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

Tragedy

-Chris- wrote: »

That's a complete pity and a bit of a disgrace. They should be looking at expanding it to other cities rather than rolling back on it in Dublin.

Traffic congestion? So what? If you increased the limits to 80Kmph, would it reduce congestion by increasing traffic flow or would it lead to an increase in accidents?

Based on what? There is no evidence to show it was successful in Dublin even though it was enforced for the first couple of months by constant GATSO's and speedguns(GATSO's on the quays almost daily and speedguns on the sidestreets).

The only pity and disgrace is that this went ahead in the first place.

-Chris-

IMHO unless you have a speed trap on Stephen's Green, O'Connell St, Bachelor's Walk or Dame St, you haven't tried to enforce it.

Tragedy

Why? You never travel higher than 30km/h on those roads already, at least when I'm stupid enough to try drive through town during the day.

Paparazzo

It wasn't enforced because the guards have common sense. Trying to drive that slow is ridiculous. If walking across the road is so dangerous, introduce a 50 euro jaywalking fine

monument

Just to be clear here:

RTE.ie is at times, too much of the time, not reliable.

RTE: "Dublin City Council has voted to recommend the removal of some key streets from the 30kph zone in Dublin city centre."

Dublin City Council did not vote on anything last night. They were not in session last night and its meeting on Monday night did cover this.

However, a report has been released on the 30km/h and the Transport & Traffic Strategic Policy Committee Meeting has made a recommendation. That meeting can be viewed here: Click on 'index points' to view what you want to see: http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=44693&t=0&m=wms&l=en_GB#the_data_area

A number of motions on 30km/h, likely two or more, will in the next month come up at a city council meeting.

Paparazzo wrote: »

It wasn't enforced because the guards have common sense. Trying to drive that slow is ridiculous. If walking across the road is so dangerous, introduce a 50 euro jaywalking fine

Drivers in other countries must be able to drive better than Irish drivers then?

Tragedy

In the UK, police forces oppose speed limit reductions to 20mph unless the road is redesigned to make that speed achievable(as in it's hard to drive faster than that) by using a few different kind of traffic calming measures.

You can kinda tell that they don't do it on the busiest roads in a city can't you?

tomasrojo

I don't drive very often, but I rented a car and coincidentally drove through the 30km/h zone a fortnight ago. I have to say I found it very easy to drive at 30km/h. You put the car in third and just barely press the accelerator. I was overtaken by everyone else, but that's another story.

I'm not an experienced driver, to say the least, so I can only assume that the difficulty lies mostly in suppressing the subconscious desire to travel faster?

BostonB

The limit is pointless because its not enforced. Speed limits not being enforced is common all over the city/country. I don't think its a deliberate policy.

AFAIK the limits is actually 50 once you get past Father Matthews Bridge. They are rarely enforced either.

There is no speeding at peak because of the traffic. Off peak though, 80kph+ is not unusual on the quays.

As the limits aren't enforced, then they can't be the cause of traffic build up.

Traffic build up is due to the poor design of lights, and junctions. If the lights fail, the traffic moves much better, most of the time.

The is the usually dire reporting, typical of the media in this country. You can't believe anything they report.

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

In the UK, police forces oppose speed limit reductions to 20mph unless the road is redesigned to make that speed achievable(as in it's hard to drive faster than that) by using a few different kind of traffic calming measures.

You can kinda tell that they don't do it on the busiest roads in a city can't you?

30km/h on a wide, busy road:



And this, although on this I can't see the information plate -- it could be at night time only...



Berlin has more 30km/h roads at night time than it does at day time to reduce the noise of traffic at night so people can sleep easer, as here:

Speed limit of 30 km/h at night
Like other major cities, Berlin is obliged to take steps towards reducing noise levels, which are particularly disturbing when we are asleep. Permanent traffic noise at night with a noise level of more than 55 decibel may increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Along Berlin´s main roads, up to 300.000 people are affected. Therefore, to lessen noise at night time, Berlin implemented a speed limit of 30 km/h on certain roads.

The "Speed-30" ("Tempo 30") concept is not the only measure towards reducing noise levels, but a very efficient one which can be implemented in a timely manner. Along the most heavily used roads it was therefore examined where a maximum number of residents can be relieved without affecting the BVG metrolines and the main streams of nightly traffic too much.

Paparazzo

If noise is the only reason for the speed limit its definitely in the wrong place

Locamon

monument wrote: »

a report has been released on the 30km/h and the Transport & Traffic Strategic Policy Committee Meeting has made a recommendation. That meeting can be viewed here: Click on 'index points' to view what you want to see: http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=44693&t=0&m=wms&l=en_GB#the_data_area

this is a very good link.. had to laugh when Cllr Montague says he doesn't know why such a big issue was made of safety.. says while it was a concern it was not his main concern but at the time he had this to say..

'the main reason that I backed this plan was to try and reduce injuries and fatalaties in the city centre.'

Faughnan sums it up best when he says it was done for ideological reasons unrelated to safety and the reason the public reacted to it so badly was because they didn't believe the safety argument at all -if it wasn't for Garda common sense it would have been a major blight on the council.

BostonB

Locamon wrote: »

...-if it wasn't for Garda common sense it would have been a major blight on the council.

They enforced it the first week or two, that kinda disproves the common sense theory IMO. Likewise they don't apply common sense in other places around the city either.

Come to think of it, I have seen hardly any Garda traffic presence around the city for a very long time. A few months back I saw a tax check. Other than that. Zilch.

zynaps

Paparazzo wrote: »

It wasn't enforced because the guards have common sense. Trying to drive that slow is ridiculous. If walking across the road is so dangerous, introduce a 50 euro jaywalking fine

People have to walk across the road, and there often aren't crossings nearby - which is why it's not jaywalking to cross the road if you're over 15 metres from a pedestrian crossing.

Locamon wrote: »

this is a very good link.. had to laugh when Cllr Montague says he doesn't know why such a big issue was made of safety.. says while it was a concern it was not his main concern but at the time he had this to say..

'the main reason that I backed this plan was to try and reduce injuries and fatalaties in the city centre.'

That's pretty funny indeed. I argued a while back on this thread that there was very little evidence that we had a safety problem in the areas in question, relative to other areas of the city. The number of pedestrian deaths were something like 0-1 fatality per year in the 30kph zone?
The most at risk demographic seemed to be cyclists getting mashed by big trucks turning left, which tends to happen at less than 10km/h anyway so the speed limit would probably do nothing to mitigate it. Would love to see some measures to tackle that problem, having been knocked off my bicycle by a van for the first time ever about 2 months ago, when he overtook me in the wrong lane and turned left, directly across my lane and right on top of me :mad:

The argument that the lower speed limit would make for a quieter, calmer city centre was far more compelling, but I haven't spent any time there lately so can't judge for myself.

Has anyone else spent a lot of time in the city centre and can attest to whether it's quieter and calmer or not, since the new limit? Or is it a moot point given that nearly everybody drives beyond the limit anyway?

BostonB

At the moment they have no road markings on part of they quays where they drive fastest. As they've resurfaced it. Chaos thus ensues.

zynaps

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't drive very often, but I rented a car and coincidentally drove through the 30km/h zone a fortnight ago. I have to say I found it very easy to drive at 30km/h. You put the car in third and just barely press the accelerator. I was overtaken by everyone else, but that's another story.

I'm not an experienced driver, to say the least, so I can only assume that the difficulty lies mostly in suppressing the subconscious desire to travel faster?

I've driven through the zone maybe two or three times since the speed limit was introduced, with no problems at all other than looking at the speedo and thinking "oh, I'm already at 40" while still gently accelerating. But honestly, that only needed to happen once or twice before I got used to the speed.
The car did not explode or shudder violently or scream the whole time, but it's a small engine CVT which is fairly happy under almost any conditions (except if you want to go very fast up a hill :rolleyes:).

DublinWriter

Driver driver wrote: »

He's a Labour party councillor and a website designer.

So maybe he'd understand <you>IDIOT</you>

BostonB

If you can creep/drive in slow moving traffic, you should no problem staying at 30. Theres no mechanical or physical reason you can't do it at all. Thats not the issue though.

Paparazzo

zynaps wrote: »

People have to walk across the road, and there often aren't crossings nearby - which is why it's not jaywalking to cross the road if you're over 15 metres from a pedestrian crossing.

Not along the quays, there's lights at all the crossing points.

zynaps

Paparazzo wrote: »

Not along the quays, there's lights at all the crossing points.

Not every 15 metres there's not.

BostonB

They don't enforce the 15m anyway. So thats a bit pointless line of discussion IMO.

Its a heavy pedestrian area. People are going to walk across. They'd need railings the length of the quays to stop it.

Victor

Paparazzo wrote: »

It wasn't enforced because the guards have common sense. Trying to drive that slow is ridiculous. If walking across the road is so dangerous, introduce a 50 euro jaywalking fine

And those people injured and killed by vehicles on the footpath?

Tragedy

Monument wrote:

<b>snip</b>

I said UK, not Germany

@Victor: How many people on footpaths are killed or seriously injured in the 30km/h zone each year by people going over 30km/h?

You have no idea?

Oh right.

Oh right!

tomasrojo

It's a tricky one measuring how dangerous a road is to pedestrians by how many pedestrians are injured on it, because very dangerous roads tend to have very low numbers of pedestrians.

(Similarly, it's easy but wrong to look at falling numbers of child fatalities and assume the roads have got safer for children. There are now fewer children using the road, because their parents don't think the roads are safe, so that's the main reason their fatalities are down.)

Not saying the quays fall into that category, because I don't know, but it's a recognised phenomenon. John Adams writes about it a fair bit.

(I don't know anything about numbers killed on the footpath, apart from those killed by a Dublin Bus a few years ago. I imagine the number is close to zero, averaged over, say, ten years.)

Paparazzo

zynaps wrote: »

Not every 15 metres there's not.

Theres nothing to access other than the liffey wall. That's why. There's no excuse to cross anywhere other than the proper crossings

djimi

Ill be glad to see the back of this lunacy tbh. 30kmph is too slow a limit on those roads. When its busy you cant travel more than that anyway. When its less busy then 50kmph is sufficient. Especially on the quays, there are plenty of pedestrian crossings, and between O'Connell bridge and Capel St you dont have to walk more than 30 seconds to get to one. Introduce jaywalking fines to force pedestrians to take more reponsibility; dont penalise motorists with a limit to prevent against some moron who doesnt know how to cross a road properly.

And Victor, Id hazard a guess (I dont have the figures to hand) that the number of pedestrians injured or killed on footpaths by drivers who lose control of their cars in these zones is very very small, like once in a blue moon as a result of a freak accident small.

zynaps

Paparazzo wrote: »

Theres nothing to access other than the liffey wall. That's why. There's no excuse to cross anywhere other than the proper crossings

Perhaps, but there are plenty of other places where there are no crossings (or awkwardly placed ones). Are you suggesting that we should have selective jaywalking, so someone could receive a 50 euro fine for crossing the road by the quays, but not on Dame Street? Because that wouldn't make much sense TBH.

djimi

But there are lights and pedestrian crossings on Dame St.

tomasrojo

There is one point I know off in the 30 zone where it's tricky to cross and there's no nearby lights to help you. Crossing the north mouth of Parliament Street, in front of Capel Street bridge. You either have traffic coming straight at you from the bridge, or turning left from Wellington Quay.

I guess you could go through the three pedestrian crossings at the bridge, or walk halfway down Parliament Street to the crossing there and back up again, but nobody's going to do this. So you're going to have contention there between pedestrians and motorists.

You could add one more pedestrian crossing there, but perhaps that would slow traffic down more than the speed restriction.

tomasrojo

Paparazzo wrote: »

Theres nothing to access other than the liffey wall. That's why. There's no excuse to cross anywhere other than the proper crossings

Funnily enough, now I think about it, the pedestrian crossing at the junction I mention above facilitates people who are walking along the amenityless Liffey wall, and not those who are actually using the shops!

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

I said UK, not Germany

Fine, here London:

Tragedy

? I didn't say they don't exist in the UK, I said generally not on the busiest roads in cities as the police over there advise councils they wont enforce speed limit reductions unless they're accompanied by road engineering.

Also, that's a really busy road, 5 cars!

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

? I didn't say they don't exist in the UK, I said generally not on the busiest roads in cities as the police over there advise councils they wont enforce speed limit reductions unless they're accompanied by road engineering.

No you did not say anything about generally, you said "You can kinda tell that they don't do it on the busiest roads in a city can't you?"

Also, that's a really busy road, 5 cars!

If I can take a photo of the quays in Dublin when its empty does that mean its not a busy road? And what does it matter that a road is busy or not, how does busy or not relate to speed limits?

Tragedy

monument wrote: »

If I can take a photo of the quays in Dublin when its empty does that mean its not a busy road? And what does it matter that a road is busy or not, how does busy or not relate to speed limits?

Tragedy wrote:

I said generally not on the busiest roads in cities

Congratulations, it takes a lot of skill to completely miss/ignore something you quoted ONE line above asking me "what does it matter that a road is busy or not".

Seriously, congratulations.

How many times do I have to say this for you to actually read, process, comprehend and understand:
The English Police Force do not enforce speed limit reductions to 20mp/h unless the road is redesigned/re-engineered to make this the average speed at all times.

There. Can you read that, and stop posting pictures of Germany? I never said "Nowhere in the world has a speed limit inside a city boundary been 20mp/h or 30km/h" so really, quit it.

jock101

I doubt the 30km/h Speed limit is going to be revoked. Not with the Zealots in power! How do you think it was passed in the first place! I have accepted it, but have hit back at the system by boycotting the City Centre with my limited hard earned cash these days! If the so called Government dont want you to drive your car in our City Centre by the use of such obvious aggravating policies, avoid the 30km/h zones and take your car and trade else where!:(

SleepDoc

jock101 wrote: »

I doubt the 30km/h Speed limit is going to be revoked. Not with the Zealots in power! How do you think it was passed in the first place! I have accepted it, but have hit back at the system by boycotting the City Centre with my limited hard earned cash these days! If the so called Government dont want you to drive your car in our City Centre by the use of such obvious aggravating policies, avoid the 30km/h zones and take your car and trade else where!:(

You people are like flat-earthers, impervious to reason or logic. Your average speed in the city centre is very, very unlikely to approach 30kph during the day.

So you're boycotting the city centre. Can you drive at 50kph through Dundrum?

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

Congratulations, it takes a lot of skill to completely miss/ignore something you quoted ONE line above asking me "what does it matter that a road is busy or not".

Seriously, congratulations.

You kept mentioning that its not done on "busy roads" and even when I posted a pic from London you dismissed it because its not a "busy road". You still have yet to answer what is the big deal with "busy roads"?

Tragedy wrote: »

How many times do I have to say this for you to actually read, process, comprehend and understand:
The English Police Force do not enforce speed limit reductions to 20mp/h unless the road is redesigned/re-engineered to make this the average speed at all times.

First, there's no single English police force. That's a hugely important factor given that the police forces over there often differ widely in want they say on some issues.

I can't find much to back what you are claiming. I know here the Gardai could never say they will not enforce the law -- it would be unconstitutional.

The only think I can see some UK police forces say is that they "don't have the manpower to enforce it" (Shocker! Police can't enforce all laws everywhere at all times -- stop the presses!) or that traffic-calming measures would be more effective -- all of that is quite different that what you are claiming they say. Small enough differences, but quite important differences.

Besides, you seem to be overestimating the power of engineering, "make" 20mph or 30km/h the "average speed at all times."

And given you like the UK as an example so much, in the UK where the police can't or won't enforce it, other methods have been used.

There's very sound reasons for avoiding engineering options: The install and maintenance costs would be high. Ramps or humps cannot be used in a widespread fashion on Dublin Bus routes. Many engineering features just have people slow down at them and speed up between them so you get the below result as mentioned by the Transport Research Laboratory. And another good reason as in this article:

Councillor Bob Belam, cabinet member for environment at Waltham Forest council, said: “Having this [new] technology will be more beneficial than a series of road humps that slow down the response times of the ambulances and fire engines.”

The Transport Research Laboratory found that air pollution rose significantly on roads with calming humps. Carbon monoxide emissions increased by 82% and nitrogen oxide by 37%.

Tragedy wrote: »

There. Can you read that, and stop posting pictures of Germany? I never said "Nowhere in the world has a speed limit inside a city boundary been 20mp/h or 30km/h" so really, quit it.

Why should I stop? Can I only post things that you want me to post? Or only in direct reply to somebody? And why are the UK the only county we can follow?