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

BluePlanet

tbh, the theme coming from certain posters here seems to be - get cyclists out of my way.
Or even, bar cyclists from the city centre.

Which entails a sense of entitlement to our public space that is simply archaic.
I encourage you to look at modern concepts of urban design, just as Shared Space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Where our central public spaces get transformed into more people-first types of places that are much more pleasant and contrast starkly with our current motorist-first, barricaded thoroughfares.
It is in this context that you should view the 30kpm go-slow zone.

projectmayhem

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!

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.

The link I provided earlier mentions Henry street too. It's always been quieter in terms of footfall there, probably because of the reasons you outlined.

But regardless of who is walking down the street, where they're from and where they're going, they still provide footfall and just because they're office workers, does not mean they are not impervious to walking into a shop to buy something. You'll also find a lot of office workers, students etc. do go into Stephens Green SC to get lunch. From personal experience, buying lunch in the city is more expensive then buying a mink coat in whatever boutique store lines Grafton st!

Furthering the debate, here's a letter sent into the Irish Times:

Madam, – There has been much ill-informed comment about the new 30km/h speed limit in Dublin city centre, with some people claiming “you could walk faster”, or (more realistically) that many cyclists go faster. The truth is that only the fittest cyclists will do 30km/h on the flat, and Usain Bolt’s world record 100m run was at a speed of 37.58km/h.

As for the inconvenience to motorists, driving from Church Street to the Custom House at 30km/h will take you 48 seconds longer than doing the same distance at 50km/h – assuming the road is clear and you have green lights all the way. There is thus no rational reason to oppose the measure.

Once people get used to driving at 30km/h they will indeed find that it is a far more pleasant, calmer experience than the mad race between red lights that motorists presently tend to go in for.

The measure will make a huge difference to the quality of life in the city. Nearly everyone who uses the city: shoppers, tourists, revellers, residents and others, are pedestrians, and it is their interests that must be paramount.

Up to now, Dublin’s traffic management has been unremittingly pedestrian-hostile, most notably in the extremely long waiting times at pedestrian crossings, and the incredible detours people must make in many places even to cross the road.

The new speed limits will make it possible to get around on foot, to have a conversation without being drowned by traffic noise – and will undoubtedly attract more tourists and visitors to Dublin city centre. – Yours, etc,

JONIVAR SKULLERUD,

Wilfield Road,

Sandymount,

Dublin 4.

Relevant, no?

The Dublin Cycling Campaign site is plastered with stuff about the 30kph rule at the minute too.

seamus

Actually, the entire debate can be summed up in one line from that letter:

"Nearly everyone who uses the city: shoppers, tourists, revellers, residents and others, are pedestrians, and it is their interests that must be paramount."

These are the people who spend money, who keep shops open and who make the city centre a nice place to be. Through-traffic doesn't. Therefore the city centre must be biased in favour of these people.

Jumpy

neutron wrote: »

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)

Do you actually believe yourself? Some people will believe anything if they stand to gain from it being true, but the amount of tripe you have have come up with in this thread is staggering. Its almost like you are throwing out made up bs hoping some of it will stick.

gurramok

projectmayhem wrote: »

The link I provided earlier mentions Henry street too. It's always been quieter in terms of footfall there, probably because of the reasons you outlined.

But regardless of who is walking down the street, where they're from and where they're going, they still provide footfall and just because they're office workers, does not mean they are not impervious to walking into a shop to buy something. You'll also find a lot of office workers, students etc. do go into Stephens Green SC to get lunch. From personal experience, buying lunch in the city is more expensive then buying a mink coat in whatever boutique store lines Grafton st!

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

To both of you, i agree that the Grafton businesses complaints like this and the bus gate are a red herring, its the recession thats killing their high priced businesses.

What gets my goat is the presentation of misleading stats. Footfall does not equal shoppers. Passing through an area is not equal to shoppers, however travelling to an area with no pass though destination equals more shoppers(Henry st).
Footfall equals more shoppers on Henry St than on Grafton st for reasons explained.

?Cee?view

seamus wrote: »

"Nearly everyone who uses the city: shoppers, tourists, revellers, residents and others, are pedestrians, and it is their interests that must be paramount."

Please prove, using statistics, that all of these are not also, or cannot be, motorists or users of public transport.

churchview

churchview wrote: »

Please prove, using statistics, that all of these are not also, or cannot be, motorists or users of public transport.

Do you drive your car into the shop? No you get out and walk in, which makes you a pedestrian. Same goes for users of public transport. No statistics, just common sense.

seamus

churchview wrote: »

Please prove, using statistics, that all of these are not also, or cannot be, motorists or users of public transport.

You don't need to use statistics. Within the 30kph zone, it is impossible to shop, see the sights or enjoy a pint from a vehicle. Therefore, all of the above-mentioned groups are pedestrians within this zone.

tomasrojo

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'm aware that these modification make a difference, but only at lower speeds. The amount of energy at higher speeds is so high they make very little difference.

The "glancing blow" design of modern bumpers doesn't help at higher speeds, because the pedestrian is more likely to suffer a diffuse axonal brain injury from a glancing blow than a direct blow. Obviously a direct blow would result in enormous internal injury trauma.

You can't win at higher speeds. You can tinker around the edges of being hit at speed by a blunt object with technology. So that graph still holds to a very good approximation.

Anyway, one doesn't have to argue from first principles. There are more recent studies that come to the same conclusion: 30km/h is an inflection point in injury statistics, and that's why it has been chosen as a limiit in several urban areas around Europe.

?Cee?view

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you drive your car into the shop? No you get out and walk in, which makes you a pedestrian. Same goes for users of public transport. No statistics, just common sense.

That's just facetious. Many people getting to the shops aren't pedestrians - they likely would driven there. In fairness to you most people when they walk into shops tend to be pedestrians. Most people when on public transport aren't.....you get the picture.....why bother, you don't really care about other views.

LostinBlanch

galwaytt wrote: »

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.

...'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.

I note the BluePlanet hasn't addressed your post despite posting after you posted.

And re the "more likely" of course you're supposed to remember that some assumptions are more equal than others. :rolleyes:

projectmayhem

gurramok wrote: »

To both of you, i agree that the Grafton businesses complaints like this and the bus gate are a red herring, its the recession thats killing their high priced businesses.

What gets my goat is the presentation of misleading stats. Footfall does not equal shoppers. Passing through an area is not equal to shoppers, however travelling to an area with no pass though destination equals more shoppers(Henry st).
Footfall equals more shoppers on Henry St than on Grafton st for reasons explained.

I agree but the reason rent is higher on Grafton st is because it has much higher footfall. It's a huge metric in a retail-orientated business. Footfall relates to, essentially, the potential number of people who will see your brand, and thus who you must try to pull off the street and into your door. This is why shopping centers do well... they're destinations. Almost all footfall = sales, while grafton st. does not have such a huge conversion rate, but the potential is so great it's worth having a store there!

seamus

churchview wrote: »

That's just facetious. Many people getting to the shops aren't pedestrians - they likely would driven there. In fairness to you most people when they walk into shops tend to be pedestrians. Most people when on public transport aren't.....you get the picture.....why bother, you don't really care about other views.

The point is that when you go into the city centre, you don't drive from place to place - you can't, there's nowhere to park outside most places. So you drive in, park your car and walk everywhere else.

Therefore the vast majority of shoppers, tourists, revellers, etc are pedestrians first and foremost while in the city centre. So this capacity is given priority over those who are driving in the city centre because the pedestrians are the economy of the area.

tomasrojo

Paulw wrote: »

But, people are screaming that if the 30kph zone will save even one life then it's worth it.

I wouldn't argue in those terms, since there are measures in the real world we can't possibly be bothered with (for examle, whole-body MRI scans for every citizen every year), which could save more than one life. The "one life!" argument is indeed manipulative and has to be considered in the light of practical and financial limitiations.

However, the 30km/h zone inflicts a minor inconvenience for a short period of drivng time. This outraged reaction to it is disproportionate. Even if it saves no lives, it potentially can make the city centre more pleasant to everyone except through-traffic. Even through-traffic shouldn't be inconvenienced that much. The upsides seem to exceed the downsides considerably.

And it's been successfully tried elsewhere. That's not a guarantee of success, but it does mean it should be given a chance here.

?Cee?view

seamus wrote: »

The point is that when you go into the city centre, you don't drive from place to place - you can't, there's nowhere to park outside most places. So you drive in, park your car and walk everywhere else.

Therefore the vast majority of shoppers, tourists, revellers, etc are pedestrians first and foremost while in the city centre. So this capacity is given priority over those who are driving in the city centre because the pedestrians are the economy of the area.

But can you not see that the pedestrians, tourists etc. have to get to the City Centre area. They don't magically appear there. Many travel by car or public transport.

The point I'm making which significantly is being ignored is that pedestrians are also being affected by this crazy rule, because in order to get to the traffic free nirvana that the city is apparently set to become they have to use some form of transport, and please don't suggest that absolutely everyone will cycle.

seamus

churchview wrote: »

The point I'm making which significantly is being ignored is that pedestrians are also being affected by this crazy rule, because in order to get to the traffic free nirvana that the city is apparently set to become they have to use some form of transport, and please don't suggest that absolutely everyone will cycle.

It's not like cars have been banned from the city centre. I don't understand your point - this limit won't prevent cars from getting to the city centre and doesn't impact journey times in any significant way.

Why would it cause the number of pedestrians to drop?

Or is this the same "drive away business" fallacy that was discussed two pages ago?

LostinBlanch

churchview wrote: »

That's just facetious. Many people getting to the shops aren't pedestrians - they likely would driven there. In fairness to you most people when they walk into shops tend to be pedestrians. Most people when on public transport aren't.....you get the picture.....why bother, you don't really care about other views.

Finally you're getting it, this cycling jihadists are trying every trick, false argument and disingenous use of statistics e.g. the statistics quoted from Ciaran Cuffes blog, the vast majority of which involved bus accidents tragic as they are.

I like the way that they try and equate anyone disagreeing with them as disagreeing with the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street. I don't know if any of the posters on here did at the time, do you? :rolleyes:

Or the way that some cyclists on here try and claim victimhood, the old I get a feeling that they want to ban all cyclists from the city centre. Now I can't see any posts on here calling for that. I have seen enough posts about banning all cars from the city centre though. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

I also note that Andrew Montague has been bitchslapped down by his party leader. How embarassing for him.

The Labour Leader Eamon Gilmore says a 30 kilometre an hour speed limit in city centres is impractical.

The new limit controversially came into effect in Dublin this week, it’s slated for Cork by next Christmas, and Galway city council has also proposed introducing it in the future.

A Labour Councillor was behind the original proposal in Dublin.

But his party leader told Breakfast here on Newstalk it’s not a good idea.

“I accept it was done for good reasons, reasons of safety and so on” he said.

“I think it’s impractical; I’m not sure it’s even a good safety measure because trying to stay under 30 kilometres an hour means you’re probably spending more time looking at the clock than you are at the road” he added.

Funny that most of the reasonable points here that the jihadis dismissed are echoed by Eamon Gilmore.

seamus

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Finally you're getting it, this cycling jihadists are trying every trick, false argument and disingenous use of statistics e.g. the statistics quoted from Ciaran Cuffes blog, the vast majority of which involved bus accidents tragic as they are.

And here I thought you were being sarcastic. No, you actually believe there's some sort of cyclist conspiracy going on here.

Paranoid much?

Or the way that some cyclists on here try and claim victimhood, the old I get a feeling that they want to ban all cyclists from the city centre. Now I can't see any posts on here calling for that. I have seen enough posts about banning all cars from the city centre though. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Find me a post which says that all cars should be banned from the city centre.

I also note that Andrew Montague has been bitchslapped down by his party leader. How embarassing for him.

Funny that most of the reasonable points here that the jihadis dismissed are echoed by Eamon Gilmore.

I heard him say them this morning and I cringed.

None of them are reasonable points, not one.

"trying to stay under 30 kilometres an hour means you’re probably spending more time looking at the clock than you are at the road", then Eamonn, please go back to driving school, because if you have to keep looking at the speedo to maintain a constant speed, you're not fit to drive on a public road.

He even decided to ignore the actual statistics and claim that the proposal had no basis in statistics. It's a bit sickening actually - backpedalling from a party leader, leaving his party member out in the cold purely because of a perceived public unhappiness.

How many of the anti-limit people on here have driven in the city centre since the limit came into force and found yourself
a. Unable to maintain a constant speed in your vehicle
and
b. Unable to keep you vehicle below 30km/h.

The same old arguments keep coming up again and again and again, and they have no basis in fact or logic, it's all based on a perceived right to drive your car whereever the hell you like and however you like.

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

Several countries do have mandatory bicycle licencing where you have to stick a registration number on your bicycle before bringing it into the city - we could easily introduce that, and from there, it's fairly straightforward extension to have a mandatory class on how to cycle in busy traffic as a pre-requisite to collecting your licence sticker. I don't see how that would be unworkable.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Should pedestrians have a license to walk around the public road?
Of course not.

Because in general, pedestrians don't walk on the road itself, they usually have footpaths that are special designated/isolated areas. Cyclists don't yet have those everywhere (and even when they do I frequently see times where cyclists ignore them and stick to the road)

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

So cases like this never happen?

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So cases like this never happen?

Pedestrians have also died when hit by a jogger. Does that mean we should require licences to jog? Cyclist/pedestrian accidents involving death or injury are thankfully rare. That you had to find a story from a foreign jurisdiction backs that point up.

maggy_thatcher

seamus wrote: »

Pedestrians have also died when hit by a jogger. Does that mean we should require licences to jog? Cyclist/pedestrian accidents involving death or injury are thankfully rare. That you had to find a story from a foreign jurisdiction backs that point up.

I didn't say that they weren't rare -- BluePlanet claimed that cyclists don't operate machinery that can kill - I pointed out that it was not the case.

projectmayhem

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Funny that most of the reasonable points here that the jihadis dismissed are echoed by Eamon Gilmore.

It's funny how in one post you discussed Ciaran Cuffe & Andrew Montague in a negative manner but then big up Eamon Gilmore when he makes a stupid statement.

It's been said here already but do you constantly look at your speedo to do 50kph? Or when you get on a motorway and change up to 120kph do you keep an eye on it to make sure you're doing that speed?

If you can't judge speed and keep within the same basic speeds as other road users, then you shouldn't be driving.

monument

galwaytt wrote: »

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....

Lower speeds reduce the chances of these and other accidents of happening and if they happen anyway, lower speeds reduce the chances of serious injury or death.

This has been repeated a sicking amount of times already. But I'll sill source it: Grundy, BMJ; as well as the WHO; OCED etc. And, even if you're not interested in reading, here's a graph for you to show the massive difference between 30km/h and 50k/h:



GRAPH FROM: Source: OECD, International Transport Forum report on Speed Management: http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/06Speed.pdf

And in case you're not interisted in clicking on the link, here's the link to the recently published Grundy study in the British Medical Journal:

Results The introduction of 20 mph zones [32km/h] was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

Conclusions 20 mph [32km/h] zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.

My underlining added as this is one of the main new points. It's been know years that 30km/h is best for built-up areas.

... 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.

As far as I can see, nobody here is against better road training and better enforcement of the rules of the road for everybody.

churchview wrote: »

That's just facetious. Many people getting to the shops aren't pedestrians - they likely would driven there. In fairness to you most people when they walk into shops tend to be pedestrians. Most people when on public transport aren't.....you get the picture.....why bother, you don't really care about other views.

No, it's not facetious.

People who are motorists will also benefit -- while walking around the city shopping or enjoying them self they will benefit from a nicer city experience. Same goes for tourists or other visitors to the city, even if they have driven or are driving around they'll still benefit.

Chips Lovell

Junction of Church St and Inns Quay to the Custom House: 1.39km
Time at 50kph: 1:40
Time at 30kph: 2:46
Difference: 1:06

Junction of North Frederick St and Dorset St to junction of Kildare St and Stephens Grn: 2.35km
Time at 50kph: 2:49
Time at 30kph: 4:42
Difference: 1:53

Junction of Tara Street and Burgh Quay to end of Merchants Quay: 1.43km
Time at 50kph: 1:42
Time at 30kph: 2:51
Difference: 1:09

All assuming no stoppages for lights or slowing down for heavy traffic.

tomasrojo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Several countries do have mandatory bicycle licencing where you have to stick a registration number on your bicycle before bringing it into the city

Off topic, but I can only think of Switzerland. Do you know any others?

?Cee?view

This morning I drove my Vespa for the first time within the new limited area.

Keeping an eye on the speedo on a Vespa to make sure I didn't go over any given speed. Now that was a new experience:D

Run_to_da_hills

tomasrojo wrote: »

Off topic, but I can only think of Switzerland. Do you know any others?

Bicycle registration has been proposed in the UK already and I believe are operable in certain US States. With all this "terrorism paranoia" all it would take is a couple of bicycle bombs to introduce them.

Tagging bicycles would also give the authorities another means of tracking people. Dublin Bikes have a visible and electronic tractable number on all their bikes so that they can tell who has hired what.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5225346.stm

BluePlanet

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I note the BluePlanet hasn't addressed your post despite posting after you posted.

And re the "more likely" of course you're supposed to remember that some assumptions are more equal than others. :rolleyes:

I wasn't aware i was in a conversation with galwaytt.
Regardless, accidents occur for lots of reasons.
What the go-slow policy does, is make those accidents less fatal when they occur.

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

less fatal

Does that mean nearly dead?

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

Does that mean nearly dead?

I means your still alive?

tomasrojo

Just on the subject of licensing cyclists (without going into whether or not it's a good idea), the legal position (Irish law being directly descended from British law) is, as I understand it, Irish and British cyclists are typically held to exercise a common law right to make lawful use of public roads, as are pedestrians and equestrians. The legal position of motorists is somewhat different from that of cyclists. Under Irish and British law there is no "right" to use a motor vehicle on a public road. A motorist must obtain a permission, i.e. a licence, under the terms of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and its successors.

That doesn't mean it's impossible to bring in a licensing system. It may not be a practical solution to whatever problem it's meant to address though.

blorg

neutron wrote: »

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

Eh no, I don't want to get into the specifics of that reduction as I suspect it is a rule of thumb applying to certain speed ranges, but the argument suggests that a 20kph reduction would eliminate 64% of accidents.

tomasrojo

I think this special case for motorists arose from the large numbers of people killed in the early days of motoring (relative to the number of cars in circulation).

blorg

How does licensing cyclists have anything to do with the merits of a 30km/h speed limit in a small part of the city centre.

It doesn't. FFS.

tomasrojo

blorg wrote: »

Eh no, I don't want to get into the specifics of that reduction as I suspect it is a rule of thumb applying to certain speed ranges, but the argument suggests that a 20kph reduction would eliminate 64% of accidents.

Yes, it's like the opposite of compound interest.

maggy_thatcher

tomasrojo wrote: »

Off topic, but I can only think of Switzerland. Do you know any others?

Some provinces in Canada and states in the US have them. There may be others, but I don't know for sure.

maggy_thatcher

blorg wrote: »

How does licensing cyclists have anything to do with the merits of a 30km/h speed limit in a small part of the city centre.

It doesn't. FFS.

It's an alternative that will save (probably more) lives and increase revenue without inconveniencing as many people that the imposed limit does.

DirkVoodoo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

It's an alternative that will save (probably more) lives and increase revenue without inconveniencing as many people that the imposed limit does.

You mean inconveniencing you. Seriously, this is getting silly, can you not make an argument while looking at the whole picture? How many people cycle in Dublin city? How many people would go back to driving or getting the bus because they couldn't be bothered paying for a license for a bike?

No, sorry I'm following your example now, let's just stick to facts. How many people cycle in and out of Dublin? How much should be charged for a license? How much will it cost to setup and maintain a registry system for cyclists and the testing infrastructure? How will a bike license save lives? As pointed out, the majority of accidents occur because of vehicles turning left and cutting bikes off, how does a license remedy this? Where is the increase of revenue going to come from?

Can you actually make a case for bike licensing saving lives and generating significant revenue?

EDIT: I'll give you a headstart, as of sept 2009 about 5000 people cycle in Dublin city centre. Here, look at this. Its more than a speed issue, driving in town is simply not sustainable. It's either going to be a reduced speed limit to encourage people to make use of other forms of transport or a congestion charge, either way driving through the city is going to get worse and worse due to congestion.

BluePlanet

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

It's an alternative that will save (probably more) lives and increase revenue without inconveniencing as many people that the imposed limit does.

It's just part of your anti-cycling pov.
Besides your talking about countries that have bicycle registration, not a license to operate.

pegasus1

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Some provinces in Canada and states in the US have them. There may be others, but I don't know for sure.

Sweden has 30 kph limits in most towns and villages

RobbieTheRobber

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

It's an alternative that will save (probably more) lives and increase revenue without inconveniencing as many people that the imposed limit does.

So how does licensing bicycles reduce the risk caused to pedestrians by vehciles exceeding the safe limit of 30 kph?

?Cee?view

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

As pointed out, the majority of accidents occur because of vehicles turning left and cutting bikes off, how does a license remedy this?

Whatever about the pros and cons of licences, a properly trained road user, rather than blaming everyone else on the road, would not put themselves in such a dangerous position on the road.

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's just part of your anti-cycling pov.

...as opposed to your anti-motorist stance

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

It's an alternative that will save (probably more) lives and increase revenue without inconveniencing as many people that the imposed limit does.

The statistics wouldn't back you up. Imposing cumbersome mandatory structures on bicycles (such as helmets) has been shown to reduce the number of people who use bicycles. You can be sure that licensing bicycles would result in a massive drop in the number of cyclists.

The same studies show that where cycling numbers drop, cycling accidents *increase* proportionally because other road users are less considerate of cyclists existence (i.e. since you never see a deer on a city road, then you're not going to be looking out for deer when driving down a city road) and unsurprisingly, they're less tolerant of the existence of cyclists.

So you're proposing that every single one of the estimated 40,000 cyclists in Ireland is inconvenienced *and* are exposed to more risk on the roads instead of applying an entirely separate and unrelated measure which decreases risk on the roads and slightly inconveniences a handful of drivers who use the area outside of peak hours.

RobbieTheRobber

churchview wrote: »

Whatever about the pros and cons of licences, a properly trained road user, rather than blaming everyone else on the road, would not put themselves in such a dangerous position on the road.

A properly trained road user being a licensed car driver?
And what about pedestrians(they are road users), will we be giving classes to people on how to walk safely too?

Why is this discussion focused on bikes and cyclists?


The main benefits that I see are a quieter and a safer city centre for pedestrians.

maggy_thatcher

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

And what about pedestrians(they are road users), will we be giving classes to people on how to walk safely too?

yes - it's called the Safe-Cross-Code. I know I learnt it in school, didn't you?

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

...as opposed to your anti-motorist stance

Pro or anti-motorist is relevant to the topic of this thread.
Whatabout the anti-cyclist pov? How does that have anything to do with the 30kph zone?

RobbieTheRobber

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

yes - it's called the Safe-Cross-Code. I know I learnt it in school, didn't you?

Well with no testing at the end of it how could we possibly know if anyone is experienced enough to cross on their own.

as a result, I suggest next time you have to cross a road and you dont have a road crossing license that you wait until a teacher is near to help you across. :rolleyes:

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

That's just facetious. Many people getting to the shops aren't pedestrians - they likely would driven there. In fairness to you most people when they walk into shops tend to be pedestrians. Most people when on public transport aren't.....you get the picture.....why bother, you don't really care about other views.

This is funny.
Next time your observing those annoying jay-walkers, can you tell us which of the ones are in reality, motorists?

Instead of wearing a star of david on your person, it's like this:
You are a motorist when you operate a motor vehicle. The moment you step outside of that metal box and put your feet on the ground, you are a Pedestrian.

maggy_thatcher

seamus wrote: »

The statistics wouldn't back you up. Imposing cumbersome mandatory structures on bicycles (such as helmets) has been shown to reduce the number of people who use bicycles. You can be sure that licensing bicycles would result in a massive drop in the number of cyclists.

So safety structures shouldn't be introduced?

seamus wrote: »

The same studies show that where cycling numbers drop, cycling accidents *increase* proportionally because other road users are less considerate of cyclists existence (i.e. since you never see a deer on a city road, then you're not going to be looking out for deer when driving down a city road) and unsurprisingly, they're less tolerant of the existence of cyclists.

Except now you only have cyclists who know how to cycle safely in busy cities and don't stick themselves in blind-spots or go up beside vehicles turning left.

seamus wrote: »

So you're proposing that every single one of the estimated 40,000 cyclists in Ireland is inconvenienced *and* are exposed to more risk on the roads instead of applying an entirely separate and unrelated measure which decreases risk on the roads and slightly inconveniences a handful of drivers who use the area outside of peak hours.

Firstly I'd only think the licence would be applicable for Dublin to start - so it would only be those cyclists affected (so approximately 5,000 cyclists). Secondly, I don't believe they would be more exposed to risk (as they'd then know what they're doing). Do you think there are more or less than 5,000 drivers who use the area?