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

ectoraige

Here's the mail I just sent to Andrew Monague.

Dear Councillor Montague,

I had to write in response to your efforts in making the streets of Dublin safer. I have had many misgivings with recent Labour policy as I feel they have strayed in recent years from their core message. However this is an important initiative which, quite literally, is looking after the man on the street, and one which will lead me to contemplate voting for Labour in the future.

On the behalf of the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters who will not now receive a knock at their door from a Garda bearing bad news, I wish to thank you. Please remember this when you are forced to listen to the diatribe of workers who may have to spend an extra two minutes in the car, and who, thanks to you, might never face the trauma of having accidentally killed or seriously injured a fellow citizen or visitor to our country.

I will be copying this to your colleagues within Dublin City Council, and within the Labour Party. This is to remind them that honouring one's duty of care is far more rewarding than pandering to whomever shouts loudest.

Your gratefully,

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Edit: and why is a cyclist from Cork so excercised about a campaign to remove speed limits in Dublin?

I'm a motorist also. I feel strongly about this because:
A: It WILL save lives
B: If it goes well in dub it might be introduced in other towns/cities
C: I cannot understand the mentality of ppl who are willing to risk the lives of others to save a small amount of time, or none at all.
I've seen the results of RTAs in person, if you had too you'd quickly change your tune.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote: »

How many cyclists do you see in Dublin doing 80kph? Unless it's Mark Cavendish out for a spin or something.

I asked what your views on bikes travelling at speeds of up to 80 kph are, and I'm not talking about racing situations where roads are blocked off.

Traumadoc

LostinBlanch wrote: »

James, after reading this post I wonder what your views on bikes travelling at speeds of up to 80 kph? Surely if someone is travelling at that speed the chances of them causing serious injury to pedestrians are increased.

Edit: and why is a cyclist from Cork so excercised about a campaign to remove speed limits in Dublin?

I seriously doubt anyone could travel at that speed on a bike in Dublin.
But a cyclist at 60 kmph ( possible) could cause serious damage to a pedestrian and should be stopped.


I worked in a city emergency department and never saw any pedestrian or motorist injured by a cyclist, I did see a 7 year old girl who has been left profoundly brain damaged when she was hit by a car.

These are the same arguments put forward when Grafton Street was pedestrianized in the early 80s, I dont think any trader on Grafton street would want the return of cars today. similarly for Henry street.



The same arguments were put forward by the same doom merchants when the Luas was being introduced.

Get over it.

AugustusMinimus

Deleted User wrote: »

Getting hit by a car at 30kph is more like a really, really, hard crunching rugby tackle. It will hurt like hell, and you may get injured, but most people will get up again afterwards, and only 5% die. This is because kinetic energy increase with the square of the speed. A vehicle at 50kph has almost 3 times the kinetic energy of one at 30kph. Between these two speeds lies the limit of what the human body can withstand without bones shattering.

Why not drop the limit to 10kph and ensure those 5% are saved too ?

A lot of people here seem to think that there is nothing as important as saving a life. Of course, this is complete ******** and in reality there is a valid trade off between speed limits and number of deaths.

Run_to_da_hills

Deleted User wrote: »

Why haven't they been doing that all along then? Seeing as the average speed in rush hour traffic is 11kph.

Not 11KPH up along the Quays during the day. :rolleyes:

dobkfz

5 past 9 monday morning 1,2,10

seamus

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I asked what your views on bikes travelling at speeds of up to 80 kph are, and I'm not talking about racing situations where roads are blocked off.

Within the Dublin city centre 30kph zone (or even 50kph zones), you would need either a ridiculously lucky run with multiple sets of lights and no other traffic or closed roads in order to reach 80kph on a bicycle.

ArphaRima

Ah this is just ridiculous.

So the emergency services being called out at least once every two months is a "freak occurence"? So how more often should people be dying and injured to turn it into a problem, that is worth a two-minute inconvenience from your day? 1 per week? 2 per month? How about we save you one minute by increasing the limit to 60, in exchange for one casualty a month, is that a good trade-off?

I'm not going to argue your maths. I dont care enough. I said deaths were a freak occurence not requiring legislation.
I'm saying we dont have a problem now and that this is a ridiculous solution to the one you say exists.

I'm also saying that if we use speed as the primary intrument to bring accident rates to zero, then we will have no speed.

Every action we take every single day, even our inaction carries an inherant risk. We must be able to accept that risk, mitigate it where possible, but accept some. That is living.

Lawmakers should be pragmatic.
I dont see that here. I see political opportunism. To my and our detriment.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a motorist also.

Funny that, most of your posts are about cycling, leading one to suspect that you are a cyclist and not a motorist.

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel strongly about this because:
A: It WILL save lives

So will banning driving, banning drinking, banning stairs - people can fall down them you know, it could be dangerous. So let's ban them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen the results of RTAs in person, if you had too you'd quickly change your tune.

Please get off your high horse. I have also seen the results of RTAs which is why unlike many cyclists and other road users I tend to follow the rules of the road.


But even though we disagree, thank you for answering my questions.

Traumadoc

fluffer wrote: »

Ah this is just ridiculous.


I said deaths were a freak occurence not requiring legislation.

.

Are drink driving laws a waste of time then? In fact do we need any motoring laws at all??:rolleyes:

ArphaRima

Are drink driving laws a waste of time then? In fact do we need any motoring laws at all??

No.Yes.
Are you going to just continually misquote me or would you like to engage me on any of the points I actually made in my previous posts?

Victor_M

dobkfz wrote: »

5 past 9 monday morning 1,2,10

Heading out of the city centre! Have you got a photo of the other side of the Quay's?

ectoraige

fluffer wrote: »

Ah this is just ridiculous.



I'm not going to argue your maths. I dont care enough. I said deaths were a freak occurence not requiring legislation.
I'm saying we dont have a problem now and that this is a ridiculous solution to the one you say exists.

I'm also saying that if we use speed as the primary intrument to bring accident rates to zero, then we will have no speed.

Every action we take every single day, even our inaction carries an inherant risk. We must be able to accept that risk, mitigate it where possible, but accept some. That is living.

Lawmakers should be pragmatic.
I dont see that here. I see political opportunism. To my and our detriment.

I didn't ask you to argue with my maths. I asked you how often people should be dying and seriously injured for you to consider it a problem.

You said we must mitigate the risk where possible, but accept some. This is mitigating half of the risk, and still accepting some, with very little real impact on people's day. If they can find engineers competent enough to sort the green wave, they might even improve many people's day.

dobkfz

Victor_M wrote: »

Heading out of the city centre! Have you got a photo of the other side of the Quay's?

no they were taking by a taxi driver' even the bus driver's are giving out about it.

Traumadoc

fluffer wrote: »

No.Yes.
Are you going to just continually misquote me or would you like to engage me on any of the points I actually made in my previous posts?

I did not misquote :
I just picked your statement that deaths are freak accidents not requiring legislation.

ArphaRima

I didn't ask you to argue with my maths. I asked you how often people should be dying and seriously injured for you to consider it a problem.

You said we must mitigate the risk where possible, but accept some. This is mitigating half of the risk, and still accepting some, with very little real impact on people's day. If they can find engineers competent enough to sort the green wave, they might even improve many people's day.

I say the speed limit is fine now. Certainly lowering it is not acceptable to me. That's my position.

I say even the current accident/death/injury rate is also acceptable to me.

But to those who say it isnt, there are other legislative means by which to gain similar result. Like separating pedestrians from cars more. Traffic calming. More widespread pedestrianisation. Whatever. I'm not proposing them. Inventive methodology. Not this.

I'll keep saying it. This is cheap politicking.

Oh and the green wave is because it is optimised for 50kph. It can be optimised for any reasonable speed.

I did not misquote :
I just picked your statement that deaths are freak accidents not requiring legislation.

Well done sir. When you are ready to join the debate you are welcome.

neutron

The 30kph zone will do nothing to increase safety for road users as it is a cynical anti motorist revenue raising exercise. A typical smokescreen by DCC councillors who continue to avoid the real cause of fatal accidents, inept Traffic engineering in DCC, poorly designed roads, the non-enforcement of the law on law breaking cyclists, the incredibly bad design of roads and junctions, think of the fatal crash by Dublin bus on the quays, the dreadful joke "cycle lanes" that law abiding cyclists have to put up with.

Apart from all that the 30kph zone is having a serious effect on business by driving motorists out of the city to easier for access shopping centres.

I am glad to see opposition growing to idiotic 30kph zones.
From the Post

http://www.thepost.ie/breakingnews/ireland/eyeyeyojkfsn/
Opposition to lower city speed limits grows

The Irish School of Motoring is adding its voice to the criticism of the new 30 kilometre per hour speed limit introduced in Dublin city centre this week.

The AA, business groups, taxi drivers and motorists have all come out against the move, which is in place in areas around the city, from Bolton Street on the northside to St. Stephen's Green on the southside.

There are also reports that the limit may be introduced in Cork and Galway

Donal Healy from Cork Business Association is opposed to the idea.

"We take pride in the fact that we have 6,500 retail outlets in Cork," Mr Healy said.

"We want people to come in and enjoy the city but if they are not able to access it because of everything slowing down, people will not bring their car in."

Traumadoc

fluffer wrote: »

Like separating pedestrians from cars more. Traffic calming.....

This is traffic calming!!:D

BluePlanet

neutron wrote: »

Donal Healy from Cork Business Association is opposed to the idea.

"We take pride in the fact that we have 6,500 retail outlets in Cork," Mr Healy said.

"We want people to come in and enjoy the city but if they are not able to access it because of everything slowing down, people will not bring their car in."

Jeez your man isn't the sharpest is he?
Please read the sentence in bold; that is the bloody point.
Leave your metal box at home and give way to pedestrianization. The city centre is no place for motorised thoroughfares.

Run_to_da_hills

The introduction of the new 18mph limits is all about control and revenue and has got very little to do with road safety.

We will soon see the mass roll out of the London style "congestion charge" CCTV across the city that will also double up as "average speed cameras". These will spit out summonses left right and center indiscriminately to all those that "break the law".

It is far easier to monitor and entrap those that are driving at slow speed than driving at a normal pace.

Traumadoc

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is far easier to monitor and entrap those that are driving at slow speed than driving at a normal pace.

????
That makes no sense to me.

galwaytt

ectoraige wrote: »

100% of the driver population have followed kph for five years, but whatever floats your boat..

not unless you've bought everyone a new car or provided them with kph clocks, free-of-charge.

My clocks are very disctinctly in MPH. And the only time they'll see 18mph, is on it's way to adding XX to it.........

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

Leave your metal box at home and give way to pedestrianization. The city centre is no place for motorised thoroughfares.

So next time you want to buy that 60" plasma screen, who do you think will get the business? One of the city centre shops, or one of the shops outside? Do you want any business that sells bulky items to pull out of the city altogether?

Regardless of the 30km/h limit, my personal opinion is that any pedestrian hit by a vehicle that was not at a pedestrian crossing (that was marked as 'green for pedestrians') should be charged with jaywalking and be at least 50% responsible for the accident.

BluePlanet

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So next time you want to buy that 60" plasma screen, who do you think will get the business? One of the city centre shops, or one of the shops outside? Do you want any business that sells bulky items to pull out of the city altogether?

Ask them to deliver it.

(on edit)
Once upon a time i worked at a TV shop and they way we did things was this:
They had their main store on this main shopping street in town. However when someone came in to buy a large TV, it was either collected or deliverd from a Garage that was located outside of the City Centre - and that was probably 10 years ago!
Wow, the pure genious of it!

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Regardless of the 30km/h limit, my personal opinion is that any pedestrian hit by a vehicle that was not at a pedestrian crossing (that was marked as 'green for pedestrians') should be charged with jaywalking and be at least 50% responsible for the accident.

Too bad your personal opinion as little bearing regarding your insurance rate nor the court.

Traumadoc

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So next time you want to buy that 60" plasma screen, who do you think will get the business? One of the city centre shops, or one of the shops outside?

Who ever offers the best deal.

How do you fit a 60" plasma screen into your car?

BluePlanet

Nakatomi wrote: »

Who ever offers the best deal.

How do you fit a 60" plasma screen into your car?

Yeah good point.

But also, how could having to drive at 30kph for a couple hundred metres, be such a deal breaker? Seems a bit OOT to me.

Run_to_da_hills

Nakatomi wrote: »

Who ever offers the best deal.

How do you fit a 60" plasma screen into your car?

Thats what roof racks are made for.

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

Ask them to deliver it.

(on edit)
Once upon a time i worked at a TV shop and they way we did things was this:
They had their main store on this main shopping street in town. However when someone came in to buy a large TV, it was either collected or deliverd from a Garage that was located outside of the City Centre - and that was probably 10 years ago!
Wow, the pure genious of it!

Very few of the stores in town have free delivery -- so you're pushing the cost up (either directly as you now have to pay for delivery, or indirectly due to the cost of business going up with them forced to include free delivery with orders).

BluePlanet wrote: »

Too bad your personal opinion as little bearing regarding your insurance rate nor the court.

Unfortunately not, no. However given this 30km/h law is being introduced primarily to protect pedestrians who shouldn't be on the street in the first place, don't you think that these lawbreakers should be penalised as well?

-Chris-

LibraMan wrote: »

If we could get this thread back on topic, below is a copy of a mail I sent to Andrew Monague, copied to my local Labour Party senator and presumed candidate in the next Dáil election:

Dear Counsellor Montague...

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.

Traumadoc

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thats what roof racks are made for.

If I had a newly purchased 60" on my roof rack, I wouldnt want to go faster than 30 kmh.

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah good point.

But also, how could having to drive at 30kph for a couple hundred metres, be such a deal breaker? Seems a bit OOT to me.

You can get it in either through roof-racks (as mentioned elsewhere), or drop the size a little...I put a 46" screen in the back of my car (a small hatchback) recently with room to spare.

Secondly, I was responding to your comment about how we aren't supposed to bring in the car at all -- so whereas before I might bring the car in, browse through the shops and then go home (perhaps without buying anything), with the discouragement of bringing the car in, it'll be "do I really want this item...to get it will mean first going home, go and get the car, come back in...etc." -- many more barriers to purchase.

BluePlanet

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Unfortunately not, no. However given this 30km/h law is being introduced primarily to protect pedestrians who shouldn't be on the street in the first place, don't you think that these lawbreakers should be penalised as well?

No i don't actually. You'll observe that pedestrians outnumber motorists by a huge, huge factor in the city centre. And so it follows that the city centre should be more amenable to their needs.
City Centres are for people, not for cars.
You shouldn't expect a bleeding motorised throughfare through high-density city centres. Any proposal that seeks to limit, regulate or discourage or ban motor vehicle traffic in the city centre gets my support.

I encourage you to do a bit of traveling and spend time in other city centres in other european cities where they have a commitment to pedestrianization and cycling. You'll find those city centres are a much more pleasant place than the likes of Dublin. Shops get a boon too as more foot-traffic means more shopping.
I do realize, that a low-speed city centre is only attainable with a high-speed network outside or around it's periphery.

smash

I think people are missing something here. Dropping the speed on the quays to 30km is actually not going to hold people up. There's a good bit of traffic there anyway and there's a lot of sets of lights - how much time do you really think it's gonna add to your journey?

I'm more p!ssed off about the 100km limit on the M50 to be honest...

remotesensor

Driving through town today I found it quite distracting to keep the car at 30k. I feel this speed limit takes my eyes off the road. My car idles in 3rd at about 35/40 and the accelerator is very sensitive around 30 when in 2nd gear.

Just my 2 cents on the new law.

Run_to_da_hills

BluePlanet wrote: »

No i don't actually. You'll observe that pedestrians outnumber motorists by a huge, huge factor in the city centre. And so it follows that the city centre should be more amenable to their needs.
City Centres are for people, not for cars.
You shouldn't expect a bleeding motorised throughfare through high-density city centres. Any proposal that seeks to limit, regulate or discourage or ban motor vehicle traffic in the city centre gets my support.

Not just cars, who wants to be sitting in a bus, tram or taxi crawling along at 18mph day or night. If there was a metro option in Dublin for getting from A to B quickly yes I would support this but there isn't.

Traumadoc

when the smoking ban, HGV ban, introduction of the luas, random brethalyser, plastic bag ban.........were introduced the doom sayers were all saying these would never be brought in, it would cause too much disruption etc. etc.

Change is difficult for some, give it 6 months and you will all be acceptiing it as normal.

Who now thinks the Luas was a bad idea?
Who now thinks the plastic bag ban is a bad idea?
Or the ban on unaccompanied learner drivers?

ArphaRima

City Centres are for people, not for cars.

Oh alright. Lets see if I can get you to agree a phrase that is PC enough.

The countryside is for people, not for cars.
The suburbs are for people, not for cars.
The mountains are for people, not for cars.
The coast is for people, not for cars.

Motorways are for people, not for cars. I think that's it. We should all walk except on motorways.

Cars are a form of transport. People use cars. The right balance has to be found. I dont think this is it.

maggy_thatcher

BluePlanet wrote: »

No i don't actually. You'll observe that pedestrians outnumber motorists by a huge, huge factor in the city centre. And so it follows that the city centre should be more amenable to their needs.
City Centres are for people, not for cars.
You shouldn't expect a bleeding motorised throughfare through high-density city centres. Any proposal that seeks to limit, regulate or discourage or ban motor vehicle traffic in the city centre gets my support.

But that's my point -- they aren't pedestrianizing the streets, they're leaving them as places for cars...if they pedestrianized everything then I wouldn't have an issue with not penalizing pedestrians who break the law (as they wouldn't be!) They're changing the speed rules to make it safer for law-breakers to continue to break the law; if they truly want to make it safer for pedestrians, enforce the laws we already have to stop them playing with the traffic?

BluePlanet wrote: »

I encourage you to do a bit of traveling and spend time in other city centres in other european cities where they have a commitment to pedestrianization and cycling. You'll find those city centres are a much more pleasant place than the likes of Dublin. Shops get a boon too as more foot-traffic means more shopping.
I do realize, that a low-speed city centre is only attainable with a high-speed network outside or around it's periphery.

I've been to many European cities, and I agree that a fully pedestrianized city centre has its advantages, but until they fix the high-speed network, it's just going to be a complete mess.

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I asked what your views on bikes travelling at speeds of up to 80 kph are, and I'm not talking about racing situations where roads are blocked off.

That was downhill (obviously) on a country road with a limit of 80kph. Obviously I'm not going to be going that speed in the city centre with pedestrians about. Top marks for quoting out of context though.

BluePlanet

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not just cars, who wants to be sitting in a bus, tram or taxi crawling along at 18mph day or night. If there was a metro option in Dublin for getting from A to B quickly yes I would support this but there isn't.

In the example above, concerning the city centre shop that sells large items.
Retail space is hugely expensive in city centres, but a lot cheaper outside the city. Some places realize this and don't stock their big items in the CC shop, rather they just a have a "display" item and the actual stock is kept in a warehouse outside the city.

Same principle can be applied to taxis and buses.
Why not have increased taxi and bus ranks on the edges of the slow zone? People have been complaining about DB's -all-routes-must-go-to-OConnell St fixation for years.

galwaytt

...I love the Day of 10kph Protest idea...........!

Btw, re Noel Dempsey.........didn't he just get points and a fine for 40+kph over the limit AND no driving licence ?

He's not the only holder of office, incl Transport, who's been found to NOT have a driving licence..........

...like, would you go to a Dentist who didn't have a licence to practice.......??


oh, here's what I emailed in to complain .....

Sir
I am led to believe you are the main protagonist behind the adoption, by a cowering council, of this ridiculous 30kph speed limit.
It is nonsense to suggest, and I invite you to provide me with any data to support your claim(s) , that speed is a factor in pedestrian or cyclist accidents in the Capital.
The single biggest contributor is the lack of observance of EXISTING laws - most notably lane and light discipline, and poor observation (often referred to as 'sorry mate I didn't see' - aka SMIDS - accidents). Speed is not a measurable contributor.
And as for cyclists, the biggest contributor to them being involved in accidents is the failure to observe, by them, of both other traffic, as well as traffic regulations, including red lights, footpaths, pedestrians crossings, lighthing, and poor observation in general - e.g. cycling on the left hand side of left-hand-indicating trucks and buses.
Pedestrians are not to be forgotten - they are inclined to cross when and if suits them, rather than observe systems such as crossing and lights. And when they miscalculate, they get hurt and the motorist gets blamed. This is a scandal. Contributory negligence is contributory negligence, whether on bi-ped or on bi-cycle.
Finally, the environment. No good row can be had these days without invoking it. By dint of an artificially low limit, you will increase the amount of vehicle omissions in the city, by dint of more, slower, traffic. This runs contrary to common sense.
Practically, this new speed limit is dangerous for motorists - given that more drivers now will concentrate on an arbitrary, plucked-from the air speed limit of no intrinsic value, they will spend more time looking at their speedometers, or looking for camera's, than doing the most important job: looking at the road.
There is no worse law, than an ill-conceived one, and this is one of those, of the highest order - it needs to be rescinded as a matter of course, and quickly.

Ardent

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Nice one Libraman, I'd cc Gilmore as well.

Good idea. Anyone know his email address?

Come the next election, I'll be remebering this stunt by Montgue and Labour...

Alanstrainor

remotesensor wrote: »

Driving through town today I found it quite distracting to keep the car at 30k. I feel this speed limit takes my eyes off the road. My car idles in 3rd at about 35/40 and the accelerator is very sensitive around 30 when in 2nd gear.

Just my 2 cents on the new law.

I can guarantee that most drivers would have to do the same if they stuck rigidly to a 50km/h speed limit.
But like anything, the more you drive at that speed, the more you'll get used to it which will mean there will be less time spent looking at the speedo.

I really can't see the issue with it, tbh, it's just not going to make a huge difference to anyones journey imo. No one likes change, give it 6 months and no one will care.

maggy_thatcher

Ardent wrote: »

Good idea. Anyone know his email address?

Come the next election, I'll be remebering this stunt by Montgue and Labour...

eamon.gilmore@oir.ie

Eoin

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I really can't see the issue with it, tbh, it's just not going to make a huge difference to anyones journey imo. No one likes change, give it 6 months and no one will care.

I don't know if "no one will care" though - I'm well used to the speed limits on my commute, but I am still pissed off with how arbitrary and counter-intuitive they seem. The fact that SFA will be done about it in 6 months time doesn't mean that nobody will care.

Wolverine_1999

How about just ban the idiots that choose to walk and cycle out in front of the cars. This coming from a cyclist and a driver (and walker), so I have seen all points of view.

This limit will just promote "j-walking" in my opinion.. leading to a higher risk of people getting hit.

Reloc8

Argh...I got a taxi into work today and coming down down the North side of the quays observing the 30 limit a couple of cyclists overtook the blemmin cab...or should I say...illegally undertook us on the left hand side.

smash

did I just hear Noel Brett on today FM news say that they're planning to reduce it by another 10km?

deyey

I think the idea of a go-slow protest would be just hurting the already beleaguered motorists trying to get through the city.

Since we are all frustrated with it, why not let people hear our frustration?
I propose a noisy protest for the 30km/h zone. Pick a day that everyone beeps their horn for the length of the 30km/h zone. It should create quite a racket for rush hour?
Two groups at either end on the quays with placards instructing everyone to do the same would do the trick.