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

neutron

-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.

Hmm...

Are speed limits not a car related issue?
Is road safety not a car related issue?
Are motorists being unjustly penalised due to an extreme political lobby not a car related issue?

I am a motorist and what affects my experience and enjoyment as a motorist are road related car issues. I am happy to bring to the attention of fellow like minded motorists on this forum any item that will affect their motoring experience i.e. their use of a car either good or bad.

I have seen many discussions on the price of petrol
I have seen many discussions on the negative impact of VRT
I have seen many discussions speed cameras

Are they politcal as well? when politics, as it must, be mentioned because they are car related issues?

I am happy to see the weave your own mueseli types promoting cycling as it is something that affects car related issues so I believe it is a good thing to discuss here. Is that political?

I do not see any difference between requesting people to lobby their local councillors to create a positive change for us motorists or for other motorists on this forum e.g. pointing out who to contact or challenge for other car related issues e.g. Toyota Ireland with all of the recalls , bad servicing issues, or car owners looking for and receiving information on dealerships etc.

Now as a genuine motorist that believes in a safe standard of driving and a proper road system through Dublin I do not see how trying to achieve that without making political points is possible.

I am sure you do not want to be seen as being anti-car and biased against motorists but if you say that the motoring related points I have made about the above motoring related issues are somehow not for motorists I don't imagine you need to be a genius to figure out what people will think.

?Cee?view

Neutron,

I agree with many, if not most, of the points you're making.

But I draw the line at the tone in which you're questioning Chris. When it comes to moderators, I kind of think that they "own" the boards they moderate. They are the ones that put the time into ensuring that things run smoothly so at times we just have to abide by what they say. If we don't agree; at worst I think a gentle questioning is appropriate.

You're frustrated with the "weave your own meusli types" (I love that phrase), but don't take it out on guys who've put in good time long before you and me were here.

Nothing personal at all - and I reiterate that I agree with most of what you say - just my 2c (that's me up to about 6c on this thread!)

Midnight_EG

Just a bit of input on the political side, this thread did start it's life in After Hours (I think), so shouldn't a little bit of leniency be allowed.


Although I admit I havent read the whole thread since I posted in it last, so I could be totally wrong.

blorg

P.C. wrote: »

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.

He was pointing out that the 30km/h area is so small that the M50 isn't really a particularly relevant alternative. If you are looking to drive through the city from the sort of distance out where the M50 would make any sense there are plenty of ways of doing it avoiding the 30km/h zone entirely. In fact you would probably have to make an extra effort to get into the 30km/h zone for any distance given the turning restrictions, etc.

It was already pointed out that the Pearse St-Tara St-Gardiner St route in the east is entirely outside the zone as is Patrick St-High St-Church St-Bolton Street to the west.

Offtopic I would have no problem with the M50 being free but that isn't within Dublin City Council's jurisdiction and doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on the question of this city centre speed limit. Maximising utilization of the Port Tunnel through lower car tolls would also be a good idea, it's a great facility and there are movements in that direction.

-Chris-

churchview wrote: »

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

Hi Churchview,

On boards at the moment there are three threads already that are discussing this - 1 in Cycling and 2 in Motors.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055813165
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055815483
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055815120

Really the two in Motors should have been merged, but they grew so quick that they would have made no sense if they were just jumbled together.

I'm sure there are more threads if we look.

I like that there's such widespread interest in this change, and the divergent opinions make the discussion interesting.

The problem with a forum as large as boards is that if you don't try and segregate topics into the most appropriate forums, you end up with lots of cross-posting and multiple versions of the exact same conversation in many sub-fora. That's why we'd try and keep things on-topic - because if the thread becomes more about the politics and the rallying of troops, then it should be moved to the politics forum and then we'd lose out on a great debate.

To answer your question, if I were looking to rally troops and overturn this I'd start a thread in Politics saying "how do I do this and who'll help me?". I'd put a link in my sig to that thread to draw attention to it. I might even post in the Cycling thread and (both) Motors threads "hey, I'm rallying troops in the politics forum, come join me". I'd also start the same thread on politics.ie. I'd probably also start a Facebook group.
In fact I'd do all these things and put links to all of them in my sig.

If you want discussion on cars, come to the Motors forum. If you want to lobby politicians - you'll be more effective rallying troops if you post where the activists are.

Boards has no problem supporting these discussions either in my experience - MIJAG had a subforum here but it kind of died out. Barretstown have a subforum, as do Ireland Offline.

neutron wrote: »

Hmm...

Are speed limits not a car related issue?
Is road safety not a car related issue?
Are motorists being unjustly penalised due to an extreme political lobby not a car related issue?

Yes they are.

neutron wrote: »

I am a motorist and what affects my experience and enjoyment as a motorist are road related car issues. I am happy to bring to the attention of fellow like minded motorists on this forum any item that will affect their motoring experience i.e. their use of a car either good or bad.

And I believe you're correct in bringing these issues to everyone's attention.

neutron wrote: »

I have seen many discussions on the price of petrol
I have seen many discussions on the negative impact of VRT
I have seen many discussions speed cameras

Are they politcal as well? when politics, as it must, be mentioned because they are car related issues?

We discuss all these issues, and there have been some great debates, but we've never let them become overtly political.
When there were people posting things like "let's punish the gov't for their changes to VRT by voting No to Lisbon" we shot it down instantly.
The distinction is subtle but clear in my mind.

neutron wrote: »

I am happy to see the weave your own mueseli types promoting cycling as it is something that affects car related issues so I believe it is a good thing to discuss here. Is that political?

If someone from the DCC came on here and questioned our attitudes to cyclists, I'd be happy to have them. If they came on and kept pushing the fact that they were lobbying to achieve something, I'd ask them to stop.
In fact, I remember reading a thread about the Dublin Critical Mass in the Cycling forum that got shot down in flames. The politicking didn't seem to fare that well there, even when you'd presume that the Cycling forum would be full of people who'd support the Critical Mass.

neutron wrote: »

I do not see any difference between requesting people to lobby their local councillors to create a positive change for us motorists or for other motorists on this forum e.g. pointing out who to contact or challenge for other car related issues e.g. Toyota Ireland with all of the recalls , bad servicing issues, or car owners looking for and receiving information on dealerships etc.

You made the first post with contact details & everything, you even put the instruction in the title of the thread. We left all of that intact.
If you had a Toyota and had an issue with how you're being treated by a garage and found that others had the same issue, I see no problem with posting "here's the contact details for Toyota Ireland, let's all email them with our problems".
If you posted that in the Consumer Issues forum, it would be moved here. Same if it was posted in the Commuting & Transport forum.

You don't have a consumer issue, you have a specific group of politicians you want to lobby to overturn a decision they made. Everyone else is discussing the issues and how it will affect them and whether they think it's good or bad.
You're giving out politician's email addresses. Read back through your posts in this thread, at least half of them mention a political party or the DCC. I believe you're trying to turn the debate political and I'm asking you to stop.

neutron wrote: »

Now as a genuine motorist that believes in a safe standard of driving and a proper road system through Dublin I do not see how trying to achieve that without making political points is possible.

I do, and I'm asking you to stop.

neutron wrote: »

I am sure you do not want to be seen as being anti-car and biased against motorists but if you say that the motoring related points I have made about the above motoring related issues are somehow not for motorists I don't imagine you need to be a genius to figure out what people will think.

I'm pretty pro-car, you don't decide to build your career in the motor industry if you don't like cars.
As for the rest of this paragraph, I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at, but I don't believe it's particularly complementary...

churchview wrote: »

When it comes to moderators, I kind of think that they "own" the boards they moderate. They are the ones that put the time into ensuring that things run smoothly so at times we just have to abide by what they say. If we don't agree; at worst I think a gentle questioning is appropriate.

I disagree with this to a certain extent.
I feel as a moderator that my main duty is to keep things civil and reasonable, to protect people from unreasonable attack while also trying to make sure no one says anything stupid that will get boards sued and curtail our wonderful community.
I "own" nothing, and merely try and make sure things are fair and balanced. I self-censor more than I'd like.
I expect people to abide by the instructions of Mods because I believe most people realise that Mods are acting with the best interest of the community at heart.
I'll welcome any questioning with open arms, I'll defend my actions as best I can. If I feel my actions are indefensible or that I no longer represent the best interests of the Motors community I'll step down.

But if I have to give repeated warnings and if I feel someone's taking the p1ss, they're going to get banned and they can fight the point with a CMod or an Admin.

But now I'm waaaaaay off-topic...


All the above is IMHO, My €0.02 etc. etc.

DirkVoodoo

P.C. wrote: »

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.

But I am a motorist, as well as a cyclist if you want to apply labels, I just choose not to drive into the city when I need to go. Like I said, I wouldn't force others to do the same, but if you look at the projections for 2020 (taken from RTE):

The planning department states that the number of commuters entering the city is projected to nearly double to 375,000 people by 2020.

It says there is no more capacity on the city's roads and that traffic modelling has shown that it may be necessary for through traffic to be removed to allow the city to function.

That is not anti-car, that is just what I said it is: unsustainable. If you want to quote this back to me in 10 years if driving through Dublin is any better than it is now without any additional measures, you can and I will humbly acknowledge it.

EDIT: Also, come on! Can I not cycle a bike without being labeled a "muesli weaving" hippy? Is it not possible that I actually enjoy being on a bike? Don't get me wrong, I love to drive, just on open roads. Being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic holds little appeal for me.

irishmotorist

churchview wrote: »

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

How is this anti-motorist? To be in PRO one thing, does not automatically make you ANTI something else. It's not stopping anybody from driving or even making it difficult to drive.

I drove in the new limit area (along the north quays as far as O'Connell bridge) for the first time yesterday and yes, I did find it a bit frustrating feeling. However, it didn't add 1 second to my journey time - the queue at O'Connell bridge where it took me, in total, about 2 turns of the lights to get through from the Halfpenny Bridge meant that my journey time stayed the same. I was driving through there at about 7:00 or so and, if anything, I enjoyed coasting at 30km/h between sets of lights to see if I would get green as promised by DCC. I made it through all lights until the pedestrian Millennium Bridge. I don't know if this is out of sequence with the traffic bridges though.

It made no difference to journey time at a time of day when I could have achieved 50km/h (due to low traffic volumes). I assume it will make less (or equally none!) of a difference when traffic is bumper to bumper from Heuston Station the whole way up to O'Connell Bridge and further and there's little chance of ever getting above 15/20 km/h.

Mitch Connor

BluePlanet wrote: »

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

no it isn't. Not really when you are talking about speed limits. Otherwise why don't we just ban all motorised transportation so there is no speed anywhere for anything.

People have died because a bus mounted a pavement - it didn't do this due to speed, it was because of a fault - the bus was not speeding at the time. Cyclists have been killed by trucks turning in on them at less than 30kph - speed was not the cause.

If we are reducing the speed limit to increase safety, I would like to see the figures for the number of people killed or injured in the affected area due, primarily, to speed (and where that speed has been over 30kph and less than the previous speed limit)

gurramok

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?

Its the quays that are the problem with this new limit, not those areas mentioned as those areas mentioned don't really cater for river crossing traffic.
Its the west-east and vice versa traffic where the strongest objections are.

seamus

LostinBlanch wrote: »

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

"Jihadis", does that not imply some form of conspiracy? :rolleyes:

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?

Absolutely not. If someone presented a reasonable argument against this limit, I would reassess my position. But no-one has.

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.

Where are cyclists here portraying themselves as victims. In fact, where has cycliing been brought up at all except by non-cyclists going on some tangental rant?

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?

The only people from the above list who's opinion on this matter has any relevance is the RSA and the Gardai. Do they specifically think that this is bad idea?

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.

All we have seen is people expressing displeasure with something because it's "stupid" or "unreasonable", without presenting any logical reasons as to why it is so.
If I proposed increasing the limit in Dublin City Centre to 80km/h, you can call it a "stupid" limit and present hundreds of logical, factual reasons as to why it is so. By the same token, if this lower limit is stupid, then it should be possible to provide valid reasons as to why it is so.

Seriously, when a council implements a horrendously flawed and ridiculous policy or law, I'm one of the first to say so. But I've yet to see any major flaws or ridiculousness in this.

Why can no-one provide me with one?

BluePlanet

Mitch Connor wrote: »

no it isn't. Not really when you are talking about speed limits. Otherwise why don't we just ban all motorised transportation so there is no speed anywhere for anything.

People have died because a bus mounted a pavement - it didn't do this due to speed, it was because of a fault - the bus was not speeding at the time. Cyclists have been killed by trucks turning in on them at less than 30kph - speed was not the cause.

If we are reducing the speed limit to increase safety, I would like to see the figures for the number of people killed or injured in the affected area due, primarily, to speed (and where that speed has been over 30kph and less than the previous speed limit)

You are making a presumption that the Council decided to create the 30kph zone citing speed as the primary cause of accidents and resultant fatalities. I think that's wrong.
What i am pointing out is that accidents happen for a variety of reasons and will continue to do so. However, fatalities and injuries within the 30kph zone will decrease in proportion to the decrease in speed.
The fact is that slower speeds = less fatal accidents.
Someone has posted a graph that illustrates this a few pages back.

Jumpy

blorg wrote: »

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.

Dear Councillors,

Your email addresses were placed on a thread on boards.ie with a reference to contact you all with resistance to the Dublin 30kph zone, I thank that poster for placing your addresses there as now I know who to congratulate.
It is good to finally see Ireland moving forward in regards to traffic calming in highly populated areas.
I hope during any ongoing pressure you remain firm in your resolve to keep this speed limit in place and hopfully other city councils will put this into effect. I see this as short term pain for long term gain.

Thanks again,

Mitch Connor

BluePlanet wrote: »

You are making a presumption that the Council decided to create the 30kph zone citing speed as the primary cause of accidents and resultant fatalities. I think that's wrong.
What i am pointing out is that accidents happen for a variety of reasons and will continue to do so. However, fatalities and injuries within the 30kph zone will decrease in proportion to the decrease in speed.
The fact is that slower speeds = less fatal accidents.
Someone has posted a graph that illustrates this a few pages back.

Yeah - they posted a graph showing the likelyhood of fatalities at paticular speeds, from 1984.

I'm asking to see stats to show how many people have died as a result of what would now considered to be speeding, in the affected area.

It is simply NOT a fact that slower speed will equal less fatalities. Cyclists being killed by trucks turning in on them on left hand turns seems to be a big issue in the city centre - i certainly precieve that I have heard more about that type of incident than any single other - but in these incidents the speed of the truck has been given as less than 30kph, so the new speed limit will NOT reduce these incidents. Another high profile issue of deaths caused by a vehicle in the city centre was the bus mounting the pavement. The new speed limit would not have had any effect on this incident. it still would have happened so again the new limit will not reduce that kind of fatality.

I am simply looking for statistics that show the number of deaths that the new limit WILL have an impact on, demonstrably. People simply saying going slower will save lives is not enough, i want empirical evidence to back this assertion up.

By the way, I am not expecting you personally to provide this, i'm not having a go at you personally. I am simply curious to see the statistics that this 'safety' initiative has been based on and you are the person currently replying to me.

Also, while I accept that the reasons behind the new limit may be safety based, I am unconvinced that it is any more than an ill-researched move whose ideal do not match up with the realities.

"Make people go slower and we'll save the lives we would otherwise have lost", while a nice notion, is far too simplistic imo and I would like to see the evidence that would prove me wrong.

Jumpy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

"Make people go slower and we'll save the lives we would otherwise have lost", while a nice notion, is far too simplistic imo and I would like to see the evidence that would prove me wrong.

Then take an extra 5 minutes on your journey, wait a year and see if it works.

Mitch Connor

Jumpy wrote: »

Then take an extra 5 minutes on your journey, wait a year and see if it works.

Erm, no - it will prove nothing in a year.

Correlation != Causation.

We could see 5 less deaths next year, but that doesn't mean the 30kph limit is the reason. It could be that a bus doesn't mount a pavement for reasons not to do with speed, or a truck doesn't turn in on a cyclists and kill them, again for nothing to do with the limit.

The evidence to back up the decision made should already be there - the reasons should be in the statistics gathered over the last decade or two decades. There should be statistical evidence showing that driving at speeds over 30kph and less than 50kph has been the cause of death or serious injury. If the evidence does not show this, than the new limit is nothing more than pandering to the ill-informed crowds like most motor related legislation.

seamus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The evidence to back up the decision made should already be there - the reasons should be in the statistics gathered over the last decade or two decades. There should be statistical evidence showing that driving at speeds over 30kph and less than 50kph has been the cause of death or serious injury.

You mean evidence like this from Helsinki?:
http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/www/Liikenne/speedlimits_in_helsinki.pdf

Where dropping the limit from 40kph to 30kph reduced the cost of vehicle accidents by €5 million in one year.

Helsinki has roughly the same population as Dublin, but half the density.

Or this one from the WHO:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/summary_en_rev.pdf
where

The town of Baden, Austria launched a management plan in 1988 that has resulted in about 75% of its
road network being restricted to speeds of 30 km/h or less and an integrated system of public transport with pedestrian and bicycle routes. The rate of road casualties has declined by 60%

Granted, they also took steps to remove cyclists and pedestrians away from the roads - but that's a town where you can do that, not a city centre where space is limited.

Safety in the city centre is not just about how many people died last year, it's about how many ended up having to go to hospital. If people think that the city centre is risky, they'll avoid it.

Run_to_da_hills

Someone walked out in front of a bus this morning along the quays. complacency is setting in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0205/breaking7.htm

Mitch Connor

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Someone walked out in front of a bus this morning along the quays. complacency is setting in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0205/breaking7.htm

better reduce the limit to 20, 30 clearly isn't slow enough.

Mitch Connor

seamus wrote: »

You mean evidence like this from Helsinki?:
http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/www/Liikenne/speedlimits_in_helsinki.pdf

Where dropping the limit from 40kph to 30kph reduced the cost of vehicle accidents by €5 million in one year.

Helsinki has roughly the same population as Dublin, but half the density.

Or this one from the WHO:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/summary_en_rev.pdf
where
Granted, they also took steps to remove cyclists and pedestrians away from the roads - but that's a town where you can do that, not a city centre where space is limited.

Safety in the city centre is not just about how many people died last year, it's about how many ended up having to go to hospital. If people think that the city centre is risky, they'll avoid it.

how about evidence in Dublin to show that the 50kpb limits were the problem.

seamus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

better reduce the limit to 20, 30 clearly isn't slow enough.

The bus was moving at about 10km/h ^_^
There's no legislating for some accidents.

how about evidence in Dublin to show that the 50kpb limits were the problem.

Of course they're the problem in one regard. Every pedestrian hit by a car at 50km/h would have suffered less injuries if the car was travelling at 30km/h. That's a given. Therefore dropping the limit to 30km/h will reduce the severity and therefore the number of serious injuries.

And the statistics from other jurisdictions back this up.

irishmotorist

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Someone walked out in front of a bus this morning along the quays. complacency is setting in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0205/breaking7.htm

Was this the first person to be hit after walking in front of a bus, or just the first since the new speed limits applied?

Cycling through Dublin city, I find pedestrians stepping onto the road and then (perhaps) looking to see if there's anything coming is the biggest threat to me staying upright. It is shocking how many people just don't look before stepping onto the road.

I'm not saying that this person was to blame in this instance, just pointing out that there will be people hit by buses due to their own neglect. Complacency didn't start on Monday.

Mitch Connor

seamus wrote: »

The bus was moving at about 10km/h ^_^
There's no legislating for some accidents.

Of course they're the problem in one regard. Every pedestrian hit by a car at 50km/h would have suffered less injuries if the car was travelling at 30km/h. That's a given. Therefore dropping the limit to 30km/h will reduce the severity and therefore the number of serious injuries.

And the statistics from other jurisdictions back this up.

in the affected area, how many pedestrians were hit by cars at 50kph. That is EXACTLY the statistic I want to know.

As you say yourself "There's no legislating for some accidents.". This is my point - I want to know how many recorded accidents have been legislated for by this move, and how many would likely have happened regardless of the limit applied (such as the bus incident today, the bus incident last year, the truck turning left incidents)

seamus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

in the affected area, how many pedestrians were hit by cars at 50kph. That is EXACTLY the statistic I want to know.

As you say yourself "There's no legislating for some accidents.". This is my point - I want to know how many recorded accidents have been legislated for by this move, and how many would likely have happened regardless of the limit applied (such as the bus incident today, the bus incident last year, the truck turning left incidents)

I'd like to know that too -
How many people were killed and injured by vehicles in the city centre over the last five years, broken down by the type of vehicle.

Again though as I point out, it's not just about reducing the number of accidents, but reducing the severity of them too.

Run_to_da_hills

irishmotorist wrote: »

Was this the first person to be hit after walking in front of a bus, or just the first since the new speed limits applied?

Cycling through Dublin city, I find pedestrians stepping onto the road and then (perhaps) looking to see if there's anything coming is the biggest threat to me staying upright. It is shocking how many people just don't look before stepping onto the road.

Pedestrians have always walked out in front of cyclists, particularly at red signal crossings along O'Connell St and along the quays. In my days of cycling I purchased a marine grade compressed air fog signal and attached it to the handlebars for this purpose and it worked wonders.

The reason pedestrians paid little heed to cyclists is because they considered them slow moving vehicles that can stop or swerve to avoid. We will see the same with all traffic with these new limits. There will be no more need for pedestrian crossings in the city as it will now become "safe" to cross anywhere.

irishmotorist

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason pedestrians paid little heed to cyclists is because they considered them slow moving vehicles that can stop or swerve to avoid.

I'd tend to disagree with that. I think that people rely on hearing as well as sight. If you hear a vehicle, then you won't step onto the road. If you don't hear the vehicle, many people step onto the road (say, to overtake another walker on the path) and then look to be sure there's nothing coming. If there is background noise, then I can see the same thing happening in front of a bus.

I see it in myself too and were I not a cyclist, I may be unaware of the inclination.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I'd like to know that too -
How many people were killed and injured by vehicles in the city centre over the last five years, broken down by the type of vehicle.

And just to clarify here, it's not necessary to know Dublin-specific statistics in order to justify this limit;

Dublin is not special, city-wise. It has traffic, it has pedestrians and they intermix. Therefore it can be assumed that any city with a similar profile will have similar patterns of traffic movement and accident rates/costs. So what works for one city (e.g. Helsinki) can be presumed to have a similar effect here in Dublin. If it doesn't, then we can assume that Dublin is special in some way and a different approach is needed.

However, a lack of statistics specific to Dublin does not indicate that we're applying a change to an unknown quantity. I don't need to have driven your car to know that when I turn the wheel left, the car will go left.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Pedestrians have always walked out in front of cyclists, particularly at red signal crossings along O'Connell St and along the quays. In my days of cycling I purchased a marine grade compressed air fog signal and attached it to the handlebars for this purpose and it worked wonders.

The reason pedestrians paid little heed to cyclists is because they considered them slow moving vehicles that can stop or swerve to avoid. We will see the same with all traffic with these new limits. There will be no more need for pedestrian crossings in the city as it will now become "safe" to cross anywhere.

I think the main reason people step out in front of cyclists is that they use their ears rather than their eyes to cross the road, and a bicycle is almost completley silent. Cars, busses and trucks have engines, and should hopefully still be making enough noise at 30kph for these kind of Darwin award canditates to be able to hear.

Redjeep!

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the main reason people step out in front of cyclists is that they use their ears rather than their eyes to cross the road, and a bicycle is almost completley silent. Cars, busses and trucks have engines, and should hopefully still be making enough noise at 30kph for these kind of Darwin award canditates to be able to hear.

I think it's a combination of factors including they're harder to notice as they're smaller and the fear of being hit by one is less than for a bus or a truck. There's probably also a feeling that they're slow moving and can stop immediately so can effectively be intimidated into stopping, in the same way you may step out in front of another pedestrian.

Redjeep!

Redjeep! wrote: »

I think it's a combination of factors including they're harder to notice as they're smaller and the fear of being hit by one is less than for a bus or a truck. There's probably also a feeling that they're slow moving and can stop immediately so can effectively be intimidated into stopping, in the same way you may step out in front of another pedestrian.

There may be an element of that as well. The one time I collided with a ped while on my bike was when a guy literally jumped off the footpath directly in front of me. He never even turned his head to check for traffic and obviously assumed that because he hadn't heard anything, nothing was coming. Hopefully he won't be so quick to make the same mistake in future.

Redjeep!

Deleted User wrote: »

There may be an element of that as well. The one time I collided with a ped while on my bike was when a guy literally jumped off the footpath directly in front of me. He never even turned his head to check for traffic and obviously assumed that because he hadn't heard anything, nothing was coming. Hopefully he won't be so quick to make the same mistake in future.

If I can't hear it, then it can't hurt me.:D

Traumadoc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yeah - they posted a graph showing the likelyhood of fatalities at paticular speeds, from 1984.

I'm asking to see stats to show how many people have died as a result of what would now considered to be speeding, in the affected area.

It is simply NOT a fact that slower speed will equal less fatalities. Cyclists being killed by trucks turning in on them on left hand turns seems to be a big issue in the city centre - i certainly precieve that I have heard more about that type of incident than any single other - but in these incidents the speed of the truck has been given as less than 30kph, so the new speed limit will NOT reduce these incidents. Another high profile issue of deaths caused by a vehicle in the city centre was the bus mounting the pavement. The new speed limit would not have had any effect on this incident. it still would have happened so again the new limit will not reduce that kind of fatality.

I am simply looking for statistics that show the number of deaths that the new limit WILL have an impact on, demonstrably. People simply saying going slower will save lives is not enough, i want empirical evidence to back this assertion up.

By the way, I am not expecting you personally to provide this, i'm not having a go at you personally. I am simply curious to see the statistics that this 'safety' initiative has been based on and you are the person currently replying to me.

Also, while I accept that the reasons behind the new limit may be safety based, I am unconvinced that it is any more than an ill-researched move whose ideal do not match up with the realities.

"Make people go slower and we'll save the lives we would otherwise have lost", while a nice notion, is far too simplistic imo and I would like to see the evidence that would prove me wrong.

Surely if you use that argument you could advocate no speed limit and have everyone race through Dublin.

The main argument is that a pedestrian hit by a motorised vehicle has a better chance of survival if the energy transferred is lower.

neutron

churchview wrote: »

Neutron,

I agree with many, if not most, of the points you're making.

But I draw the line at the tone in which you're questioning Chris. When it comes to moderators, I kind of think that they "own" the boards they moderate. They are the ones that put the time into ensuring that things run smoothly so at times we just have to abide by what they say. If we don't agree; at worst I think a gentle questioning is appropriate.

You're frustrated with the "weave your own meusli types" (I love that phrase), but don't take it out on guys who've put in good time long before you and me were here.

Nothing personal at all - and I reiterate that I agree with most of what you say - just my 2c (that's me up to about 6c on this thread!)

I fully respect the hard work the moderators on this board do, if my tone was incorrect I genuinely apologise for it.

Run_to_da_hills

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the main reason people step out in front of cyclists is that they use their ears rather than their eyes to cross the road, and a bicycle is almost completley silent. Cars, busses and trucks have engines, and should hopefully still be making enough noise at 30kph for these kind of Darwin award canditates to be able to hear.

Not all cars are silent, a mate of mine had a Toyota Prius and he had quite a lot of trouble with pedestrians walking out in front of him in creep mode.

I think the RSA should rerelease the safe cross coad .

Mitch Connor

Nakatomi wrote: »

Surely if you use that argument you could advocate no speed limit and have everyone race through Dublin.

The main argument is that a pedestrian hit by a motorised vehicle has a better chance of survival if the energy transferred is lower.

Why must people abandon common sense?

Why does arguing against a low 30kph speed limit on some of the busiest roads in the capital automatically mean i should be in favour of no speed limit at all.

50kph was fine. Not to fast, not too slow. Cars are able to do that kind of speed in a comfortable manner without an increase in omissions and polution. I have yet to see statistics detailing that 50kph was or could be argued to be too fast in the first place. Where are the statistics on deaths and injuries on the affected roads due to people going between 30kph and 50kph? Don't just fall back on the simple line of lower speed - lower accidents, because as has been pointed out incidents causing injury and death in town (Bus incident last year and various truck incidents) have happened below 30kph and have had nothing at all to do with the speed the person was driving at, at the time.

It would be obviously stupid to have no speed limits in the city centre or on most roads.

Do you not understand that there is a happy medium?

Speed limits should be appropriate to the road. Not some blanket limit put on a road of a certain type.

We have been complaining for years that limits need to be individual to the road and the environment that surrounds it - this works both ways. 60kph was too slow for parts of the N11, this has been upgraded to 80kph in sections. We also see tight, narrow, twisty, grass filled country roads with 80kph limits when it should clearly be a lot lower.

All I really want is for limits to be appropriate to the roads they are applied to, and not a cynical marketing or political exercise with little research or planning behind it.

We could always have a reasonable speed limit on our roads and make rules that stipulate people should not just step into the road whenever they feel like. Maybe we could design some sort of designated crossing point where we could ensure traffic stops in a periodic fashion to allow pedestrians to cross safely; as opposed to this free-for-all walk anywhere you like system we seemingly had in place before this.

It is simply yet another example of officials needing to look like they are doing something and jumping on the easy bandwagon of speeding as their go-to solution for all traffic issues.

Improving driver and pedestrian education and awareness would be FAR more effective. If we taught drivers to be fully aware of their surroundings and to maintain safe distance we'd have less accidents. If we educated pedestrians to cross at the designated spots (and it is not like there is a lack of them in the city centre for example) then we wouldn't have them stepping out in front of cars, buses, trucks and bikes. It would also not just actually improve safety in one small section of the country but all over the country. However, that is far too daunting a project for the government to embark on.

zynaps

BluePlanet wrote: »

However, fatalities and injuries within the 30kph zone will decrease in proportion to the decrease in speed.
The fact is that slower speeds = less fatal accidents.
Someone has posted a graph that illustrates this a few pages back.

No, you're still not getting the point. If the majority (or even all) the accidents in that area happened at low speeds as mentioned (i.e. HGV turning left, bus mounting a pavement and hitting pedestrians due to an alleged mechanical fault), then fatalities and injuries in the 30kph zone will NOT decrease in proportion to the decrease in speed. They will be completely unaffected.

I'm not suggesting that the majority or all of those accidents necessarily are low speed accidents, but certainly some of them are and it'd be nice to see more information on that. If it was the case, then it would kind of nullify the safety argument, at least in terms of precedent (i.e. if no >30kph accidents ever happened in the zone, then the new speed limit has almost no justifiable safety basis).

zynaps

irishmotorist wrote: »

Was this the first person to be hit after walking in front of a bus, or just the first since the new speed limits applied?

Cycling through Dublin city, I find pedestrians stepping onto the road and then (perhaps) looking to see if there's anything coming is the biggest threat to me staying upright. It is shocking how many people just don't look before stepping onto the road.

This was my experience cycling in Dublin too.

irishmotorist wrote: »

I'm not saying that this person was to blame in this instance, just pointing out that there will be people hit by buses due to their own neglect. Complacency didn't start on Monday.

No, and this kind of complacency can't be solved by the new speed limit. If this is the major cause of accidents in the zone, then it questions the appropriateness of the solution. It might be a rock that's supposed to keep tigers away.

[edit]
Again I should point out that there may be other reasons why the speed limits are a good thing, but I just don't see any evidence (yet) that they are needed as a safety measure in the zone in question.

zynaps

Redjeep! wrote: »

I think it's a combination of factors including they're harder to notice as they're smaller and the fear of being hit by one is less than for a bus or a truck. There's probably also a feeling that they're slow moving and can stop immediately so can effectively be intimidated into stopping, in the same way you may step out in front of another pedestrian.

True - you'll see this if you cycle down O'Connell Street when lots of pedestrians are about. If you approach a pedestrian crossing while you still have a green and no cars happen to be approaching with you, pedestrians will sort of swarm forward from both sides and hesitate, with a couple nonchalantly walking across. Making eye contact can have dangerous consequences (i.e. he's seen me so I'll cross). :rolleyes:
And if you keep rolling through and have a near miss with someone, you'll often hear the IQ-lowering exclamation "ooo?!". :pac:

DirkVoodoo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not all cars are silent, a mate of mine had a Toyota Prius and he had quite a lot of trouble with pedestrians walking out in front of him in creep mode.

I think the RSA should rerelease the safe cross coad .

I remember years ago when the idea of electric vehicles was put forward there was a lot of concern about the lack of noise generated by them. I think the solution was to use an artificially created "vroom vroom" noise.

Obviously this hasn't happened on the Prius as being quiet is one of it's selling points and adds to it's "green" appeal. Like Ed Begley's buggy in the Simpsons, the only noise should be the whoosing of leaves.

Yes, people should use pedestrian lights to cross and not jaywalk, but anyone who has been down O'Connell street knows this doesn't happen.

It is interesting and I think there is certainly a case for 30kph being more dangerous to pedestrians than 50kph, after all if people perceive slowing moving traffic to be safer they will take more risks. I know from cycling that they often underestimate the speed of a bike. They see it and think "slow" so just stroll out. If there were pedestrian crossings on the autobahn I can't see many people wanting to jaywalk.

While it may lead to fewer deaths, who is to say it won't lead to more cases of serious injuries?

zynaps

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If we educated pedestrians to cross at the designated spots (and it is not like there is a lack of them in the city centre for example) then we wouldn't have them stepping out in front of cars, buses, trucks and bikes.

Unfortunately, pedestrians (in the city centre anyway) tend to cross at any time even while standing at pedestrian crossings. I don't think there's much "education" that can be done other than have the Gardaí fine people who jaywalk in an extremely dangerous manner (i.e. without looking, or running in front of a bus and forcing them to mash the brake).
I've nothing against jaywalking - it's my city and I'll cross the road if it's safe, and I do it all the time - but it is so easy to look in the direction of traffic and pick an opportune moment to do it. It's absolutely astonishing how many people refuse to simply turn their head and eyes toward the oncoming lane and do a quick check which might save their lives.

Something should be done about that, whether or not the 30kph limit stays in place though - there's no reason any these measures should be mutually exclusive, as long as they're individually justified.

blorg

zynaps wrote: »

I've nothing against jaywalking - it's my city and I'll cross the road if it's safe, and I do it all the time

It's also completely legal if you are 15m away from the nearest pedestrian crossing, presuming you don't just jump out in front of traffic.

monument

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yeah - they posted a graph showing the likelyhood of fatalities at paticular speeds, from 1984.

You missed that part where the graph referenced 2002 data?

And given the growth in larger cars and SUVs which are more dangerous to pedestrians, the older data may be wrong for different reasons which you are thinking.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It is simply NOT a fact that slower speed will equal less fatalities. ... i want empirical evidence to back this assertion up...

From 'Effect of 20 mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in London, 1986-2006: controlled interrupted time series analysis' Grundy in the BMJ

"Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths."

I hope that help you. It's a peer reviewed paper. Shows decline in most notably in pedestrian deaths/injuries, but also for cyclists, motorcyclists and car occupants.

There's also the evidence from Helsinki as mentioned above by another poster. I can also post papers from the WHO and OECD if you want?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

how about evidence in Dublin to show that the 50kpb limits were the problem.

You show us where the flaws are in the research or how it does not apply to Dublin.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

better reduce the limit to 20, 30 clearly isn't slow enough.

"the victim's injuries are not thought to be life threatening" says the article

blorg wrote: »

It's also completely legal if you are 15m away from the nearest pedestrian crossing, presuming you don't just jump out in front of traffic.

Furthermore pedestrians have the right of way in a lot of cases at junctions without ped lights where they have started crossing and drivers and cyclists do not respect.

BluePlanet

The only place this 30kph zone should be re-visted imo is along the Quays.
I don't see how the city could be re-designed in such a way that that area would not be a thoroughfare.
Nevertheless a 50kph speed limit should be strictly enforced there, and I've seen plenty of vehicles traveling way, way over that. There are huge numbers of pedestrians crossing the quays everyday, and it's going to be a conflict point.

From my own pov, the quays have to be the single most unpleasant outdoor urban space in the country. Have you ever tried to answer the phone along the Quays? Forget about it.
(It's not just the motors of car engines that make noise, the "white noise" of the friction between tyre and road is louder imo)

I don't know how the city could design that stretch but I certainly would be opposed to those ridiculous over-head pedestrian bridges they've built on the N11.

Here's a couple of pics to illustrate the point:
The N11 @ Cabinteely, i've had to go there a couple times on the bus.
There's a bus stop on the right hand side of the picture, just South of the pedestrain "bridge".
Here's an example of our finest "Civil Engineering"
Prepare to get seriously windblown! (collapse your umbrella if you want to keep it - i learned this the hard way)
http://photos3.pix.ie/BC/36/BC36B47BF77843C2ABA4DB3EC26880D5-1200.jpg
140+ meters according to Google Earth.

Yeah i can do it no problem, but can your granny?

I noticed that everybody else that got of the bus simply jay-walked straight across.
http://photos3.pix.ie/23/34/23347C3DBB50478DABC755936760D591-1200.jpg
It's only about 50m
Very dangerous on the N11 as it's basically a motorway.

Anyway, almost nobody uses this pedestrian bridge. It's absurd and tbh, kind of insulting. I'm not sure what the city can do for the Quays but maybe setup a congestion charge collection point or something to discourage motorists from choosing to use it. What do you think?

heybaby

You have two choices, either comply with the new 30kmph speed limt or break it. I use the quays on a daily basis, it will take me very slightly longer to get about but not much, so i will comply. the truth of the matter is that of you choose to break the new limit, there will be very little done. The guards have only been out once or twice since the introduction on the quays, it was merely a publicity stunt. Speeds traps etc i think are an urban myth, take taxi drivers etc and other regular road users such a van drivers and delivery people, to whom it is important to get from A to B as quickly as possible, you dont really hear them banging on about getting done for speeding, despite the fact that they are always on the road and always speed, so i wouldnt worry about getting caught. The guards have little interest in road users behaviour at the best of times as is evidenced by their general absence on our roads. any idea how many drivers have reached the 12 point penalty limit and been taken off the roads? very few id say. Like i said, i'll comply with 30kmph, you do whatever speed you like, just respect my right to comply by not honking your horn and flashing your lights please.:cool:

neutron

heybaby wrote: »

You have two choices, either comply with the new 30kmph speed limt or break it. I use the quays on a daily basis, it will take me very slightly longer to get about but not much, so i will comply. the truth of the matter is that of you choose to break the new limit, there will be very little done. The guards have only been out once or twice since the introduction on the quays, it was merely a publicity stunt. Speeds traps etc i think are an urban myth, take taxi drivers etc and other regular road users such a van drivers and delivery people, to whom it is important to get from A to B as quickly as possible, you dont really hear them banging on about getting done for speeding, despite the fact that they are always on the road and always speed, so i wouldnt worry about getting caught. The guards have little interest in road users behaviour at the best of times as is evidenced by their general absence on our roads. any idea how many drivers have reached the 12 point penalty limit and been taken off the roads? very few id say. Like i said, i'll comply with 30kmph, you do whatever speed you like, just respect my right to comply by not honking your horn and flashing your lights please.:cool:

Apart from the Gatso van during the week(that I believe does nothing for road safety unlike a good ticking off for dangerous driving coupled with the award of penalty points by a professional traffic corp member) there was no police prescence on the Quays this afternoon heading out of town. My Garda friends say the limit is unpoliceable except through Gatso cameras and they think understandbly believe is absurd.

From what I seen today driving down the quays on several occassions this afternoon the only people who were exceeding the limit were buses to safely cross junctions and Toyota drivers:p but I don't think their brakes were too good!

Redjeep!

OK, so lets try and summarise the last 600 + comments on this thread.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence from numerous international sources that suggests accidents at lower speed cause less serious injuries.

This would suggest that in the majority of accidents where speed was a factor, even if the accident wasn't prevented it would reduce the seriousness and would save lives of all road users.

It is significantly harder to bring in legislation against the other types of accidents such as a bus mounting the kerb etc, which can probably be thought of as a freak accident.

Numerous cities around the world have introduced similar speed restrictions and in general have seen a reduction in the number and seriousness of accidents.

The Irish Government and Dublin City Council are actively trying to get people to walk or cycle instead of using their cars due, to amongst other reasons, the reduction in CO2 emissions and the health benefits. This can be seen to be in parallel to the tax increases on cars with higher emissions and the reduction on cars with lower emissions and schemes such as 'cycle to work'.

Despite this body of evidence, and partly because none of it is actually specific to the accidents along the Quays, a proportion of drivers believe that being inconvenienced by a minute or two on their journey is an unacceptable price to pay for somebody elses safety.

There is a proportion of cyclists who act irresponsibly by jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally infuriating drivers.

Drivers get infuriated by cyclists because they don't pay tax for their bikes and don't have to pass a test (Oh, hang on, didn't that bit about not having to pass a test apply to drivers as well until very recently).

Pedestrians act illogically and unpredictably, often jumping out in front of moving objects when least expected, but typically come of worst in most accidents (except perhaps when it's a cyclist they walk into).

An education campaign for all roadusers would probably be more effective at reducing road accidents, but much harder (read expensive) to implement so the government go for the cheap and easy solutions.

How am I doing so far ?

ArphaRima

Poorly

Redjeep!

fluffer wrote: »

Poorly

Why, because you disagree with it ?

zynaps

Redjeep! wrote: »

Why, because you disagree with it ?

I don't think your summary was very objective:

Redjeep! wrote: »

Despite this body of evidence, and partly because none of it is actually specific to the accidents along the Quays, a proportion of drivers believe that being inconvenienced by a minute or two on their journey is an unacceptable price to pay for somebody elses safety.

That last bit which I highlighted is an unfair characterisation IMO - my point at least was that perhaps none of the accidents in the past few years were at 50kph (e.g. mostly small things hitting big things which are turning left slowly) and thus the new speed limit would not have saved anyone. Therefore the speed limit might not be paying for anyone's safety.

Whatever about the "body of evidence", we have years of evidence which is exactly specific to the new 30kph zone when it was a 50kph zone, and people are ignoring that and drawing comparisons from towns that have arguably more practical safety measures in addition to a 30kph limit.

Redjeep! wrote: »

An education campaign for all roadusers would probably be more effective at reducing road accidents, but much harder (read expensive) to implement so the government go for the cheap and easy solutions.

It was also stated many many times that Gardaí should step up and penalise pedestrians who jaywalk in an extremely dangerous way (i.e. right in front of a moving bus - not if it's safe, since it's also been pointed out twice that crossing the street >15m from a pedestrian crossing is legal if done safely). This would arguably do more to increase safety than "education" - it doesn't take a PhD to realise that walking across a busy road without looking is a bit silly.

monument

zynaps wrote: »

... it doesn't take a PhD to realise that walking across a busy road without looking is a bit silly.

Seriously, you don't need a PhD to understand this too:

"Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths."

And as I said above: It shows a decline in most notably in pedestrian deaths/injuries, but also a decline for deaths and injuries in cyclists, motorcyclists and car occupants.

Traumadoc

monument wrote: »

Seriously, you don't need a PhD to understand this too:

"Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths."

And as I said above: It shows a decline in most notably in pedestrian deaths/injuries, but also a decline for deaths and injuries in cyclists, motorcyclists and car occupants.

Near 50% reduction in deaths of children.
But some people need to get to the end of the next queue faster:rolleyes::rolleyes: