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

newkidonblock

Having just driven up the quays this morning about 2am I nearly knocked down a pedesterian because I was so busy looking at the speedo in order to keep my speed below 30km.


Also a Garda friend of mine admitted if he was following me in a patrol car last week doing that speed with little or no traffic he may well have charged me with careless driving or driving with undue care and attention.

DirkVoodoo

galwaytt wrote: »

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.......

If the light turns red, and you have a safe enough distance to stop, yet you drive through, it's still breaking a light and can still result in an accident. You are simply being selective in what you consider red light breaking, yes, cyclists stupidly and dangerously go through lights that are red, yet motorists also go through lights that have gone red. This is still breaking the lights, it's still dangerous.

Also, can you honestly say you don't see drivers treat red filter lights as yield signs. I see it every day on the N11 and I've seen two very bad crashes at the junction of the N11 and westminster road from this behaviour.

Furthermore, if you wish to engage in a debate about physics I'm all ears, you mentioned a car/motorbikes superior braking power, this is very true, but you have also failed to mention the effects of momentum and inertia.

At 30 km/hr on dry asphalt a car can stop safely after 4.4 metres, approximately For a motorbike, dry concrete (coefficient of friction for asphalt taken as 0.8), this comes in at 4.6m. A search of US design standards for bicycles states that a bicycle/rider combination of 91Kg (that's a big enough rider, average bike around the 12-14Kg mark) is required to stop from a speed of 24 km/hr within a distance of 4.57m.

So, pretty darn similar, excluding any reaction times which vary on an individual basis. You can, nay you must respect this.

bad2dabone

hello, i've to drive through the city centre 30kph zone daily.

my objection to this low speed limit is the absolute pain in the hole it is to drive at 30 kph like an old bitch in a micra.

thank you.

zynaps

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

Well that's a load of nonsense, the journalist says nothing about having swerved dangerously in and out of traffic.

Note that he points out:

Kevin Doyle wrote:

"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."

Your assumption that he was cycling dangerously simply because he was going faster than the cars is badly flawed.

Overheal

monument wrote: »

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".

does anyone else find it strange that you have a >0% chance of survival if the vehicle is stationary

zynaps

Nakatomi wrote: »

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

You did arguably worse by picking that quote out of context and making a rhetorical question about drink driving laws: you constructed a straw-man and misrepresented his argument in such a way as to undermine it without actually countering its validity.

His point was: Traffic accidents with pedestrians in the city centre were rare enough to be a freak occurrence, therefore this legislation will not help.
You implied that his point was: all traffic accidents everywhere, even drink-driving ones, are freak occurrences, therefore no traffic legislation will help.

There's a big difference. This is a very specific measure of questionable effectiveness in terms of safety, given that the number of deaths and serious injuries is so low.

• Hundreds of people die from falling down stairs every year, but stairs have not been banned (or fitted with (st)airbags).
• A couple of people die every year from traffic accidents in the city centre, and now we have a low speed limit with immediate Garda enforcement.

That's what suggests to me that it may be a political rather than pragmatic manoeuvre.

I just don't see why you would argue so strongly for this, if you're not going to argue for safer stairs, pavements, potholes and the like, which cause far more deaths than travelling at 50kph in the city centre.

projectmayhem

galwaytt wrote: »

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

Yes there is. It's a safer speed. Everyone is more aware of everyone else and it gives the movement of other road users and pedestrians a chance of survival on the city center streets. Keep in mind this is the very center of the city, nowhere else. It's a place for shopping, meeting people and conducting business, not driving around at any rate of speed to get from one place to another quickly. Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of cars on streets like Dame St (which is a wonderful street, ruined by traffic) and have farmers markets and what not?

We have quite a pretty city that gets ruined by heavy amounts of traffic because residents (by virtue of habit) refuse to get out of their cars.

galwaytt wrote: »

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

Not going to disagree with you here. Dublin city council has implemented this, so it's up to other councils to do their own work. As for subsidised... of course Dublin gets more money, it has more people. The metropolitan population is around 1.6million... it needs MORE investment then it gets now if it's to compete with it's European brethren.

galwaytt wrote: »

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.

A car is also built to travel safely at excessive speeds. Should we abolish minimum speeds altogether so? Let darwin sort the rest out?

As for cyclists, a good bike with good brakes can stop very handily. Considering we're likely to get a huge influx of those big Dutch bikes when people properly take on cycling, the braking/tyre issue will not exist. Looking at most bike traffic around, the bikes we use are actually of very high standards. Much higher then other countries, probably down to the bike2work scheme.

gabhain7 wrote: »

City centres are for people, not traffic.

+1

Like I said, the area of the city center where this speed restriction is in place should be made an area to go and meet people, converse and run events and generally be far more friendly for people wandering around or on a bit of a cycle/roller-blade/skate. The filthy traffic jams and speeding cars/buses does not help the city at all or make it attractive to pedestrians who are ultimately the ones required to be catered to within the city.

Again, like I said, closing the city off to traffic here and there is nice. Even this evening without all the noise of cars revving up as they try to beat lights and buses accelerating far too hard away from stops, the place was friendlier. Had a nicer atmosphere.

We don't have the benefit of all the squares and empty cobbled roads of Amsterdam, but eliminating cars from a lot of the city makes it a nicer, more attractive area. You can still drive in, park and pack the car with shopping and nicities... but imagine parking in Jervis st., walking up to Dame st and just wandering around without traffic everywhere. Waiting at lights to cross all the time. Maybe even having a nice market on the street to buy some hippie food? Then have a wander through temple bar, buy some coffee and a book in the book market, and on to O'Connell St where there's nearly no cars, a load of pedestrians chilling out and chatting with cyclists mainly populating the road with a few buses bringing people to/from the city. This isn't a utopian idea that's unachievable. It is a nice idea, and something we can easily do.

zynaps

Alanstrainor wrote: »

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.

This is true - I always try to drive at the speed limit, and end up looking at the speedo every 10 seconds or so (more if I'm noticeably slowing down and speeding up). If I think I'm doing 50 without having looked for a while, I'm usually actually doing 40-45 :rolleyes:

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.

Me neither really, I just find it a bit disingenuous to say it's about safety, if the actual amount of pedestrian deaths in city centre RTAs is low - compared to bigger killers like falling down stairs or on the street. Similarly, the fact that jaywalking is tolerated so much and no effort has been made to clamp down on that. I'd expect many of those not-very-many deaths and injuries in the city centre are due to pedestrians jaywalking without even checking for oncoming traffic.

However, on the arguments that it would make for a quiet, more peaceful city centre, with the speed limit discouraging needless casual driving there in favour of peripheral routes or public transport - that's a little more compelling IMO.
A lot of drivers have been complaining for years that it's too dangerous to cycle given the volume and speed of car traffic, maybe if this really reduces city centre traffic, it'll encourage some of them to finally hop on a bike, which can only be a good thing.

zynaps

Reloc8 wrote: »

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.

No, you shouldn't say that since it's not true. Filtering is not illegal for bicycles.

Otherwise, if you were cycling along and a car overtook you then stopped immediately at the back of a queue of traffic, you'd be breaking the law to carry on in a straight (and unobstructed) line as you had been doing. And that would be ridiculous.

zynaps

seamus wrote: »

Just to clarify for everyone, this speed limit extends nowhere near St. James's Gate.

See this map for details on details of just how tiny an area is affected by this.

Thanks! That is actually a tiny area indeed. Surely the maximum possible time lost on even the long end-to-end route through that zone at 30kph rather than 50kph would be only a minute or two.

I'd like to see how it's working out after a week or so - are traffic levels down, is it quieter and really safer (i.e. are people jaywalking even more dangerously than normal due to the lower speed limit).

ArphaRima

Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of cars on streets like Dame St (which is a wonderful street, ruined by traffic) and have farmers markets and what not?

No. Jesus no.
ProjectMayhem you are one helluva hippy!

Even this evening without all the noise of cars revving up as they try to beat lights and buses accelerating far too hard away from stops, the place was friendlier. Had a nicer atmosphere.

Go live in a smaller town, the countryside or visit Phoenix Park/Dun Laoghaire etc for your roller-blading and strolls. Dublin is our major and capital city. I dont want the entire thing blocked off for hippy activity. I want to shop and socialise WITH my car. Look at the map. I dont want to walk from The North Circular rd to St Stephens Green.
I dont have the time. I have a real job.

Back to point. This is not about large-scale pedestrianisation. (or the retardation rates of different vehicles for that matter)

Its about large-scale idiocy. 30kph is ridiculous as a speed to maintain in a car over any distance. It barely feels like you're moving.
Thats what I oppose and that's what I daresay the majority of the public will oppose.

I want everyone to look at the map detailing the scope of this change. Its massive.
(I attached a zoomed version below)
http://www.dublincity.ie/Documents/Map.pdf

From Bill Tormey -

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....................

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.

That reeks of a backpeddle. They are realising the scale of public opposition to the plan and are trying to disassociate themselves from it and dilute the plan. Not enough. I want it gone!

zynaps

projectmayhem wrote: »

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.

ROFL

projectmayhem wrote: »

If you're 5-8KM from your job, you can easily cycle without breaking a sweat.

And if you're 0-2km from your job, you can walk it no bother, even if it's pissing rain, which is what got me driving more than cycling over the winter (and then someone stole the bike, so that was that :rolleyes:).

Traumadoc

zynaps wrote: »

You did arguably worse by picking that quote out of context and making a rhetorical question about drink driving laws: you constructed a straw-man and misrepresented his argument in such a way as to undermine it without actually countering its validity.

His point was: Traffic accidents with pedestrians in the city centre were rare enough to be a freak occurrence, therefore this legislation will not help.
You implied that his point was: all traffic accidents everywhere, even drink-driving ones, are freak occurrences, therefore no traffic legislation will help.

There's a big difference. This is a very specific measure of questionable effectiveness in terms of safety, given that the number of deaths and serious injuries is so low.

• Hundreds of people die from falling down stairs every year, but stairs have not been banned (or fitted with (st)airbags).
• A couple of people die every year from traffic accidents in the city centre, and now we have a low speed limit with immediate Garda enforcement.

That's what suggests to me that it may be a political rather than pragmatic manoeuvre.

I just don't see why you would argue so strongly for this, if you're not going to argue for safer stairs, pavements, potholes and the like, which cause far more deaths than travelling at 50kph in the city centre.

Please could you provide a source for your "Hundreds of people die from falling down stairs every year"

I work in an Emergency department, I have to say I see far more people dying or seriously injured from peds vs motor vehicle than I do from falling down stairs.

So you dont think legislation would help: then are you advocating a no speed limit policy in Dublin city centre?

ArphaRima

Wow Nakatomi. You are great at blundering through a post nitpicking detail without ever tackling the debate.

are you advocating a no speed limit policy in Dublin city centre?

I dont think anyone has advocated that yet.


Now at least we have the source of your concern: you work in an ER. Fair enough. That should be the basis for your argument, and we can debate based on your experience.

If you are indeed a medical professional then you should understand risk assessment, threat and error management, and of course statistics.

Specifically your argument should be based around your conviction that a 30kph limit is demonstrably safer, more desirable and overall a far superior strategy for DCC to pursue.
Then you need to convince us that the people will want it. We live in a democracy after all. Maybe we actually dont want it to be slower. Maybe we will accept the very slightly higher risk for less frustration?

Which will then all be on-topic, relevant and a proper debate.

Joey the lips

You know andrew does not drive and never has as far as i am aware.

Kinda says a lot.

I am just wondering if this was back in the time when road tax was being introduced and it was said you have to pay 300 euro a year but you cannot drive in the city at any more than 20mph, who would have bought a car....


Its a stupid stupid idea and is just someone trying to stamp themselves on the political front.... Just remember it when your voteing.

StudentDad

This is yet another stupid bit of legislating by the 'authorities.' If they want to get cars off the road and make travelling safter they should put their effort into public transport and not penalise anyone who chooses to drive!

As it stands it's impossible to get anywhere by public transport in a quick and timely manner so the only other option is to drive. What do the idiots in charge do? They make it more difficult to get to your destination by car as well. This has to be one of the most idiotic laws I've heard of in a while. It would make sense if it was targeted in a specific manner - but it isn't, it's a typical blunderbuss approach that's the norm in this country.

SD

gurramok

ectoraige wrote: »

No, this is not propaganda. I gave the only figures I had, which were from Ciarán Cuffes' blog, where he wrote

That's why I said six years; I'm not following any agenda. I didn't have any analysis of the causes of the accidents, and I never suggested I did. For you to come out and accuse me of misrepresenting statistics to advance my argument is puerile, and is attacking the messenger, not the message. It's also shows poor comprehension skills, try reading a little slower. If you want to know why Ciarán Cuffe said 6 years, go ask him.

However it if was to make the rates seem higher, from what listermint posted, Cuffes figures are a lower reported number, so that undermines that. Andrew Montague is claiming that there are typically 2-3 fatalaties in the area per year. That is much higher than the number Ciarán Cuffe gave (and that I then reported). I would expect the DCC Transport committee has the more reliable figures, than Cuffe, but it would be useful if they were published. The only published figures I have seen are the RSA ones which are for all of Dublin City.

What I have consistently advanced is the fact that these measures have led to drastic reductions in the total casualties. I never provided any qualification that this only reduces specific types of accidents. For all I know it has no effect on truck/cyclist collisions, or perhaps it does reduce these too just as a result of a calmer overall environment. What I do know, is that this result has been observed in city after city. I should note too that in some cities the gain was eroded following poor enforcement.

I have no agenda, the first I heard of this was in an article earlier in the year, and I gave it no more thought until the brouhaha from people can't afford a few minutes in their day as they need it to post angry messages on the Internet.

Try a little bit of research(googling for example) rather than using poor comprehension skills before spouting out statistics from Ciaran Cuffe of the Green Party. Try reading a bit slower and realise what you are saying from the following

you wrote:

What I have consistently advanced is the fact that these measures have led to drastic reductions in the total casualties.

You do not have any backup that this new limit will reduce fatalities as you do not have:
A - fatal statistics for the area affected by the new limit
B - cause of those fatalities (this could of easily done by yourself using the internet, i found 66% of the 2004-2005 stats already for you)
C - you never even googled any of the statistics given to you by Ciaran Cuffe or those mentioned by Andrew Montague hence justified suspicion of an agenda.

You mentioned 'other cities' as examples. You forget to mention that each city is unique. Perhaps we should ban buses from the affected area as they account for most of the fatalities at or under 30kmph.:rolleyes:

maggy_thatcher

monument wrote: »

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

Even assuming that graph is still valid (with modern advances in crumple zones that absorb kinetic energy, this is very much debatable), you are assuming the driver that hits this pedestrian manages to hit them without touching the brake pedal at all! The stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at 50km/h is about 16m (including driver reaction time). The chances are very high that if some muppet walks out in front of a car, the driver will at least slam on the brakes and probably drop below 30km/h.

If the car was already travelling at 30km/h, while that increases the chance of the vehicle stopping before hitting the muppet, I would imagine it also increases the chance of said muppet walking out in front of the car because they believe that it's "far enough away".

railwaylad

how dare that man use the lives of those 3 poor people to justified the use of our garda resources to inforce the the wish of a small majority...i find it an insult to the familys of murder deaths,,, how many lives would be saved if a garda van sat outside a known gunmans house,,,how many lives would be saved if a garda van sat outside a known drug dealers house,,, how many home owner lives would be saved if there was more of a garda presents,,, after a gang land death the garda always say (he was known to us) well then why not use garda resources to f-in watch them rather than hide on our roads clockin up fish in a barrel.

AllRot

If cyclists want to take over the roads let them pay road tax like everyone else.

railwaylad

AllRot wrote: »

If cyclists want to take over the roads let them pay road tax like everyone else.

here here i second that

AllRot

The only thing cyclists are good for is entertainment value when it's pissing rain. I must say, my day was brightened considerably this morning as I surveyed from the comfort of my climate controlled car, to the delicate strain of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, cyclists getting good and soaked. They looked pretty pathetic I must say. Cheered me up no end.

Ardent

zynaps wrote: »

I'd like to see how it's working out after a week or so - are traffic levels down, is it quieter and really safer (i.e. are people jaywalking even more dangerously than normal due to the lower speed limit).

I can attest to the fact that the jaywalking part is definitely happening.

Mitch Connor

AllRot wrote: »

If cyclists want to take over the roads let them pay road tax like everyone else.

No one pays road tax.

AllRot

AllRot wrote: »

If cyclists want to take over the roads let them pay road tax like everyone else.

Whats road tax? Are you referring to motor tax? Bicycle's don't have a motor ergo one does not pay motor tax on them. Simples.

AllRot

AllRot wrote: »

The only thing cyclists are good for is entertainment value when it's pissing rain. I must say, my day was brightened considerably this morning as I surveyed from the comfort of my climate controlled car, to the delicate strain of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, cyclists getting good and soaked. They looked pretty pathetic I must say. Cheered me up no end.

The only thing motorists are good for is entertainment value when they're stuck in traffic jams. I must say,my day was brightened considerably as I sailed past long line of frustrated drivers stuck in ques of traffic, drivers getting their blood pressure nice and high. They looked pretty pathetic I must say. Cheered me up no end.

seamus

AllRot wrote: »

If cyclists want to take over the roads let them pay road tax like everyone else.

railwaylad wrote: »

here here i second that

A. What has this got to do with cyclists?
B. Are you going to start paying this new "road tax" too?

maggy_thatcher

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats road tax? Are you referring to motor tax? Bicycle's don't have a motor ergo one does not pay motor tax on them. Simples.

To nit-pick, they technically do. A motor is defined as "a device that creates motion," which a bicycle does possess (otherwise it wouldn't get anywhere!), as does a pedestrian.

It should really be called "artificial motor tax" rather than "motor tax".

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

To nit-pick, they technically do. A motor is defined as "a device that creates motion," which a bicycle does possess (otherwise it wouldn't get anywhere!), as does a pedestrian.

It should really be called "artificial motor tax" rather than "motor tax".

Sorry to double nit-pick, but the "artifical" portion is already inferred in "motor". A "device" is by definition designed and constructed. Let's not get religious here, but people aren't designed or constructed, so are not the "devices" in the "device that creates motion".

maggy_thatcher

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

To nit-pick, they technically do. A motor is defined as "a device that creates motion," which a bicycle does possess (otherwise it wouldn't get anywhere!), as does a pedestrian.

It should really be called "artificial motor tax" rather than "motor tax".

Well I suppose if one was to get really pedantic one could point out that the bicycle doesn't have a motor unless someone is sitting on it. Anyway taxing the motor of a bicycle would basically be a heart, lungs and muscles tax, which I doubt would be popular.

AllRot

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing motorists are good for is entertainment value when they're stuck in traffic jams. I must say,my day was brightened considerably as I sailed past long line of frustrated drivers stuck in ques of traffic, drivers getting their blood pressure nice and high. They looked pretty pathetic I must say. Cheered me up no end.

Ah, but nothing beats the sheer satisfaction of blocking a cycle lane and relishing the histrionics of losers in lycra. You can't buy entertainment like that!

StudentDad

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I suppose if one was to get really pedantic one could point out that the bicycle doesn't have a motor unless someone is sitting on it. Anyway taxing the motor of a bicycle would basically be a heart, lungs and muscles tax, which I doubt would be popular.

Nevermind trying to figure out how much co2 an individual produces so as to gauge the rate of tax payable ..... I can see lines of people placed on treadmills ...... oooh scary

SD

seamus

OK, that aside, the argument about road/motor tax (don't care about the word) is that cyclists should have to pay "their fair share".

Well, you can base motor tax on one of two items:

1. Impact on the roads
2. Impact on the environment of using the vehicle (i.e. emissions/fuel usage)

Here in Ireland, we've been using the second for a long time, but if you examine a cyclist's liability in either case, you'll find that their impact is negligible when compared to a motorised vehicle, therefore the "fair share" for cyclists to pay is zero, nothing. Therefore cyclists already pay their fair share of motor tax.

AllRot

AllRot wrote: »

Ah, but nothing beats the sheer satisfaction of blocking a cycle lane and relishing the histrionics of losers in lycra. You can't buy entertainment like that!

That sounds like an admission of illegal driving. You think I'm a loser? I used to be like you, convinced of the superiority of the car, but I had an epiphany one day when my car was in for repairs and I cycled to work instead and it took me half the time. If getting where I need to go quickly and efficiently makes me a loser than so be it.

maggy_thatcher

seamus wrote: »

Sorry to double nit-pick, but the "artifical" portion is already inferred in "motor". A "device" is by definition designed and constructed. Let's not get religious here, but people aren't designed or constructed, so are not the "devices" in the "device that creates motion".

Then why are the parts of the human body intended to make you move called the 'motor system'?

Either way, I know it's not going to happen...the cyclists will continue to get to use the roads for free, and I've no issue with that, as long as they obey the rules of the road or are heavily penalised for not doing so.

maggy_thatcher

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Then why are the parts of the human body intended to make you move called the 'motor system'?

Either way, I know it's not going to happen...the cyclists will continue to get to use the roads for free, and I've no issue with that, as long as they obey the rules of the road or are heavily penalised for not doing so.

I'm very much in agreeance with you here. The legislation is already in place to penalise cyclists for running red lights, riding at night without lights etc., but the guards seem to have minimal interest in catching these guys. Apparently in London the police have taken to catching cyclists breaking red lights at busy junctions and fining them. They should do similar here.

dave.obrien

Well done seamus for pointing out the blindingly obvious. Even motor tax no longer exists, it is referred to as Motor Emissions Tax. To let drivers know, they are paying for the chemicals they force others to inhale, similar in a manner to the taxes paid by smokers. They do not pay for maintenance, construction and supervision of the roads, and most certainly do not pay for their use. That is paid for by every single person who has a job, or purchases any goods in the state, ie, it comes out of the same tax fund as public sector wages, public arts reserve, etc.

But I fail to see how this is relevant to the argument about the new speed limit. Clearly the op and many others find the new speed limit frustrating. That is it's point. Hopefully it will frustrate the majority of people for whom having a car in the city is not a necessity, but a luxury, to the point that they will just stop driving into that tiny part of the city, meaning the city will be cleaner, more enjoyable, less noisy and a less frustrating place to negotiate on foot. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

As far as I can tell, thousands of cars stuck in traffic in a 50kmph zone move a lot slower than hundreds of cars moving at the speed limit in a 30kmph zone.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm very much in agreeance with you here. The legislation is already in place to penalise cyclists for running red lights, riding at night without lights etc., but the guards seem to have minimal interest in catching these guys. Apparently in London the police have taken to catching cyclists breaking red lights at busy junctions and fining them. They should do similar here.

Agreed, if they actually want to generate some cash *and* do a decent public service at the same time, they'd be shooting fish in a barrel. Just position themselves 10 or 20m from any/every junction in the city centre and issue €50 on-the-spot fines. If they can't pay or the gardai aren't satisfied about their identification, you take the bike and bring it into Pearse St until the guy comes to collect it - with ID and cash.

dobkfz

dear counciller

im glad to see that revenue is not a factor with regards to saving lives with this in mind may i suggest that we change the status of agricultural diesel and cut the revenue on cigarettes by 50% therefore with a strok of a pen wipeing out organised crime and freeing up hundreds of garda & customs officers and all the resources and electronices equipment behind them, with all these resources put into road safety a lot more lives could be saved, i know that your a counciller that gets things done and even if it only saved one live would it not be worth it....

dave.obrien

To JamesL85, I agree, cyclists who break the law should be punished. But again, what has that got to do with this thread? I am both a driver and a cyclist, and the behaviour of both in the city is more often than not exemplary, with a tiny number of both giving the rest a bad name. The disadvantage of driving is that some people start to suffer road rage because they're just sitting there for ages, which is very annoying. I think it's a shame that cyclists who do insist on breaking the law aren't held accountable, as I think they're a danger to other road users, never mind themselves, but I would like drivers to understand what a small proportion of cyclists this accounts for. You'd be insulted if people were to tar all drivers as being hazards because some driver jumped a red light, collided with a pedestrian and caused a serious injury. You'd claim that that's not a fair reflection of what most drivers are like, that that was a specific case. You'd be right. But fair's fair, yeah?

maggy_thatcher

dave.obrien wrote: »

But I fail to see how this is relevant to the argument about the new speed limit. Clearly the op and many others find the new speed limit frustrating. That is it's point. Hopefully it will frustrate the majority of people for whom having a car in the city is not a necessity, but a luxury, to the point that they will just stop driving into that tiny part of the city, meaning the city will be cleaner, more enjoyable, less noisy and a less frustrating place to negotiate on foot. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

Cleaner -- debatable...
More enjoyable -- How exactly? Without 100% pedestrianization, you will still have cars sitting right next to you all the time.
Less noisy -- if to drive at 30km/h involves sitting in first gear, with their engine cooling fans on full blast to stop it overheating, the cars are going to be substantially louder.
Less frustrating -- to do what, cross the road illegally? You still have to go to the nearest crossing point, press the button, wait for the crossing to turn green and cross the road safely - how is introducing a 30km/h limit going to help you there?

?Cee?view

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

.
Less frustrating -- to do what, cross the road illegally? You still have to go to the nearest crossing point, press the button, wait for the crossing to turn green and cross the road safely - how is introducing a 30km/h limit going to help you there?

Ah, but what you're missing here is that this law is never enforced, and the hippies would start screaming civil rights if this law was enforced! For God's sake, they have to get to their farmer's markets on Dame Street - you can't expect them to follow laws designed for motorists!

Alanstrainor

This is increasingly turning into a cyclist bashing thread. It's not entirely relevant to this thread, i can understand some of the points that were made about ten pages ago, but continued talk of cyclists is just dragging this off-topic. Can we keep this at least relevant to Motorists and the new 30km/h zone.

Chips Lovell

AllRot wrote: »

Ah, but nothing beats the sheer satisfaction of blocking a cycle lane and relishing the histrionics of losers in lycra. You can't buy entertainment like that!

I think you're just jealous of our smooth lycra clad legs.

?Cee?view

Alanstrainor wrote: »

This is increasingly turning into a cyclist bashing thread. It's not entirely relevant to this thread, i can understand some of the points that were made about ten pages ago, but continued talk of cyclists is just dragging this off-topic. Can we keep this at least relevant to Motorists and the new 30km/h zone.

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but I think that the core issue here is that interests of motorists are being attacked by cyclists and their representatives (e.g. Montague). It really does seem to be a situation where cyclists are dictating legislation which is directly affecting motorists.

Just my 2c

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

I think that the core issue here is that interests of motorists are being attacked by cyclists and their representatives (e.g. Montague). It really does seem to be a situation where cyclists are dictating legislation which is directly affecting motorists.

This was voted in by the entire city council, not just Andrew Montague. Unless I'm mistaken, the council was elected by everyone in Dublin, not just cyclists.

dave.obrien

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Cleaner -- debatable...
More enjoyable -- How exactly? Without 100% pedestrianization, you will still have cars sitting right next to you all the time.
Less noisy -- if to drive at 30km/h involves sitting in first gear, with their engine cooling fans on full blast to stop it overheating, the cars are going to be substantially louder.
Less frustrating -- to do what, cross the road illegally? You still have to go to the nearest crossing point, press the button, wait for the crossing to turn green and cross the road safely - how is introducing a 30km/h limit going to help you there?

With fewer cars comes lower emissions, meaning cleaner air.

With fewer cars around, it becomes an easier city to walk around in. More people will do that. More people will find themselves enjoying the city as opposed to merely crossing it in their cars.

Unless the now lower numbers of drivers do not know how to operate their cars, they shouldn't be driving in 1st gear all the time, as you suggest, so there would be fewer cars contributing to noise pollution, therefore less noise.

With cleaner air, ease of traversing the city on foot and less noise pollution, I think it is not a huge jump to say people will be less frustrated.

AllRot

Deleted User wrote: »

That sounds like an admission of illegal driving. You think I'm a loser? I used to be like you, convinced of the superiority of the car, but I had an epiphany one day when my car was in for repairs and I cycled to work instead and it took me half the time. If getting where I need to go quickly and efficiently makes me a loser than so be it.

Ooooh! "Illegal driving". Excuse me while I don't s**t myself!

I actually don't mind the time out in the car, some pleasant music, baiting pedal nazis for fun and getting to my destination not stinking of sweat or having to change my clothes. When your car is big and comfortable enough and you give yourself enough time for the journey you can catch up on some phone calls. It's all about the state of mind you choose for yourself.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

This was voted in by the entire city council, not just Andrew Montague. Unless I'm mistaken, the council was elected by everyone in Dublin, not just cyclists.

Montague chairs the transport committee of the Council which spearheaded this move.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Montague chairs the transport committee of the Council which spearheaded this move.

As chair of the transport committee he can't make our elected representatives vote for something.