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

BluePlanet

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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?

Maybe you should start a thread on the Cycling or Community/Transport forums for a more detailed discusson that doesn't involve taking this one off-topic.
You'd get more of a cycling pov there too.

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So safety structures shouldn't be introduced?

Not without reasonable evidence that they will in fact, increase safety.

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.

...and who get pushed and beeped out of the way at every turn because they're so thin on the ground. Less cyclists == more danger. That is a fact

But you're going off topic here again. Bicycle licensing has nothing whatsoever to do with this speed limit. In fact, bicycles have little or nothing whatsoever to do with it. This is primarily a move which is claimed to improve pedestrian safety.

Are you going ot try and argue now that having everyone pass a "walking safely in Dublin" course before they're allowed into the city centre is a better move than a slight drop in speeds in a tiny area?

You're clutching at straws here.

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

Exactly my point. Many many of the put upon pedestrians are also motorists. So you've inconvenienced many people who walk within towns by effecting how they get into the town. What you refuse to consider is that people in general are being affected, rather than just motorists as all cyclists, pedestrians etc are at times likely to travel by car.

It shouldn't be motorists vs. the rest.

Also, can we stop referring to motorists as that term appears to exclude public transport users who are also being limited.

...finally, your flippant reference to the Star of David in the context of a road traffic discussion , and its having to be worn, is just plain offensive.

monument

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So safety structures shouldn't be introduced?

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.


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?

Could you please point out an example of any country or city which licences cyclists?

There are some which licence bicycles, not cyclists and the main reason for this is tracking stolen bicycles.

blorg

This has nothing to do with cyclists. FFS.

Why don't we bring in compulsory cancer screening? That would save more lives than a 30km/h zone.

Why don't we ban cigarettes? That would save more lives.

Can you not discuss the 30km/h limit on its merits or lack thereof without a ridiculous diversion to "cyclist licensing." Apparently, no.

maggy_thatcher

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

You mean inconveniencing you.

Actually, I very rarely drive through town - it's too much of a nuisance. I generally avoid town altogether. I live too far away to cycle though, so if I wanted to go shopping, I'll generally pick the out-of-town stores where they're car friendly.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

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?

Most countries charge a small token fee (~€3) for the licence. As we live in the rip-off republic, I'd imagine that they'd charge more. I'm proposing not to have a test, but simply a one-day course. At the end, you get a certificate that you can bring in anytime you buy a replacement bicycle to get a new licence. If you lose the cert you have to do the course again -- therefore no testing infrastructure required. The registry is simple to maintain - name, address, serial number.
Most of the accidents occur because the cyclist positions themselves in dangerous positions -- e.g. beside vehicles turning left because they don't necessarily understand the concept of blind-spots.

maggy_thatcher

blorg wrote: »

This has nothing to do with cyclists. FFS.

Why don't we bring in compulsory cancer screening? That would save more lives than a 30km/h zone.

Why don't we ban cigarettes? That would save more lives.

Can you not discuss the 30km/h limit on its merits or lack thereof without a ridiculous diversion to "cyclist licensing." Apparently, no.

Agreed - I won't bring up bicycle licencing again on this thread...

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Most of the accidents occur because the cyclist positions themselves in dangerous positions -- e.g. beside vehicles turning left because they don't necessarily understand the concept of blind-spots.

Are you deliberately ignoring the facts posted earlier in this thread or have you forgotten them?

Accidents involving left-turning vehicles only account for 12% of cyclist/vehicle collisions, and only a small proportion of them occur where a cyclist is in a motorist's blind spot.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Exactly my point. Many many of the put upon pedestrians are also motorists. So you've inconvenienced many people who walk within towns by effecting how they get into the town.

I'm adopting a wait and see approach on the speed limit, but if it turns out that town is more pleasant to walk around once I'm there and there are less injuries and deaths from traffic accidents as a result, then yes, I don't mind taking one minute longer to get there.

maggy_thatcher

seamus wrote: »

Are you deliberately ignoring the facts posted earlier in this thread or have you forgotten them?

Accidents involving left-turning vehicles only account for 12% of cyclist/vehicle collisions, and only a small proportion of them occur where a cyclist is in a motorist's blind spot.

12% of collisions, but 73% of fatalities, which is where we should focus the efforts.

DirkVoodoo

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.

Your absolutely right, and some of the cycling I see is of a pretty poor standard. But so is the driving. What can you do? Stop at every junction. As you cans see from this (taken from the safe cycling article on the wiki):



The majority of car-bike collisions occur because drivers underestimate the speed of a bike, or simply don't see them and pull out in front of them. I have had people look directly at me, they see me, and yet the still do it. Am I putting myself in a dangerous position here? I don't pass down the inside of anything like a bus or a HGV, but to expect cyclists to yield at left turns when it is drivers who are meant to yield and saying that it is the cyclist who is dangerous is just a poor way of absolving yourself of any responsibility.

DirkVoodoo

How far away do you live Maggy?

You are back tracking now, you talked about generating revenue and now you want a "token" fee (adjusted for rip-off republic).

How is this token fee going to save lives and make money?

EDIT: Ok, I see you aren't bringing it up again, no need to reply

tomasrojo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

12% of collisions, but 73% of fatalities, which is where we should focus the efforts.

I sort of agree with you. I think adult and chlid cycle training is a great idea, and something like the UK's Bikeabilty project would be great here. I understand that the Galway and Dublin Cycling Campaigns have sent representatives to the UK to undergo training there with a view to beginning something similar here.

Removing cycle lanes that implicitly invite cyclists to pass on the inside of traffic turning left would also be a good move.

But there are fewer collisions in 30km/h zones, both between motorised vehicles and between motorised vehicles and more vulnerable road users. It's a question of whether that upside is outweighed by the downsides. I think, looking at evidence available from other jurisdictions that have tried similar initiatives, the upside will probably prevail.

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

Exactly my point. Many many of the put upon pedestrians are also motorists. So you've inconvenienced many people who walk within towns by effecting how they get into the town. What you refuse to consider is that people in general are being affected, rather than just motorists as all cyclists, pedestrians etc are at times likely to travel by car.

Seriously churchview, inconvenienced by what, a short stretch of road where they must reduce their speed?
If it's such a problem why don't they park on the outskirts of the 30kph zone and walk the rest the way?

churchview wrote: »

Also, can we stop referring to motorists as that term appears to exclude public transport users who are also being limited.

The only public transport users affected would be DB users. And they should be ok once the Bus Gate is in place and fewer private cars obstruct their progress.

neutron

Good to see that the Labour Party leader does not support the extended 30kph zone, he obviously needs to advise his councillors that it would be a good idea to have this zone removed now.:p


Read it here
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/gilmore-30kph-limit-impractical-444777.html
A Labour councillor was behind the original proposal in Dublin.
But his party leader said it is not a good idea.

"I accept it was done for good reasons," he said.

"I think it's impractical.

"I'm not sure it's even a good safety measure… trying to stay at under 30kph probably means you are spending more time looking at the clock."

tomasrojo

Gilmore has many admirable qualities, but no-one would ever defend him against charges of opportunism.

Mitch Connor

el tonto wrote: »

I'm adopting a wait and see approach on the speed limit, but if it turns out that town is more pleasant to walk around once I'm there and there are less injuries and deaths from traffic accidents as a result, then yes, I don't mind taking one minute longer to get there.

it may have been mentioned somewhere in the previous 560+ posts, but does anyone have statistics for deaths caused by cars, where speed has been the issue, in the area that now has the 30kph limit set?

I would imagine these stats have to be somewhere and presented as part of the proposal in the first place.

BluePlanet

Mitch Connor wrote: »

it may have been mentioned somewhere in the previous 560+ posts, but does anyone have statistics for deaths caused by cars, where speed has been the issue, in the area that now has the 30kph limit set?

I would imagine these stats have to be somewhere and presented as part of the proposal in the first place.

But speed is an issue in every single road fatality and injury.

zynaps

seamus wrote: »

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.

Good point - this is why at dangerous junctions (especially where there is a little distance after the lights before the turn left, so a truck can easily reach it while keeping the cyclist in their blind spot) I would filter to the front, then move slightly right to be positioned directly in front of the lead car/truck/etc.
That would help me stay visible, and I'd move back to the left as soon as is safe to do so (usually immediately the lights turn green).

Someone mentioned cyclists not observing indicators and such - I'd expect that some of the HGV-turning-left-crushing-cyclist cases involved a failure to indicate by the driver. That said of course, the vast, vast majority of HGV and bus drivers are very good in this regard, frequently anticipating and compensating for mistakes by cyclists such as myself in the past. But I've also seen big trucks take left hand turns without indicating, and in particular through a green pedestrian light on Gardiner Street, once.

projectmayhem wrote: »

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.

That sounds plausible - I sometimes speed up a little to pass traffic lights that have been green for a while, mostly because I feel like it's wasteful on fuel and brakes to throw away all that momentum - for the same reason that I try to keep just a little bit more space from the car in front so that I can ease off the accelerator a bit rather than stomping on the brake every time they slow down. Travelling at 30kph should make this less of an issue.

blorg

This discussion has mostly focussed on the reduction of accidents and accident severity.

However, completely besides this, a city centre with reduced traffic speeds is simply a more pleasant place to be. This is worthwhile even if the measure does not save a single life.

zynaps

BluePlanet wrote: »

But speed is an issue in every single road fatality and injury.

You're just playing with words there. Obviously, when he says "speed" he's not talking about a HGV turning left at 5kph. He's talking about fatalities caused by traffic traveling at a speed > 30kph and <= 50kph, the previous limit.

He actually has a good point: any deaths or injuries from crashes at low speeds will not be mitigated by a 30kph speed limit. If every one of those crashes over the last few years happened at low speeds, then the new speed limit as a safety measure is empirically shown to be unnecessary.

As I've argued previously, I don't see much weight in the "but if it saves even one life someday" argument, since we could do other things which have a higher payoff like banning stairs or enforcing a curfew; even though those things would be quite ridiculous, they would save more lives than the 30kph speed limit.

blorg wrote: »

This discussion has mostly focussed on the reduction of accidents and accident severity.

However, completely besides this, a city centre with reduced traffic speeds is simply a more pleasant place to be. This is worthwhile even if the measure does not save a single life.

This seems to me a much more genuine and convincing argument.

zynaps

seamus wrote: »

"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.

Nobody can maintain a perfectly constant speed, especially without looking at the speedo occasionally. Nobody can look out the window at passing scenery and accurately say "looks like we're travelling at 28kph" - the best we can do is something like "looks like we're travelling around (30 +/- 5)kph" and use sporadic feedback from the speedo to stay in check.

Perhaps only experience will tell whether it's easier to hold a car steady at 30kph than at 50kph, but I certainly don't think you'd be looking more at the speedo than at the road :P

seamus

zynaps wrote: »

Nobody can maintain a perfectly constant speed, especially without looking at the speedo occasionally. Nobody can look out the window at passing scenery and accurately say "looks like we're travelling at 28kph" - the best we can do is something like "looks like we're travelling around (30 +/- 5)kph" and use sporadic feedback from the speedo to stay in check.

Perhaps only experience will tell whether it's easier to hold a car steady at 30kph than at 50kph, but I certainly don't think you'd be looking more at the speedo than at the road :P

Occasionally, not constantly. And certainly not enough to be a danger

Thinkingaboutit

This seems to have become a cycling argument. Relatively few in this country cycle unless it's the height of summer. This absurd measure will be ignored unless a Garda is standing roadside drying his hair. It just increases disrespect for the law. So many barely respect traffic lights, and rush through even when a filter light turns red. Had that problem today with a lorry breaking the light turning right on to Naas Rd, I think, or the road parallel to it. If a Garda stopped his bike or Ford Mondeo there, he'd have five tickets every few minutes. Gardai need to focus on that, not an absurd speed limit.

ectoraige

LostinBlanch wrote: »

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.

It's also funny how Eamon Gilmore didn't have any objection when it was passed by a Labour-led council. They hold 20 seats out of 52, and there were only three votes against the measure.

Gilmore is just swaying in the wind, as usual. It's no wonder the country is in the state it is in when that's the calibre of opposition leader. :mad:

ArphaRima

I think what you're seeing is that the politicians are listening for once. This is outrageous, its causing outrage, and they in turn are forced to respond.

Good to see, but I wish I could see it more often.

P.C.

To all the people in favour of this silly speed limit -

it seems that you want to get through traffic out of the city centre (an assumption on my part, but I think I might be correct), so why don't you lobby the 'powers that be' to make the M50 free?

It is such a simple solution, and one that every motorist would welcome.

I am reading a lot of 'we want cars out' posts by a handfull of posters.
Why don't you do something positive about encouraging cars not to use the city centre?

wax

I may be way off the mark here but I'd like people's views......... I believe the majority of people are against the new limit simply because it's just another measure against those who drive. Its already ridiculous to be able to afford to drive in this country. With the prices of cars, fuel, tax and insurance etc and now motorists feel they are easily being branded as criminals (which in effect is what points are) just for barely going above the speed limit.
My main point is that I believe motorists just feel this is the beginning. The next step will be the main roads getting reduced and with improvements in cars/technology etc. this is just another step backwards.

DirkVoodoo

P.C. wrote: »

I am reading a lot of 'we want cars out' posts by a handfull of posters.
Why don't you do something positive about encouraging cars not to use the city centre?

Are you reading this or jumping to conclusions? I only scrolled back 4 pages but I think a lot of it was people looking at the positives of a 30 km/hr limit (I actually don't care, I never had a problem with the 50 km/hr). I can't find any explicit mention of "ban cars".

As for the second point, I'm not a policy maker. I do something positive in my own way, by choosing to cycle rather than drive around town. I wouldn't impose my view on anyone else, I would say if you live close enough and usually make short trips around town and are frustrated by parking, speed limits, etc. then to give it a try.

Surely people in favour of the speed limit are by definition, unphased by having to stick to the new limit unless they are complete hypocrites, so why would they lobby for more changes? I think if you have a problem with this law then you should be the one emailing people to provide solutions.

P.C.

el tonto wrote: »

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.

You were doing so well up until that last part, which imo negates your whole argument.

I think the actual time differences will be a whole lot more than the simple calculation you use are suggesting.
At 30km/h you will be caught at more lights, and so will other cars - therefore heavier traffic, so longer time is needed to travel the distance.

DirkVoodoo

wax wrote: »

My main point is that I believe motorists just feel this is the beginning. The next step will be the main roads getting reduced and with improvements in cars/technology etc. this is just another step backwards.

What are these improvements you speak of? If you mean safety, yes cars are safer. They are also, on average, considerably more powerful and heavier than older cars (Golf Mk.V versus Mk.I).

Anyway, considering that we are only increasing the amount of motorway in this country, and speeds introduced in 1994 have not changed from 70mph, with a small increase to 120 km/hr with the change to metric.

There is, however, a consistent trend of traffic measures in cities (pay and display, one way streets, QBCs, college green and now the 30 km/hr zone) which seem aimed at discouraging congestion, improving traffic flow and making the city a nicer place to be in.

neutron

It good to see the removal of the anti-business and anti- private motorist, absurd 30kph zone is gathering pace!


By Kevin Doyle, POLITICAL REPORTER

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/councillors-face-vote-to-publicly-voice-opinion-on-speed-limit-cut-2047940.html

Councillors face vote to publicly voice opinion on speed limit cut





Thursday February 04 2010




City councillors will be forced to publicly declare their stance on the 30kph speed limits within a month. An emergency motion aimed at suspending business at the March meeting of the city council will "smoke out" the silent supporters of the controversial system, it was claimed.
The motion seeks to have all other council business put aside until a full debate into the new laws takes place -- along with a vote on whether they should be scrapped.

Fine Gael councillor Bill Tormey, who has tabled the suspension proposal, has also launched a blistering attack on those behind the 30kph limit.
He says that the "bicycle brigade are a tiny minority who are trying to stop the rest of us around the city".

The councillor also hit out at the scheme's main advocate, Labour councillor Andrew Montague, saying: "It's time the boot is put into Mr Montague and his eccentric ideas."

His emergency motion, which will be raised at the start of the council's next full meeting on March 1, calls for a suspension of standard procedures "to allow a roll-call vote to reverse and abandon the January 31 imposition of a 30kph speed limit in part of the core city centre".

monument

neutron wrote: »

It good to see the removal of the anti-business and anti- private motorist, absurd 30kph zone is gathering pace!


By Kevin Doyle, POLITICAL REPORTER

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/councillors-face-vote-to-publicly-voice-opinion-on-speed-limit-cut-2047940.html

Councillors face vote to publicly voice opinion on speed limit cut





Thursday February 04 2010




City councillors will be forced to publicly declare their stance on the 30kph speed limits within a month. An emergency motion aimed at suspending business at the March meeting of the city council will "smoke out" the silent supporters of the controversial system, it was claimed.
The motion seeks to have all other council business put aside until a full debate into the new laws takes place -- along with a vote on whether they should be scrapped.

Fine Gael councillor Bill Tormey, who has tabled the suspension proposal, has also launched a blistering attack on those behind the 30kph limit.
He says that the "bicycle brigade are a tiny minority who are trying to stop the rest of us around the city".

The councillor also hit out at the scheme's main advocate, Labour councillor Andrew Montague, saying: "It's time the boot is put into Mr Montague and his eccentric ideas."

His emergency motion, which will be raised at the start of the council's next full meeting on March 1, calls for a suspension of standard procedures "to allow a roll-call vote to reverse and abandon the January 31 imposition of a 30kph speed limit in part of the core city centre".

On Bill Tormey's website it says "Bill will change course if the evidence dictates."

Redjeep!

neutron wrote: »

It good to see the removal of the anti-business and anti- private motorist, absurd 30kph zone is gathering pace!


By Kevin Doyle, POLITICAL REPORTER

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/councillors-face-vote-to-publicly-voice-opinion-on-speed-limit-cut-2047940.html

Councillors face vote to publicly voice opinion on speed limit cut





Thursday February 04 2010




City councillors will be forced to publicly declare their stance on the 30kph speed limits within a month. An emergency motion aimed at suspending business at the March meeting of the city council will "smoke out" the silent supporters of the controversial system, it was claimed.
The motion seeks to have all other council business put aside until a full debate into the new laws takes place -- along with a vote on whether they should be scrapped.

Fine Gael councillor Bill Tormey, who has tabled the suspension proposal, has also launched a blistering attack on those behind the 30kph limit.
He says that the "bicycle brigade are a tiny minority who are trying to stop the rest of us around the city".

The councillor also hit out at the scheme's main advocate, Labour councillor Andrew Montague, saying: "It's time the boot is put into Mr Montague and his eccentric ideas."

His emergency motion, which will be raised at the start of the council's next full meeting on March 1, calls for a suspension of standard procedures "to allow a roll-call vote to reverse and abandon the January 31 imposition of a 30kph speed limit in part of the core city centre".

Was this actually pushed through by or for a tiny minority of cyclists ? All the reports I've read have mentioned improving road safety for all users not just for cyclists. Can't see why that's a problem.

I also thought Tormeys comments were stupid and irresponsible for an elected official to openly stir up hated for cyclists. Not too helpful really.

monument

P.C. wrote: »

To all the people in favour of this silly speed limit -

it seems that you want to get through traffic out of the city centre (an assumption on my part, but I think I might be correct), so why don't you lobby the 'powers that be' to make the M50 free?

It is such a simple solution, and one that every motorist would welcome.

I am reading a lot of 'we want cars out' posts by a handfull of posters.
Why don't you do something positive about encouraging cars not to use the city centre?

Do you realise how small the 30km/h zone is? Here's the map.

Only three bridge crossings are affected, 11 others within the M50 are unaffected.

P.C.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

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.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Are you reading this or jumping to conclusions? I only scrolled back 4 pages but I think a lot of it was people looking at the positives of a 30 km/hr limit (I actually don't care, I never had a problem with the 50 km/hr). I can't find any explicit mention of "ban cars".

I have read the whole thread, and there seems to be the 'anti car' posters, and the 'anti bicycle' posters.

Did not take me too long to find a post by you were you seem to say that driving in town is simply not sustainable.
I am sorry if I see that as 'anti car' or 'get cars out of the city', but that is the way I see that post.

I am sick and tired of seeing motorists being beaten with a silly stick - where is the carott?

Chips Lovell

neutron wrote: »

Fine Gael councillor Bill Tormey, who has tabled the suspension proposal, has also launched a blistering attack on those behind the 30kph limit. He says that the "bicycle brigade are a tiny minority who are trying to stop the rest of us around the city".

34 councillors voted for it, 3 against, 14 abstentions.

Chips Lovell

P.C. wrote: »

You were doing so well up until that last part, which imo negates your whole argument.

I think the actual time differences will be a whole lot more than the simple calculation you use are suggesting.
At 30km/h you will be caught at more lights, and so will other cars - therefore heavier traffic, so longer time is needed to travel the distance.

No. Unless the lights are staying red longer all of a sudden, you're chances of hitting a red are the same.

If anything, the increase in journey time is likely to be lower than the calculations, given that on any given journey the opportunity to travel at a maximum of 50kph would be lower than at 30kph.

P.C.

monument wrote: »

Do you realise how small the 30km/h zone is? Here's the map.

Only three bridge crossings are affected, 11 others within the M50 are unaffected.

I am going to assume that you do not want to encourage through traffic out of the city centre.

?Cee?view

wax wrote: »

I may be way off the mark here but I'd like people's views......... I believe the majority of people are against the new limit simply because it's just another measure against those who drive. Its already ridiculous to be able to afford to drive in this country. With the prices of cars, fuel, tax and insurance etc and now motorists feel they are easily being branded as criminals (which in effect is what points are) just for barely going above the speed limit.
My main point is that I believe motorists just feel this is the beginning. The next step will be the main roads getting reduced and with improvements in cars/technology etc. this is just another step backwards.

I agree 100%. Everything you have said above is true.

neutron

Folks,
These are the councillors on Dublin City councils Traffic Commitee that forced in te 30KPH zone that is screwing up Dublin taffic.

If you care about your city, Mail them now expressing your views to have it removed.

Cllr. Andrew Montague (Lab.) - Chairperson
andrewmontague@eircom.net

Cllr. Aine Clancy (Lab.)
aine.clancy@dublincity.ie

Cllr. Maria Parodi (Lab.)
maria.parodi@dublincity.ie

Cllr. Michael Conaghan (Lab.)
michael.conaghan@dublincity.ie

Cllr. Henry Upton (Lab.)
henry.upton@dublincity.ie

Cllr. Edie Wynne (F.G.)
wynnee@eircom.net

Cllr. Mary O’Shea (F.G.)
mposhea2@eircom.net

Cllr. Eoghan Murphy (F.G.)
info@eoghanmurphy.ie

Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick (F.F.)
mary.fitzpatrick@dublincity.ie

Cllr. Larry O’Toole (S.F.)
larry.otoole@dublincity.ie

blorg

Thanks for that neutron, I'll email them expressing my support for their making a bold move to make the city centre a nicer place to walk around.

-Chris-

-Chris- wrote: »

With all due respect, I believe we are on topic.

This is the Motors forum, for the discussion of motoring issues and for use by people interested in motoring.
If you want to get properly political, to pursue a specific political agenda or to mobilise a particular political movement then there's a specific politics forum for this kind of thing.

neutron wrote: »

Folks,
These are the councillors on Dublin City councils Traffic Commitee that forced in te 30KPH zone that is screwing up Dublin taffic.

If you care about your city, Mail them now expressing your views to have it removed.

<snip>

Neutron et al., I'm asking one more time that you stop with your political soapboxing. This is not a place for political rallying, it's a place for discussion of car related issues.

Discuss the issues, bitch about the people who made the decision, suggest your alternatives.

I'm not happy with you using Motors to start or sustain a political action.

zynaps

P.C. wrote: »

YAt 30km/h you will be caught at more lights, and so will other cars - therefore heavier traffic, so longer time is needed to travel the distance.

What are you basing that on? It seems to me that on average, you'll be caught at exactly the same amount of lights, if the sequence was random. If the sequence is not random and instead arranged so that there is this "green wave" on the most popular routes once you fall into the flow of traffic, then it's down to setting up the light sequence correctly (i.e. if the "green wave" only works when you travel at 50kph or indeed, anything other than 30kph, then the sequence needs to be tweaked).

?Cee?view

-Chris- wrote: »

Neutron et al., I'm asking one more time that you stop with your political soapboxing. This is not a place for political rallying, it's a place for discussion of car related issues.

Discuss the issues, bitch about the people who made the decision, suggest your alternatives.

I'm not happy with you using Motors to start or sustain a political action.

Chris,

Is there any way that there can be a link from one board to another?

What I'm getting at is this. The last thing anyone wants on a Motors boards is to be bored sick with politics, but many boardies here are probably pissed off with this speed limit. Maybe they'd like to see a link to a board where a bit of an email campaign or something like that could be organised to get this repealed.

That way - keep this for Motors, but direct people to elsewhere where they can organise against this limit. FWIW as a motorist, I'm pissed off with the daily imposition of more curbs to our freedom. It seems we need to get as as organised as some other much smaller but apparently more vocal groups.

Thanks Chris,

C'view

LostinBlanch

seamus wrote: »

No, you actually believe there's some sort of cyclist conspiracy going on here.

I was referring to the echo chamber effect that has happened on this thread with all the cyclists commenting on this thread, not to any official conspiracy per se.

seamus wrote: »

Paranoid much?

Well you were the one that mentioned conspiracy. :rolleyes:

seamus wrote: »

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

Actually I did a brief search and couldn't find anything explicit. There may well be but I'm not going to be bothered trawling through thousands of posts to satisfy you. So I will concede you may be right and change that remark. See, when I can't back up any point I can change/withdraw it or just admit I was wrong. I'm not so wedded to an ideology that I have to see everything through one prism. Are you?

My original point about the cycling jihadis seeking to portray themselves as victims with their boohoo they want to ban all bikes from the city centre still stands.

seamus wrote: »

I heard him say them this morning and I cringed.

so Eamon Gilmore reacting to an outrageous decision by Montague & Co makes you cringe? Maybe he had his eye on other things and didn't think what kind of clusterf**k Montague was planning.

seamus wrote: »

None of them are reasonable points, not one.

That's your opinion. Do the Road Safety Authority, The Gardai, Dublin Bus, The AA, Traffic Managers Associations, Taxi drivers Associations, Employers Associations, Unions, Dublin City Business Association specifically agree with you? Is there any body, public or private that does?

seamus wrote: »

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.

Aw poor ickle Andrew hoist on his own petard. I think he has done his party no service at all, has found out the hard way and he may find that his political career is less likely to go the way he planned.

seamus wrote: »

it's all based on a perceived right to drive your car whereever the hell you like and however you like.

I haven't seen anyone on here advocating driving how and where they like. I have seen people expressing their extreme disappointment with such a cackhanded measure.

Also here is the podcast of an interview the bould Andrew had with Pat Kenny last week. I only found this now. Honestly. he couldn't give any research, findings of the studies "supporting" his arguments. He spends most of the interview deliberately trying not to answer questions and is handed his a*se on a plate when Pat Kenny calls him on backing up his argument with facts. What do you know the cities he mentions have lower speed limits in residential areas and not in city centre areas. Strangely Andrew doesn't have the study to hand when pressed for the specific study supporting his argument. :rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

P.C. wrote: »

I have read the whole thread, and there seems to be the 'anti car' posters, and the 'anti bicycle' posters.

What about the anti motorbike posters Barbie?

Less of the discrimination please

?Cee?view

LostinBlanch wrote: »

here[/URL] is the podcast of an interview the bould Andrew had with Pat Kenny last week. I only found this now. Honestly. he couldn't give any research, findings of the studies "supporting" his arguments. He spends most of the interview deliberately trying not to answer questions and is handed his a*se on a plate when Pat Kenny calls him on backing up his argument with facts. What do you know the cities he mentions have lower speed limits in residential areas and not in city centre areas. Strangely Andrew doesn't have the study to hand when pressed for the specific study supporting his argument. :rolleyes:

That's just brilliant - Pat demolished Montague. He was very even handed but he tore apart Montague's nonsense. Fair dues to Pat, he is really good when it comes to serious investigative journalism - he, unlike Montague, had his research done.

Pat's also a biker, even if it's only a BMW C1

Monatague said "the stated aim is to make the City more attractive for cycling" - truly shocking anti-motorist drivel.

Get rid of Gay Byrne - Pat the Plank for head of the RSA!!!

monument

P.C. wrote: »

I am going to assume that you do not want to encourage through traffic out of the city centre.

O'Connell Street is already bus-only at the north side entrance, the south bound lane is a bus stop anyway and the north bound lane isn't much better.

Capel Street is jammed across the day and most of the night too.

Parnell Street feeds into a slow Capel Street at one end and the bus stop that is Parnell Street at the other.

Bersford Street / Greek Street is a residential area.

Westmoreland Street / College Green / Dame Street is blocked off at morning and evening rush hour.

Traffic on South Great Georges Street is slow most of the time and it becomes partly a car park on Saturday evening till late Sunday or early Monday.

Mary Street, Henry Street, and Grafton Street are pedestrianised.


And you want to encourage through traffic?

P.C.

monument wrote: »

O'Connell Street is already bus-only at the north side entrance, the south bound lane is a bus stop anyway and the north bound lane isn't much better.

Capel Street is jammed across the day and most of the night too.

Parnell Street feeds into a slow Capel Street at one end and the bus stop that is Parnell Street at the other.

Bersford Street / Greek Street is a residential area.

Westmoreland Street / College Green / Dame Street is blocked off at morning and evening rush hour.

Traffic on South Great Georges Street is slow most of the time and it becomes partly a car park on Saturday evening till late Sunday or early Monday.

Mary Street, Henry Street, and Grafton Street are pedestrianised.


And you want to encourage through traffic?

No, you are the one who does not want to get rid of through traffic.

I want motorists to be able to use the M50 for free, thus encouraging them to drive arround the city instead of through it.

Your answer to me was to point out how 'small' the 30km/h area is.

I was under the impresion that you were implying that you had no problem with motorist using the city centre, as the 30km/h area was 'very' small.

If I am mistaken, I appologise.

So, do you agree with the idea of making the M50 free, or would you rather motorist go through the city centre?