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

zynaps

-Chris- wrote: »

I'm not sure how it increases air pollution - it takes more energy to accelerate & brake than it does to hold a steady speed. If you have an average speed of 25KMph in Dublin and a max speed of 30KMph it stands to reason that there's less accelerating and braking than if the max speed is 50KMph
(btw, I'm open to correction by proper scientists... )

Well, driving in lower gears means more torque and acceleration is available, since the same power is used as when travelling in a higher gear.
So unless you're just above idle speed with the car in 4th gear or something (which is almost as dangerous as coasting in neutral, in the sense that you can't suddenly accelerate if sudden hazard calls for it) then you'll have spent a lot more fuel to cover the same distance. The point you've raised over accelerating and braking being less wasteful at these lower speeds is more complicated and probably needs empirical study (which, presumably, has already been done and can be found by someone less lazy than me).

Although:

TomTom wrote: »

I got stopped at EVERY set of lights from pierce street to Heuston this morning and was stuck in heavier than normal traffic for that hour of the morning. My average MPG dropped from 42mpg to 31mpg.

Which doesn't sound very promising so far, but maybe things will improve after/if the light sequences are tweaked.

Ardent

neutron wrote:

The idiotic 30kph zone makes drivers less attentive to the road ahead. Their concentration is interrupted by frequently checking the speedometer, looking for Garda Gatso Cash vans or Gardai attempting to penalise motorists.

Guilty of all three on the way home this evening. I think the whole situation is ridiculous and dangerous.

One thing I've noticed the last couple of days - very few drivers respecting the new speed limit and little or no enforcement of it.

Are the guards really going to bother trying to catch drivers "speeding" in the affected areas?

Ardent

Jumpy wrote: »

You are linking speedo checking as the same danger as mobile phone use? Scratch my previous comment, this one wins by a mile.

Funny how I can manage to keep an eye on my speed and road in front of me without looking down.
Dare I ask you to review peripheral vision? Its a handy thing to have, and it comes built in to humans.

I call bullshít. I don't think you drive at all.

zynaps

Deleted User wrote: »

I am stunned and appaled by selfishness and lack of consideration some posters on here have shown. For the sake of a few minutes (simple maths says the time lost along the longest route across the 30kph zone is less than 4 minutes, assuming no traffic or traffic lights, during the day with traffic it would make no difference whatsoever), people want to remove this life saving measure. I think this all stems from the manner in which cars numb their occupants to the speed at which they are actually travelling.

I'm somewhat on the fence about the whole argument, but I have to ask - if you think the 30kph limit is an acceptable compromise between safety and convenience, then why not have a 30kph limit everywhere? Why just this zone?

It's not like the limit has been placed only on narrow, busy, dangerous streets - it's also on wide, multi-lane streets. So why not make all of Dublin 30kph? Would you support that so emotively?

AugustusMinimus

Ardent wrote: »

I call bullshít. I don't think you drive at all.

I agree. Constant looking at a speedometer is just the same as constant looking at a phone screen to write a text message.

At least when you're on a phone call you're eyes are on the road.

AugustusMinimus

I must say one thing.

I find it interesting that the Dublin council has decided to penalise the motorist in this case, when I would imagine the the majority of paedestrians being knocked down is due to jaywalking and at nighttime, due to drunkeness. Surely if this is true, the obvious solution is to be more active in fining jaywalking and rowdy behaviour after the closing of pubs etc ?

I wouldn't mind seeing cyclists going straight through red lights tackled also.

Jumpy

Ardent wrote: »

I call bullshít. I don't think you drive at all.

Doubt all you like. This has been in place in urban areas in Australian cities since I was very young. It has worked very well. It is good to see a councillor with sense and I support moving this to other city locations.

Martian Martin

ectoraige wrote: »

To begin with, it's 30kph, not 18mph; we adopted metric speed limits five years ago.

Now, can you explain how people are able to keep a car at 50kph without looking at the Speedometer often? 100kph? 120kph?

Some alternatives:

1. Seperate all roads and footpaths with high railings
2. Ban alcohol
3. Ban bars
4. Ban cars
5. Ban people
6. Disregard any duty of care towards each other

I'm sure you can think of some more helpful alternatives.

Are you unable to read properly? What is 18Mph in Kph? That's right. It's 30Kph.

As for other alternatives, how about this? Personal responsibility.
Why do you want to legislate against any and every eventuality. If the 30Kph speed limit will save lives then surely a 5Kph speed limit will save even more? In fact, why doesn't the council bring in a law stating all pedestrians must wear crash helmets - that would save a lot of lives. :rolleyes:

neutron

I think this article highlights how pedestrian safety will be further compromised by law breaking cyclists

The individual mentioned here at least was not setting out to break the law but obviously his behaviour has put all road users at risk by weaving in and out of traffic

Is this what councillor e-mail here andrewmontague@eircom.net and his colleagues in DCC Tarffic Committee planned? Is this making Dublin a more friendly and safe place?

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/how-i-zoomed-by-traffic-at-40kph--legally--on-my-bike-2044020.html

How I zoomed by traffic at 40kph -- legally -- on my bike


By Kevin Doyle
Tuesday February 02 2010


THERE is one way to beat the city centre speed limit -- get on your bike.
While cars, vans and trucks were crawling along Dublin's quays at 30kph, the Herald managed to fly past them at up to 40kph -- without breaking any laws.
Having donned a luminous jacket, I quickly found myself undertaking taxis, motorbikes and vans that were clearly making every effort to avoid the speed traps.

Hustle
Starting my journey at Tara Street I headed west along the Liffey towards Wood Quay where the snap happy Garda Gasto van had been deployed.
Along the way I managed to keep tyre to tyre with a delivery van, overtook a couple of taxis and easily stayed ahead of a Dublin Bus.
Being far from a fitness freak or a frequent cyclist, I wasn't expecting to set the speedometer racing but it turns out that 30kph is easily achievable with a bit of hustle.
The born-again cyclist in me was more than enthused by the joy of seeing bemused taxi drivers glaring out of their windows at my enviable pace.
As a regular city driver, I often find myself swearing (under my breath of course) at cyclists weaving in and out of traffic and my excursion suggests cyclists will be doing a lot more meandering through the city streets to avoid the stationary cars.
"There are no speed limits for cyclists," gardai say, adding that only way I would be stopped on the quays is if they thought I was cycling dangerously.
"If a cyclist is a danger to themselves or to motorists, maybe causing cars to swerve or something like, we would be able to sanction them."

neutron

Ardent wrote: »

Guilty of all three on the way home this evening. I think the whole situation is ridiculous and dangerous.

One thing I've noticed the last couple of days - very few drivers respecting the new speed limit and little or no enforcement of it.

Are the guards really going to bother trying to catch drivers "speeding" in the affected areas?

Inappropriate speed limits such as the 30kph zone simply bring the law into total disrepute with a loss in respect for the Gardai another reason why DCC Traffic department really need to review their policies

The Gardai are being pressurised by DCC to enforce it. A total waste of Garda time when there is so much crime in Dublin

Apart from the Traffic Corp motorcyclists occasionally tailgating drivers to check their speed the Gatso cash vans are being utilised to collect fines

neutron

Jumpy wrote: »

You are linking speedo checking as the same danger as mobile phone use? Scratch my previous comment, this one wins by a mile.

Funny how I can manage to keep an eye on my speed and road in front of me without looking down.
Dare I ask you to review peripheral vision? Its a handy thing to have, and it comes built in to humans.

I second the request for documentation on this claim by the way.

It is interesting how to see how your vision behaves when you use your peripheral vision, the average person is unaware that their eyes are actually moving, you do have saccadic movements of the human eye that most are unaware of.

If you would like to try a simple experiment to illustrate what I am saying about being psychologically unaware that you are moving your eyes please
try this

"A person may observe the saccadic masking effect by standing in front of a mirror and looking from one eye to the next (and vice versa). The subject will not experience any movement of the eyes nor any evidence that the optic nerve has momentarily ceased transmitting. Due to saccadic masking, the eye/brain system not only hides the eye movements from the individual but also hides the evidence that anything has been hidden. Of course, a second observer watching the experiment will see the subject's eyes moving back and forth. The function's main purpose is to prevent smearing of the image."

Now to find you the link but I read of it in hard copy (book format) !

muffy

Wolverine_1999 wrote: »

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.

I walk from Bolton St to Aungier St most days during the week, two days a week I drive instead. Today I drove, (down Church St, past Christchurch etc). I noticed SO MANY PEOPLE STROLLING OUT IN FRONT OF ME. I know I am going slower but ffs. It was like when the roads were icy and the traffic had to crawl, pedestrians thought they could nip out in front of you as you were going so slow.
I found the new speed limit ok, it is going to be annoying at night time more so then day time. I just wish everyone who uses the road could respect the rules.
I'd gladly not drive into the city centre at all, I do think a city centre should be pedestrianised but there is F. all decent public transport in Dublin, so I either walk or drive.

neutron

buffalo wrote: »

So motorists are checking that they're obeying the speed limit and checking for Gardaí who are looking to catch them out? I'd suggest that a driver would do one or the other, not both.

And that is preciseley why instead of concentrating on the road the drivers attention is momentarily diverted resulting in more traffic accidents!

neutron

Mary Freehill wrote: »

not sure what I should do, I am just trying to reply to the issue of the speed limit

I am a councillor who voted against the 30kph. Got agreement to-night that it will be reviewed. Is it permissable to put this type of message?

Mary Freehill?

I thank you and you have represented Rathmines folk rather well

It is really sad how Labour is being tarnished so badly and being associated with Green party nonsense. FF are really increasing their support because of your colleagues actions. Get this extended zone rolled back before Labour lose more support

kazul

I think that a vote is more effective with these clowns than an e-mail.
Thanks to Mary Freehill, but if anybody comes to my door canvassing ever again I'm gonna give them the roasting of a lifetime and strongly consider my vote.
It's about time that a lot of these gobsheens were knocked off the gravy train back to the real world where the rest of us live.

ectoraige

zynaps wrote: »

I'm somewhat on the fence about the whole argument, but I have to ask - if you think the 30kph limit is an acceptable compromise between safety and convenience, then why not have a 30kph limit everywhere? Why just this zone?

Because it's the zone with the densest sustained levels of interaction between different road users and pedestrians.

tomasrojo

Is it really that hard to drive at 30km/h for about 2km (which is four minutes if you meet no traffic lights)? Is is really that outrageous an imposition?

Graz has a similar 30km/h zone in its city centre and it has 80% public approval. It has seen pedestrian and cyclist numbers rise, noise pollution fall, and pedestrian injuries are down. It's a nice place to be because of the zone. It's surely worth a try.

LookBehindYou

This slower speed will encourage pedestrians to jaywalk, most of which need to be using their mobile phones.
Surely it would have been more effective to get the law enforced regarding : Jaywalking, Bicycles breaking lights,etc.
There are pedestrian crossings and traffic lights where they can cross over the road safely, without endangering motorists.

DirkVoodoo

LookBehindYou wrote: »

There are pedestrian crossings and traffic lights where they can cross over the road safely, without endangering motorists.

You mean endangering themselves? Unless they are the size of a stag I can't imagine a pedestrian killing a motorist in a 50 km/hr collision. Maybe if you give them a bazooka?

P.C.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

You mean endangering themselves? Unless they are the size of a stag I can't imagine a pedestrian killing a motorist in a 50 km/hr collision. Maybe if you give them a bazooka?

Ok, so a motorbike is riding down the quays just under 30km/h.
A pedestrian steps out in front of the bike, and the rider grabs a fist full of front brake and swerves to the right, but the front wheel of the bikes hits a man hole cover, and the bike goes from under the rider.
The rider ends up under the back wheel of the bus that was next to him/her, which is doing just under 30km/h.

So, who caused the acident?

projectmayhem

neutron wrote: »

I think this article highlights how pedestrian safety will be further compromised by law breaking cyclists

The individual mentioned here at least was not setting out to break the law but obviously his behaviour has put all road users at risk by weaving in and out of traffic

Is this what councillor e-mail here andrewmontague@eircom.net and his colleagues in DCC Tarffic Committee planned? Is this making Dublin a more friendly and safe place?

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/how-i-zoomed-by-traffic-at-40kph--legally--on-my-bike-2044020.html

How I zoomed by traffic at 40kph -- legally -- on my bike


By Kevin Doyle
Tuesday February 02 2010


THERE is one way to beat the city centre speed limit -- get on your bike.
While cars, vans and trucks were crawling along Dublin's quays at 30kph, the Herald managed to fly past them at up to 40kph -- without breaking any laws.
Having donned a luminous jacket, I quickly found myself undertaking taxis, motorbikes and vans that were clearly making every effort to avoid the speed traps.

Hustle
Starting my journey at Tara Street I headed west along the Liffey towards Wood Quay where the snap happy Garda Gasto van had been deployed.
Along the way I managed to keep tyre to tyre with a delivery van, overtook a couple of taxis and easily stayed ahead of a Dublin Bus.
Being far from a fitness freak or a frequent cyclist, I wasn't expecting to set the speedometer racing but it turns out that 30kph is easily achievable with a bit of hustle.
The born-again cyclist in me was more than enthused by the joy of seeing bemused taxi drivers glaring out of their windows at my enviable pace.
As a regular city driver, I often find myself swearing (under my breath of course) at cyclists weaving in and out of traffic and my excursion suggests cyclists will be doing a lot more meandering through the city streets to avoid the stationary cars.
"There are no speed limits for cyclists," gardai say, adding that only way I would be stopped on the quays is if they thought I was cycling dangerously.
"If a cyclist is a danger to themselves or to motorists, maybe causing cars to swerve or something like, we would be able to sanction them."

You'll be hard pushed to say any sort of large numbers of cyclists do anything near 40kph. Most do under 20 ffs. Article is a load of bull, even motorists in the city center have to admit that.

I am normally a cyclist but my commute today was by bus because I didn't want to get wet Anyway, town this evening was very nice. Quiet, even with cars going by, and they were going fast enough to get through faster then anyone else, but slow enough as to not be a danger to themselves or anyone else. Except taxi's, who appear to have missed the memo.

The attitude of drivers towards other road users needs to change. The city planners need to plan for other road users too. More often then not, a cyclist is going in between cars because a bike lane either isn't there or cars have conveniently decided to park all along it (Georges st. is a typical prime example of this). The attitude of cyclists also needs to change. 40KPH, if anyone is achieving this, is not a safe speed to be travelling (plus you'd want to be super fit to do this every day) and red lights are there to stop you. Even as a cyclist I see a lot of red light runners. Pedestrians also need to stop "taking the chance" and running out in front of cars to cross the road.

Overall a bit of a slow down is good for everyone. I don't see how everyone is bitching about this. There is no justified reason to say slowing down isn't safer, nicer and encourages people to use alternative modes of transport.

If we all got out on public transport, bikes or walked short distances, we would be a healthier nation - not using up all those resources in the health services, especially in later life. I realise this isn't the option for a lot of Dubliners, but Dublin isn't that big that all those people need cars to travel. If you're 5-8KM from your job, you can easily cycle without breaking a sweat.

Midnight_EG

P.C. wrote: »

Ok, so a motorbike is riding down the quays just under 30km/h.
A pedestrian steps out in front of the bike, and the rider grabs a fist full of front brake and swerves to the right, but the front wheel of the bikes hits a man hole cover, and the bike goes from under the rider.
The rider ends up under the back wheel of the bus that was next to him/her, which is doing just under 30km/h.

So, who caused the acident?

A motorist, no doubt.

blorg

neutron wrote: »

I think this article highlights how pedestrian safety will be further compromised by law breaking cyclists

How I zoomed by traffic at 40kph -- legally -- on my bike

Having donned a luminous jacket, I quickly found myself undertaking taxis, motorbikes and vans that were clearly making every effort to avoid the speed traps.

The Quays have cycle or bus lanes much their length. It is legal to "undertake" if traffic is "moving in queues" (this is a UK term) or moving very slowly. Have you honestly never undertaken a car turning right? Has a bus in a bus lane never "undertaken" you? Even without specific lanes it is acknowledged behaviour in the Rules of the Road and the Minister for Transport has actually gone so far as to say he indends to make this explicitly legal through a SI, with appropriate safeguards:

Noel Dempsey wrote:

The Minister also hopes to make legal the common practice of cyclists overtaking slow moving traffic on the inside. In this case, however, the cyclists' responsibility to have regard to their own safety will be reinforced by not allowing this type of overtaking, where a left-hand turn has been indicated by the vehicle to be overtaken and, where that vehicle will reach the corner before the cyclist.

irishmotorist

neutron wrote: »

I think this article highlights how pedestrian safety will be further compromised by law breaking cyclists

How is pedestrian safety FURTHER compromised by law breaking cyclists? Pedestrian safety is 'compromised' by cyclists exactly the same way today as it was last week.

The individual mentioned here at least was not setting out to break the law but obviously his behaviour has put all road users at risk by weaving in and out of traffic

I don't see where he says that he'll was weaving in and out of traffic. Even if he was, however, did you accompany him and witness that this was all dangerous? On the bike, I 'weave' between cars the whole time. When a car stops against the kerb while waiting in a queue for traffic lights, I'll pass it (after checking for nothing coming, of course). I move through lines of stationary traffic when I'm coming up to a right turn so that I can take the correct road position.


I'm sorry this can't be taken seriously - this is just a rant with cyclists apparently the brunt of whatever sort of bad day you had.

Yes - I agree that the 30km/h speed limit on the quays is not a good idea, but keep it on topic. Start a new thread called 'I hate everything to do with cyclists because they get to work quicker than I do' and keep to your topic there.

irishmotorist

blorg wrote: »

The Quays have cycle or bus lanes much their length. It is legal to "undertake" if traffic is "moving in queues" (this is a UK term) or moving very slowly.

+1
Take a scroll down to the "You may overtake on the left when" paragraph....
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/good-driving-practice/overtaking.html

blorg

P.C. wrote: »

Ok, so a motorbike is riding down the quays just under 30km/h.
A pedestrian steps out in front of the bike, and the rider grabs a fist full of front brake and swerves to the right, but the front wheel of the bikes hits a man hole cover, and the bike goes from under the rider.
The rider ends up under the back wheel of the bus that was next to him/her, which is doing just under 30km/h.

So, who caused the acident?

Similar things have actually happened, the pedestrian is responsible. The test is whether the motorbike rider could have reasonably prevented the collision. UK case, the biker lived, the ped died, the biker got damages.

blorg

muffy wrote: »

I walk from Bolton St to Aungier St most days during the week, two days a week I drive instead. Today I drove, (down Church St, past Christchurch etc). I noticed SO MANY PEOPLE STROLLING OUT IN FRONT OF ME. I know I am going slower but ffs.

Did they make it across OK without you having to brake or take evasive action? Part- even the main- point of a 30km/h centre limit is to make the centre more pedestrian-friendly. This would include people crossing roads ahead of you at a safe distance.

evolutionqy7

a convo between me and him
I do agree but i don't think that lowering the speed limit is an answer. In most parts of the town you don't even get to full speed while your moving. And posting lower speed would mean that the cars at the start of the traffic lights would be moving off slower and cause more jam for the cars behind. apart from that it would cause a lot of overheating problems to peoples cars due to driving in low gears for longer. therefore it would result in more car break downs leading to more jams. By fact every one obeys the speed limit when the garda is out with the speed gun or is around. And it would be once in a while you would see one which brings the question what is the traffic corps doing? by doing this people are going to drive out of town looking for places to get to faster therefore affecting the business in the city center. i do sincerely doubt that reducing the speed limit will stop the accidents no matter what you do there will always be some sort of road accident where some one is going to get injured or killed whether it will be a cyclists, pedestrian or the motorist. There will always be accidents its just the nature of human being.

---

From: "Andrew Montague" <andrewmontague@eircom.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:43 PM
To: "Evan"
Subject: Re: 30 kph limit

> Dear Evan,
>
> I'm sorry that you disagree with me, but I do appreciate that you took the time to email me. It's always good for me to hear both sides of the argument, not just my own. Every year on the Transport Committee of Dublin City Council we get reports which show where accidents and fatalities occur. Every year in Dublin, the area with the highest number of road deaths and serious injury is the city centre core area. Typically 2-3 people are killed in this small area every year and I want to reduce that. That is why I'm proposing this measure. I understand that this will be frustrating for motorists, but in order to make it a bit easier we are setting up the traffic lights so that if you travel at 30kph you will won't hit any red lights if you are on the quays. This will actually mean that you will be able to get through the area faster than ever before. It might be frustrating to have to drive so slowly, but at least you will spend less time sitting at red lights.Time will tell how this proposal will work out, and we will be reviewing it to see how well it works. If we find that the scheme is not working, we will abandon it, but if it is working well, we will keep it.
>
> Regards
> Andrew
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2010, at 23:48, Evan wrote:
>
>> how can you even think of that speed?
>> i mean first it will double the amount of traffic...buses will jam all the streets.. the answer isn't lower speed limit its making the garda more efficient at traffic control!!!

Shane732

This thread is starting to go off topic....

There may be some level of an argument that lower speed limits will reduce deaths. Although the I'd imagine the number lives saved as a result of being hit at 30km per hour as opposed to 50km is minimal.

Does anyone have the figure for people killed by motorists in Dublin city centre in the last 12 months?

If cyclists are so concerned about their safety then stopping breaking lights and showing complete disrespect for the rules of the road. As a pedestrian I feel a lot more confident that a car will stop at a set of traffic lights as opposed to a cyclist. Until cyclists start obeying the rules of the road I don't think the argument of cyclists safety being increased by the reduced speed limits is relevant.

The speed limit is an utter joke and action needs to be taken.

Run_to_da_hills

Not a person for ridiculous law and order but perhaps the authorities should give cyclists a taste of nannyism by making it compulsory for them to wear cycle helmets and florescent jackets when on the streets of Dublin.

monument

Martian Martin wrote: »

... If the 30Kph speed limit will save lives then surely a 5Kph speed limit will save even more?

Not by much, the difference between 30 and 50km/h is, however, massive:



Speed is also a factor in increasing crashes in the first place. To quote a WHO document: "A 5% increase in average speed leads to an approximately 10% increase in crashes that cause injuries, and a 20% increase in fatal crashes".

DirkVoodoo

P.C. wrote: »

Ok, so a motorbike is riding down the quays just under 30km/h.
A pedestrian steps out in front of the bike, and the rider grabs a fist full of front brake and swerves to the right, but the front wheel of the bikes hits a man hole cover, and the bike goes from under the rider.
The rider ends up under the back wheel of the bus that was next to him/her, which is doing just under 30km/h.

So, who caused the acident?

Are you asking me who is most at danger in this hypothetical situation (which is what I said) or who caused the accident? Obviously the pedestrian caused the accident, I don't see any argument there.

I could come up with numerous "hypothetical" cases where the pedestrian comes out worse, ending up under wheels or maybe even catapulted into the liffey. If however you can statistically prove that in a 30 km/hr collision a motorist will more often than not come off worse than a pedestrian, I will retract my statement.

I'm not defending jaywalking by the way, lights are there for a reason.

DirkVoodoo

Shane732 wrote: »

If cyclists are so concerned about their safety then stopping breaking lights and showing complete disrespect for the rules of the road. As a pedestrian I feel a lot more confident that a car will stop at a set of traffic lights as opposed to a cyclist. Until cyclists start obeying the rules of the road I don't think the argument of cyclists safety being increased by the reduced speed limits is relevant.

Are you saying that no motorists break lights? I see about as many cars break lights as I do bikes, I don't see why it has to be an "us versus them". I stop for red whether I'm driving or cycling.

Your argument is pretty weak to be honest, are you saying that you won't obey the law until everyone else does? Have you not tried to lead by example? I don't stop every cyclist I see breaking lights and give out to them, I just stop at them myself. Clearly you are prejudiced against cyclists, I wouldn't feel confident of anyone stopping at lights until they are actually stopped, be it bike or car.

Shane732

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Are you saying that no motorists break lights? I see about as many cars break lights as I do bikes, I don't see why it has to be an "us versus them". I stop for red whether I'm driving or cycling.

Your argument is pretty weak to be honest, are you saying that you won't obey the law until everyone else does? Have you not tried to lead by example? I don't stop every cyclist I see breaking lights and give out to them, I just stop at them myself. Clearly you are prejudiced against cyclists, I wouldn't feel confident of anyone stopping at lights until they are actually stopped, be it bike or car.

At what point did I say I won't obey the law?

I said that I don't think increasing cyclists safety can be taken as a valid argument when cyclists openly break lights thus increasing the chances of an accident.

I would argue that the percentage of cyclists who break lights in Dublin is much greater than the percentage of motorists. Unfortunately I do not have figures to back this up, so this is opinion only.

In relation to your last point - perhaps you are pessimistic by nature?

DirkVoodoo

Shane732 wrote: »

At what point did I say I won't obey the law?

Sorry, that was my inference that "The speed limit is an utter joke and action needs to be taken" meant you would not be sticking to the new limits. My bad.

Shane732 wrote: »

I would argue that the percentage of cyclists who break lights in Dublin is much greater than the percentage of motorists. Unfortunately I do not have figures to back this up, so this is opinion only.

Unfortunately there are no statistics on this, this is simply an observation. I notice that when I drive one type of car, I suddenly notice a lot more of that car on the road. Does this mean after I started driving that car the sales of that particular car sky rocketed? Yes, a lot of cyclists break lights, but so do a lot of motorists. Proportionally there are far more motorists than cyclists and so yes you are probably right. Does this mean it is ok for motorists to break lights because the percentage is lower? It's not an argument, it's an observation.

Shane732 wrote: »

In relation to your last point - perhaps you are pessimistic by nature?

Seeing as you don't know me, I won't comment on this.

As for your request for statistics, this was the best I could do, my googling isn't as good as some people's: http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

chakattack

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?

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.

?????

No roads are closed. The city is alive and open for business as usual.

P.C.

P.C. wrote: »

Ok, so a motorbike is riding down the quays just under 30km/h.
A pedestrian steps out in front of the bike, and the rider grabs a fist full of front brake and swerves to the right, but the front wheel of the bikes hits a man hole cover, and the bike goes from under the rider.
The rider ends up under the back wheel of the bus that was next to him/her, which is doing just under 30km/h.

So, who caused the acident?

And this elaborately constructed scenario would end better if all involved were travelling at 50 kph?

blorg

Shane732 wrote: »

I would argue that the percentage of cyclists who break lights in Dublin is much greater than the percentage of motorists. Unfortunately I do not have figures to back this up, so this is opinion only.

Many motorists speed through amber and early red at high speed. High potential for serious injury there (indeed I have been hit on a ped crossing) but it is considered the norm and I am not angelic myself. Many cyclists do tend go through lights that have been red for a while, some carefully, some carefree. I don't do either myself. But I wonder which causes more injuries.

neutron

chakattack wrote: »

?????

No roads are closed. The city is alive and open for business as usual.

Footfall and the level of business in the city has dropped due to 2 reasons

1. The recession

2. Really bad traffic engineering that persuades the life blood of the city to shop elsewhere because of artifically created traffic congestion, lack of parking and of course it is now being amplifed by the inept extension of the 30kph zone

neutron

It is excellent to see that there is some reasoned debate amongst some councillors and politicians over the inept engineered 30kph zone

Read here

http://www.billtormey.ie/2010/02/02/dublin-fine-gael-on-the-30-kph-speed-limit-in-the-city-centre-core/

Following a detailed discussion on this issue, the elected councillors resolved to send out the following statement: – “Fine Gael on Dublin City Council understands the public abreaction to the introduction of a city centre 30 kph speed limit zone around the clock. While Fine Gael is supportive of the pedestrianisation policy for the core city centre, we feel that this speed limit should be restricted from 7 am to 7 pm.
As locally elected representatives in Dublin, we speak for Dublin Fine Gael on issues of local government. Therefore our policy takes precedence over comments emanating from Leinster House.
Let common sense prevail and let the nanny state mentality that has recently taken over the council be put aside in the interests of all citizens in our capital.”
Dublin City Fine Gael would prefer an immediate cessation of the 30 kph pending an examination of the reasons for the steps that led to this decision.
I really feel that the anti-car attitude of many members should be brought to public notice. Best of luck to those who get penalty points for speeding at 25 MPH at 4 am. Bill is not the ONE to blame. I have opposed it all the way.
At the February City Council meeting, my attempt to bring this issue to review was ruled out of order. I whole issue will be reviewed after six months which pushes it out to July. E-mail your local councillors to lobby on this issue.

galwaytt

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

a convo between me and him

---

From: "Andrew Montague" <andrewmontague@eircom.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:43 PM
To: "Evan"
Subject: Re: 30 kph limit

> Dear Evan,
>
> I'm sorry that you disagree with me, but I do appreciate that you took the time to email me. It's always good for me to hear both sides of the argument, not just my own. Every year on the Transport Committee of Dublin City Council we get reports which show where accidents and fatalities occur. Every year in Dublin, the area with the highest number of road deaths and serious injury is the city centre core area. Typically 2-3 people are killed in this small area every year and I want to reduce that. That is why I'm proposing this measure. I understand that this will be frustrating for motorists, but in order to make it a bit easier we are setting up the traffic lights so that if you travel at 30kph you will won't hit any red lights if you are on the quays. This will actually mean that you will be able to get through the area faster than ever before. It might be frustrating to have to drive so slowly, but at least you will spend less time sitting at red lights.Time will tell how this proposal will work out, and we will be reviewing it to see how well it works. If we find that the scheme is not working, we will abandon it, but if it is working well, we will keep it.
>
> Regards
> Andrew

I got the exact same response, so his copy & paste button is working ..:rolleyes:

so, I sent this:

Andrew
Thanks for the prompt reply, however I shall take as affirmation from your reply, the fact that you haven't denied the point I made: that the injuries and fatalities, such as they occur, are not the results of speeding issues. If they were, would have said so.

This is true in fact, on a more general scale of speeding generally. I don't condone it, but even the RSA and Garda accident statistics acquiesce that speed is only a measurable contributor in approx 7% off accidents.

So what of the othe 90% + ??

Legislating for the exception, rather than the rule - or more specifically in traffic matters, the lack of observance of rules, is shockingly poor legislation. By extension then, the people that do that (yourself & TD's generally), are turning both a blind eye to the 90%, and playing to the gallery of the 10%. When accident statistics DON'T fall - and they won't - where to then ? Will you refund the fines you have collected in err ? Will you rescind any penalty points gathered for the duration of this operation ?

I take grave exception to the Powers That Be 'playing' with as important an item - to me anyway - of a driving licence. It is hard-earned, and hard kept clean, and should not be the subject of some publicity stunt such as that you are engaged in.

I shall continue to make my voice on heard, on behalf of the majority who are being blighted by this injustice.

And when will you tackle those with direct control of their own fate - the jaywalkers, and errant cyclists. Cyclists in particular have very poor record of road discipline.

Yours sincerely

blorg

Very misleading as Fine Gael councillors were behind and wholeheartedly supported the change. I believe there were a total of three councillors voting against.

neutron

galwaytt wrote: »

I got the exact same response, so his copy & paste button is working ..:rolleyes:

so, I sent this:

Excellent reply by you to the councillor, if all he is capable of is a cut and paste job, well it speaks volumes for his reasoning in extending the 30kph zone.

Unfortunatley the only real pressure you have to create change is through your vote so make sure you advise whatever councillors you mail how you will be inclined to vote.

neutron

A good friend of mine said something along the following lines on the Irish Times site...;)

I remember when I used to shop in town. I'd park my car. I`d do my shopping. I'd drop my shopping back to the car and then go and meet people for some lunch or a drink or something. So not only were retailers getting business, but restaurants, cafes and pubs were getting spin off business too. Now I don't drive into town at all because it's too much hassle.

Nor do I take public transport in to shop because I can't be ar$ed trying to bring loads of shopping home that way.

Nor do I cycle because A., it's too far and B., it wouldn't be possible to bring my shopping home that way anyway.

Now I shop in impersonal shopping centres on the periphery of Dublin while Dublin City Council continue to do all they can to kill the city centre.

And while their mad strategy might be great for pedestrians, cyclists, hippies and those who want Dublin to become another homogenous European city, I doubt any of these people are doing any significant shopping in town. As a result, it amazes me why there isn't a lot more opposition to the cretins in Dublin City Council who are destroying much of what was unique to Dublin.

PS - If anyone wants proof of the kind of dogs dinner traffic systems Dublin City Council inflict on motorists, I'd suggest you try navigating north and south of the new Samuel Beckett bridge for a great example of how dire Dublin City Council planners are

galwaytt

projectmayhem wrote: »

The attitude of drivers towards other road users needs to change. The city planners need to plan for other road users too. More often then not, a cyclist is going in between cars because a bike lane either isn't there

That's no reason to impede car movements with this daft limit.

projectmayhem wrote: »

There is no justified reason to say slowing down isn't safer, nicer and encourages people to use alternative modes of transport.

Fine. In Dublin, which is subsidised to the hilt for the public transport it has. Meanwhile the rest of us swing in the wind.......

Midnight_EG wrote: »

A motorist, no doubt.;)

You're correct, and statistics, even the RSA's, who ran a TV ad on it lately, concur. Welcome to the party.

blorg wrote: »

Similar things have actually happened, the pedestrian is responsible. The test is whether the motorbike rider could have reasonably prevented the collision. UK case, the biker lived, the ped died, the biker got damages.

Quite right.

Shane732 wrote: »

..Does anyone have the figure for people killed by motorists in Dublin city centre in the last 12 months?

I'd like them too: but more importantly, to see the causes attributed to them. I'm going that speed is far down the list.

Shane732 wrote: »

..If cyclists are so concerned about their safety then stopping breaking lights and showing complete disrespect for the rules of the road. As a pedestrian I feel a lot more confident that a car will stop at a set of traffic lights as opposed to a cyclist. Until cyclists start obeying the rules of the road I don't think the argument of cyclists safety being increased by the reduced speed limits is relevant.

The speed limit is an utter joke and action needs to be taken.

Good point: and another you've touched on: a car (or motorcycle) is designed and capable of stopping very, very quickly, very safely. It's retardation systems are a match for it's accelerative ones. A cyclist is not, and not by a long shot. And I haven't even mentioned tyres yet.

monument wrote: »

Are you for real ? Quoting a 24 year old report ? Why not dig out the Red Flag Act of 190x whilst you're at it ? Technology alone, all other things being equal, would radically change that graph, numbers taken tomorrow. For a start, all cars are now test for pedestrian injury, and cars are now designed specifically, to mitigate it. The Nissan GT-R is but one I know have that has an 'active' pedestrian safety system, that using pyrotechnic devices, manipulate the orientation of the bonnet, to 'save' a a pedestrion. It's not the only one doing it. Why to you think the Peugeot 407 got so ugly: pedestrian safety is what gave it it's peculiar front overhangs.....

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If however you can statistically prove that in a 30 km/hr collision a motorist will more often than not come off worse than a pedestrian, I will retract my statement.

I'm not defending jaywalking by the way, lights are there for a reason.

That's missing the point: you cannot argue the laws of physics. However, you can, nay, must, respect them: deciding to dodge cars, because you're misguided, or just have poor sense of spatial awareness or sense of speed, because that oncoming car will in all likelihood hurt you, does not justify penalising, or terrorising, the motorist. The motorist is entitled to the same protection as a pedestrian, legally. There should be no default against the motorist.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Are you saying that no motorists break lights? I see about as many cars break lights as I do bikes, I don't see why it has to be an "us versus them". I stop for red whether I'm driving or cycling.

Sorry, that's completely bogus-if the same number of cars as bicycles broke the lights, the junctions would be a bloodbath every evening.......funny, hasn't made the news.......

evolutionqy7

i really lol...most of the accidents happen in the rural roads...i mean the accident count isnt bad...fair enough every one wants 0 but **** happens...i mean much could be improved if the rural roads were properly build with enough space to drive by when a lorry is trying to pass you out or a big tractor comes out and u have to jump to the ditch...like rural roads are far more dangerous than the city...2nd they can only blame themselfs for the bad road traffic layout and the cyclist and pedestrian unfriendly street layout...

tomasrojo

galwaytt wrote: »

Are you for real ? Quoting a 24 year old report ? [...] Technology alone, all other things being equal, would radically change that graph, numbers taken tomorrow.

Ah no. The damage done when being struck by an object is primarily a function of its kinetic energy.

24 years ago, the formula was:
kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared

Surprisingly, that still holds true today. And will into perpetuity.

Notice that since energy varies with the square of velocity, the the energy increases enormously as speed increases. Hence that graph.

tomasrojo

galwaytt wrote: »

[...] does not justify penalising, or terrorising, the motorist.

Asking you to slow dow for four minutes must be the mildest definition of terrorism ever devised.

dermot_sheehan

http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=31138&t=0&m=wm&l=en_GB#the_data_area

Might interest people.

As a general observation I wonder if such comments re this new speed limit were made 20 years ago when grafton and henry st were pedestrianised.

City centres are for people, not traffic.

tomasrojo

galwaytt wrote: »

I got the exact same response, so his copy & paste button is working ..:rolleyes:

Given that he is almost certainly deluged with angry emails at the moment, you expect him to compose a unqiue response to every correspondent?