyriders will carry on exactly as before. Chasing criminals is too much like hard work: it's so much easier to criminalise the law abiding.

Now ring your local councillor and tell them what you think of being forced to drive at a pace that has no bearing on road conditions or safety!

There is a major amount of negative publicity against the fools that voted this in.

Advise them how you will vote, advise them how you will discuss the idiocy of the speed limit with your friends and colleagues

You should see our bulletin board in work and what is being said about the councillors involved , if they do not understand just how angry folk are at this nonsensical 30kph zone their party i.e. Labour and Fine Gael will be squished in the next GE (general election)

neutron

Paulw wrote: »

Has anyone yet been stopped for speeding in the new 30kph zones? Just curious.

Gatso Cash vans are being used to collect revenue, not enforcing road safety, just a cynical money collecting exercise at the behest of DCC's Traffic Commitee

galwaytt

fluffer wrote: »

Frustration should not be a valid aim of planners.

...in the absence of a valid technical reason, my experience is that it quite often, is........

monument

Neutron

Have you not read the posts about the proven safety bases of 30km/h?

Otherwise, can you counteract such? Or will you please stop talking nonsence?

galwaytt

tomasrojo wrote: »

Ah no. The damage done when being struck by an object is primarily a function of its kinetic energy.

24 years ago, the formula was:
kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared

Surprisingly, that still holds true today. And will into perpetuity.

Notice that since energy varies with the square of velocity, the the energy increases enormously as speed increases. Hence that graph.

....that's as simplistic a response as the graph you posted. By dint of the design of modern cars - specifically in response to pedestrian injuries - the vehicle as a whole maintains the same kinetic energy. But the % of that, and the nature or vector of, as in a collision with a pedestrian, is now highly modified.

Don't believe me ? Look at the 'bumpers' on my old Vauxhall Viva HC and the aforementioned Peugeot. At xx speed in one, you'll be dead or a multiple amputee, in the other, you may walk away.

Otherwise we've learnt nothing in 24 years.

Oh, and I haven't brought in the subject of ABS etc at all yet.

neutron

el tonto wrote: »

So that's a no then for statistics?

Just a thought about empty shops on Grafton St

Well Dunnes stores has closed, West the jewellary shop is closing, Pia Bang a ladies boutique is gone,The Mortgage Store that was at the corner with Nassau St is empty, The Chinese herbs and acupuncture centre is closed, I can't remeber the name of the shop (now closed) opposite Vero Moda's, now gone as well. There are more as well.

Of course the recession is partly to blame but having anti-commerce and anti private motorist policies keeping shoppers away that are being inflicted on Dublin by teh Traffic commitees spokesperson and his Labour and Fine Gael colleagues in Dublin city council during anytime let alone a recession is a disgrace.

email him! at
andrewmontague@eircom.net

neutron

galwaytt wrote: »

....that's as simplistic a response as the graph you posted. By dint of the design of modern cars - specifically in response to pedestrian injuries - the vehicle as a whole maintains the same kinetic energy. But the % of that, and the nature or vector of, as in a collision with a pedestrian, is now highly modified.

Don't believe me ? Look at the 'bumpers' on my old Vauxhall Viva HC and the aforementioned Peugeot. At xx speed in one, you'll be dead or a multiple amputee, in the other, you may walk away.

Otherwise we've learnt nothing in 24 years.

Oh, and I haven't brought in the subject of ABS etc at all yet.

I completley agree with you, the graph is a farce in a real world situation
Surprising to some posters but at impact a car has usually applied their breaks resulting in an impact at a speed far below the speed the car was originally moving at.

Some claim that a 1 kph reduction in speeds leads to a 5% reduction in accidents is of course fatally flawed. If it were true then a 20 kph reduction in speeds would eliminate all accidents forever.:p

mondeo

Are all these 30 kph zones clearly sign posted? I have not been in city centre since before xmas so i'm not sure what to expect? My friend who is a courier says he is playing guessing games as to which streets are 30 and which are not..

K-9

neutron wrote: »

Just a thought about empty shops on Grafton St

Well Dunnes stores has closed, West the jewellary shop is closing, Pia Bang a ladies boutique is gone,The Mortgage Store that was at the corner with Nassau St is empty, The Chinese herbs and acupuncture centre is closed, I can't remeber the name of the shop (now closed) opposite Vero Moda's, now gone as well. There are more as well.

Of course the recession is partly to blame but having anti-commerce and anti private motorist policies keeping shoppers away that are being inflicted on Dublin by teh Traffic commitees spokesperson and his Labour and Fine Gael colleagues in Dublin city council during anytime let alone a recession is a disgrace.

email him! at
andrewmontague@eircom.net

The recession and the high rents would be the main factors. Rents are causing businesses to close all around the country. Many businesses are able to cut other costs and reduce prices, but rents are harder to cut. Grafton Street would be a great example.

Really, your point would be stronger if shops weren't closing all around the country.

A good example is this restaurant on Dawson Street:
http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0203/carluccio.html

A poster already posted links showing reduced speed limits can actually increase footfall. Unfortunately in a recession, that doesn't necessarily mean increased sales. People are very price aware, not good for Grafton Street!

Chips Lovell

neutron wrote: »

Lots of fines will be collected from law-abiding motorists whilst the usualred light running by cyclists will be ignored, driving at 32kph on a perfectly safe road, while joyriders will carry on exactly as before. Chasing criminals is too much like hard work: it's so much easier to criminalise the law abiding.

Have you even been reading the responses to your earlier posts? It's already been pointed out to you that the Garda Traffic Corps isn't responsible for chasing criminals.

monument wrote: »

One is the work of the Garda Traffic Corps and the other is duty of the drug squad. If you see "open" or other drug dealing it's best to report it to the nearest Garda station, posting about it on boards will do little.

neutron wrote: »

Gatso Cash vans are being used to collect revenue, not enforcing road safety, just a cynical money collecting exercise at the behest of DCC's Traffic Commitee

Again, it's already been pointed out that revenue doesn't even go to DCC. Repeating ad nauseum something doesn't make it true.

monument wrote: »

Also speeding fines go into central government funding, not to local government.

neutron wrote: »

Just a thought about empty shops on Grafton St

Well Dunnes stores has closed, West the jewellary shop is closing, Pia Bang a ladies boutique is gone,The Mortgage Store that was at the corner with Nassau St is empty, The Chinese herbs and acupuncture centre is closed, I can't remeber the name of the shop (now closed) opposite Vero Moda's, now gone as well. There are more as well.

Of course the recession is partly to blame but having anti-commerce and anti private motorist policies keeping shoppers away that are being inflicted on Dublin by teh Traffic commitees spokesperson and his Labour and Fine Gael colleagues in Dublin city council during anytime let alone a recession is a disgrace.

Those shops closed after the recession hit. The discussion was on whether places like Dundrum had caused a dramatic decline in footfall in the city centre. Do you have any footfall figures?

And if the city centre is such a retail wasteland, why are Arnotts planning a massive redevelopment and expansion? Or the owners of the Carlton cinema site going for a huge development that will take in most of the area between O'Connell Street, Moore Street and Parnell Street?

gurramok

projectmayhem wrote: »

Grafton St has consistently remained within the top 10 in the world for footfall since the early 2000s and sits at around 8th today. Also, reports suggest that the number of people visiting our city streets is the same now, but the amount of money spent is different.

Your argument is flawed because you reckon spending is down in the city because of cars not being allowed in, when really it's because we're in a recession. Dundrum, Blanchardstown and other commuter-belt type shopping centers are popular because they provide weekly shopping and what not, where most spending in such places is done throughout the year.

Thats misleading about Grafton St. Its a pass through area with footfall of office workers heading towards the Green in one direction and office workers from Harcourt/Baggott and beyond heading towards the shopping district on around O'Connell st, thats why it has high footfall. They ain't all going to the Stephens Green SC!

Henry st on the other hand is not a pass through area. If you wandered past Henry st down to Capel st and behind, it does be empty hence the majority of the crowds on Henry St actually shop there. There are also feck all offices down this area for a pass through trade.

Paulw

neutron wrote: »

Lots of fines will be collected from law-abiding motorists whilst the usualred light running by cyclists will be ignored, driving at 32kph on a perfectly safe road, while joyriders will carry on exactly as before. Chasing criminals is too much like hard work: it's so much easier to criminalise the law abiding.

While I don't agree with the limit, especially not 24/7, I must point out that the Gardai don't make the laws, they just enforce it.

If the Gardai were able to enforce traffic law (stopping at red lights) on cyclists I think that alone would stop a lot of accidents. Maybe we should be getting the politicians to start clamping down on cyclists who run red lights?

Chips Lovell

Paulw wrote: »

If the Gardai were able to enforce traffic law (stopping at red lights) on cyclists I think that alone would stop a lot of accidents. Maybe we should be getting the politicians to start clamping down on cyclists who run red lights?

As part of the National Cycling Strategy published by Noel Dempsey last year, they promised to start clamping down on cyclists breaking road traffic law.

I've seen a few cyclists stop by the cops around town in the past few months and I know one who was issued a summons. Whether that's indicative of the new approach or just coincidence, I've no idea.

BluePlanet

gurramok wrote: »

Thats misleading about Grafton St. Its a pass through area with footfall of office workers heading towards the Green in one direction and office workers from Harcourt/Baggott and beyond heading towards the shopping district on around O'Connell st, thats why it has high footfall. They ain't all going to the Stephens Green SC!

Would those office workers be the ones i see queued every morning outside Butlers for a coffee?

Shops will change with the changing demographics.
Just because Joe and Sons operated a refigerator repair shop on Graffton St for the last 30 years doesn't mean he has a god given right to that business.

BluePlanet

Paulw wrote: »

If the Gardai were able to enforce traffic law (stopping at red lights) on cyclists I think that alone would stop a lot of accidents. Maybe we should be getting the politicians to start clamping down on cyclists who run red lights?

Problem is you have no statistical basis for your argument.

---

Of the 427 collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city from 2002-2006, only 11 involved fatalities. However, eight of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning lorries. Of the three other fatalities, one involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes, in another a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist while the third was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.

Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars. Although left-turning vehicles were involved the majority of fatalities, the most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just under 20 per cent of incidents. The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle.

Drivers or passengers opening car doors in front of cyclists accounted for about 14 per cent of incidents, and left-turning vehicles hitting cyclists accounted for just over 12 per cent.

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

Paulw

BluePlanet wrote: »

Problem is you have no statistical basis for your argument.

---

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

But, people are screaming that if the 30kph zone will save even one life then it's worth it. So, if stopping cyclists breaking the lights saves even one life is that not also worth it?? Or is it a double standard again?

Paulw

el tonto wrote: »

As part of the National Cycling Strategy published by Noel Dempsey last year, they promised to start clamping down on cyclists breaking road traffic law.

I've seen a few cyclists stop by the cops around town in the past few months and I know one who was issued a summons. Whether that's indicative of the new approach or just coincidence, I've no idea.

Hopefully we will see a lot more of that now. Every bit helps.

JimsAlterEgo

ectoraige wrote: »

That's why they operate 20mph zones.

waht I quoted mentioned 30mph not 20

galwaytt

BluePlanet wrote: »

Of the 427 collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city from 2002-2006, only 11 involved fatalities. However, eight of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning lorries. Of the three other fatalities, one involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes, in another a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist while the third was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.

Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars. Although left-turning vehicles were involved the majority of fatalities, the most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just under 20 per cent of incidents. The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle.

Drivers or passengers opening car doors in front of cyclists accounted for about 14 per cent of incidents, and left-turning vehicles hitting cyclists accounted for just over 12 per cent.

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

Interesting: for a start, speeding isn't mentioned anywhere, which is what this thread is about, and proves this 30kp/h limit is a complete fallacy. Stupidity and poor observation will still occur; people will still turn left/right/change lane. None of that will change.

And 'only' (sic) 11 fatalities, 8 of which were caused by maneouveres - so there is no speed involved.

And whilst it is no consolation, it is a sad fact that cyclist are inclined to not be observant enough esp vis-a-vis left turning trucks and buses. I've seen it myself - lights go green, the truck moves and 'appears' to go straight on, when in fact he's merely making room to swing without going over the path. Those few seconds of straight motion are often misunderstood by the cyclist (on the left) who then proceeds in tandem. The crunch is inevitable. However, the fault is not, and should not, always be attributed to the vehicle. The cyclist has a duty of care to themselves, and observation and assimilation of surrounding traffic behaviour is part of it. Positioning oneself to the side of a vehicle, where it's indicators for example, are not visible to the you is careless imho. Especially so of the likes of HGV's and buses.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.

...'more likely' ? ...you mean we're to use assumption of something, as basis to make (in this case), poor law. If so, the law is indeed, an ass.

BluePlanet

Paulw wrote: »

But, people are screaming that if the 30kph zone will save even one life then it's worth it. So, if stopping cyclists breaking the lights saves even one life is that not also worth it?? Or is it a double standard again?

There needs to be a education campaigns right across the board.
The driving standard in the country seems very poor.
There is zero cycling education whatsoever.
Remember, kids used to cycle to school. Now they get chauffered in big feck-off SUV's.

Our traffic lighting is designed for motorists, not cyclists.
Sometimes a cyclist is actually safer to not wait for the green.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
Sad but true.

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

Our traffic lighting is designed for motorists, not cyclists.
Sometimes a cyclist is actually safer to not wait for the green.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
Sad but true.

From that article (emphasis mine):

times wrote:

Women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by a lorry because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot, according to a study.

Why are they sitting in the blind-spot? Remember if you can't see the driver in the mirror, they can't see you.

BluePlanet

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Why are they sitting in the blind-spot? Remember if you can't see the driver in the mirror, they can't see you.

Because they don't know they are in a blind spot.
They obviously haven't been educated.
I see this happening all the time.
The problem gets excaberated when the lorry doesn't stop at the line and takes a forward position making it nearly impossible for a cyclist to sit in the red box (on the rare occasions that box exists).

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

Because they don't know they are in a blind spot.
They obviously haven't been educated.
I see this happening all the time.
The problem gets excaberated when the lorry doesn't stop at the line and takes a forward position making it nearly impossible for a cyclist to sit in the red box (on the rare occasions that box exists).

But then it's not that the traffic lights are pro-motorist or anti-cyclist, it's just anti-people who don't know what they're doing. There is a legal requirement for motorists to take driving lessons before they are let out on the open road on their own; maybe something similar should be done for cyclists -- introduce a driving licence for bikes. It would save lives and introduce extra revenue (through licencing charges). A double-win for the country. Much better than introducing draconian speed limits.

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Why are they sitting in the blind-spot? Remember if you can't see the driver in the mirror, they can't see you.

To be fair, consider the common occurrence of the cyclist stopping at the lights and a truck driver coming up after them and stopping, leaving the cyclist in their blind spot. Then they forget there's a cyclist there and...splat. Probably only accounts for a small number of such accidents, but to blame the cyclist in every occasion for being in the blind spot is incorrect.

The boxes at the front of traffic queues are good, but unfortunately suffer from the same problem - if I stop in the red box to wait for the lights and a truck pulls up behind me and stops, he won't be able to see me when he pulls off without a cyclops mirror. This is why, when stopping in front of a stopped truck, I'll usually go at least 10m ahead, regardless of where the white line is situated.

BluePlanet

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

But then it's not that the traffic lights are pro-motorist or anti-cyclist, it's just anti-people who don't know what they're doing. There is a legal requirement for motorists to take driving lessons before they are let out on the open road on their own; maybe something similar should be done for cyclists -- introduce a driving licence for bikes. It would save lives and introduce extra revenue (through licencing charges). A double-win for the country. Much better than introducing draconian speed limits.

Nice in theory but totally unworkable in practice.
You won't find a "cycling license" in a single country over the globe.
Why is that?
It's because a bike is so simple and accessible.
Should pedestrians have a license to walk around the public road?
Of course not.
The onus is on motorists because it is THEY whom operate a heavy piece of machinery in public spaces that can and does kill.
Not so cyclists.