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

maggy_thatcher

dave.obrien wrote: »

With fewer cars comes lower emissions, meaning cleaner air.

Except that those cars are going to be running below their most efficient speed, and may be there for longer, meaning they'll be emitting more.

dave.obrien wrote: »

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.

You haven't explained how fewer cars will make it easier to walk around. More crossing points will do that, not fewer cars. Unless, that is, you are advocating people crossing the road illegally?

dave.obrien wrote: »

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.

There was a discussion earlier about how some cars can't comfortably operate in 2nd gear at 30km/h.

dave.obrien wrote: »

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.

Assuming that all the other factors are true.

AllRot

el tonto wrote: »

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

Eh, I rather think not. I'm straight. Sorry.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

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

Did I say he could? I said his committee spearheaded it.

Does pedantry move this debate along at all?

BluePlanet

AllRot wrote: »

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

It's called Motor Tax, and it based on carbon output.
:rolleyes:

AllRot

AllRot wrote: »

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.

Try cycling you might enjoy it. Without fail people like you that think cycling is inferior haven't actually swung their fat legs over a bike since they were children.

Oh and my car is plenty big and comfortable enough to enjoy driving it and I do, but I use it to get around between cities and towns not to get around within them.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Did I say he could?

You asserted that cyclists and their representatives pushed this through.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

You asserted that cyclists and their representatives pushed this through.

Exactly, I did and I stand by that. His committee pushed it through. That's my belief and possibly yours as well although it does not suit anti-motorists (who I distinguish from pro-cyclists) to admit it.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Exactly, I did and I stand by that. His committee pushed it through. That's my belief and possibly yours as well although it does not suit anti-motorists (who I distinguish from pro-cyclists) to admit it.

How can you "push it through" though? Whatever way you slice this, the majority of our elected councillors still had to think it was a good idea.

AllRot

Deleted User wrote: »

Try cycling you might enjoy it. Without fail people like you that think cycling is inferior haven't actually swung their fat legs over a bike since they were children.

Oh and my car is plenty big and comfortable enough to enjoy driving it and I do, but I use it to get around between cities and towns not to get around within them.

God, you're not very bright are you? I actually DO cycle and have done all my life. The difference between you and I is that I don't live within cycling distance of the city centre and I don't hold a petty, spiteful grudge against city centre motorists just because they're there.

The whole point of the debate is that the 30km/h limit will not make the blindest bit of difference during peak hours (I consistent average 4km/h at rush hour in the area affected). Forcing this stupid limit during off peak hours, when there are few cyclists or pedestrians on the streets, has bugger all to do with anything but an ideologically driven hate campaign against motorists by eco fascists.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

How can you "push it through" though? Whatever way you slice this, the majority of our elected councillors still had to think it was a good idea.

Have you any idea how elected politics works?

tomasrojo

AllRot wrote: »

God, you're not very bright are you? [...] The difference between you and I [...] .

Bright people know that it's "between you and me".

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Have you any idea how elected politics works?

Get to the point. How do "cyclists and their representatives" push this past the entire council without them agreeing with it?

AllRot

AllRot wrote: »

God, you're not very bright are you?

Yes my lack of brightness is the reason I have an honours degree in neuroscience and am now studying medicine.

d'Oracle

AllRot wrote: »

God, you're not very bright are you? I actually DO cycle and have done all my life. The difference between you and I is that I don't live within cycling distance of the city centre and I don't hold a petty, spiteful grudge against city centre motorists just because they're there.

I don't live near enough to the city centre to cycle.
I am generally a motorist, but I use public transport to get to work.
I recently decided to start using the Dublin Bikes in town in stead of getting the LUAS to D8 from the DART.

I will try to avoid seething generalisations, but In the short time I have been cycling, I have nearly been knocked twice by motorists.
Petty ****es who absolutely have to get one car a head by undertaking in the bus lane. Nutters who absolutely have do tail end the guy who wouldn't let them in etc. Not to mention how awfully set up dublin is for cyclists.

Frankly I used to think cyclists didn't deserve sympathy, now I know better. A lot better. So much so that I would say that any city centre motorist who gives out about cyclists (barring obviously the ploughing through of red lights.) needs their head checked.

blorg

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?

It is ONLY illegal to cross a road not by a pedestrian crossing WITHIN 15 metres of a crossing. If you are 15 metres away from the nearest crossing you can cross wherever you like, paying due care of course to the traffic. 15 metres is not very far either BTW, most of the time you would be 15 metres away from a crossing. This whole "crossing the road is illegal" thing is a myth.

S.I. No. 182/1997 &#8212 wrote: »

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

d'Oracle

I'd also add that for such a bloody tiny and avoidable area of the City centre people are making a silly amount of noise.

AllRot

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes my lack of brightness is the reason I have an honours degree in neuroscience and am now studying medicine.

Well, I hope your application of logic and reason to medicine is a damn sight better than what you've displayed on this topic.

malcolmtucker

I find the level of opposition to the 30Kph speed limit in Dublin City Centre quite astonishing. I think the last time I saw this level of public outcry on this forum was when Noel Dempsey decided one had to have a licence to drive unsupervised. Is this a measure we would also like to see reversed?

The 30Kph zone has a myriad of benefits and a very small number of draw backs. Arguments that drivers will spend all of their time looking at their speedo's are ludacris. We have always had speed limits and therefor you should always have been looking at your speedo from time to time. Motorists should have a sense themselves if they have speeded up or slowed down at 30Kph just as they would have at 50 or 80Kph. Anyway you should just be making pace with existing traffic.

The additional journey time through the zone should be less than a minute off peak..... if that saves lives is it not worth it? What would you do with that minute.... is it worth a life? If this is actually dangerous why have none of the other citie that have brought this in such as Utrecht or London observed an increase in collisions and instead observed lasting downwards trends in the levels of fatal and non fatal collisions?

As for the most crashes being due to observation and not speed the reduced speed gives motorists a huge advantage in terms of the time they have to react to a hazard such as a cyclist once they do see them.

Anyway motorists can avoid the zone using the inner orbital route if they are all that keen on doing 50Kph

The facts regarding the increased safety of a 30Pkh zone in the city centre are incontravertable. This intiative was piloted in the UK in the early 90's and following reductions (controlled for a natural trend for a reduction in accidents) of 60% fatalities and even higher numbers for children under 15. The initiatives also resulted in lower noise pollution in the area and did not result in a higher level of emmissions. 10% of the 20Mph areas in the Uk are in dense urban areas such as high streets which are comparable to the area we have it in.

Change is difficult but as a driver who's worst nightmare is injuring a cyclist or pedestrian I have to say I welcome this. Sometimes its a little too easy to forget how much damage you can do when you are behind the wheel.

AllRot

AllRot wrote: »

Well, I hope your application of logic and reason to medicine is a damn sight better than what you've displayed on this topic.

Where has my logic been flawed? Everything I've said on this thread relating to saftey and speed I have backed up with peer reviewed evidence from the BMJ, granted I got way off topic there for a while because your ridiculous Jeremy Clarkson Wannabe style anti cyclist comments pissed me off. So I have wandered off topic yes, but my logic and reasoning on the main issue have been sound.

?Cee?view

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'd also add that for such a bloody tiny and avoidable area of the City centre people are making a silly amount of noise.

I think you'll find that a concern that people have is that if this section is allowed to go ahead unhindered, then it will spread.

It's already being mooted for Cork and Galway.

blorg

malcolmtucker wrote: »

Arguments that drivers will spend all of their time looking at their speedo's are ludacris.

seamus

churchview wrote: »

I think you'll find that a concern that people have is that if this section is allowed to go ahead unhindered, then it will spread.

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. "If you tolerate this..." etc. If this measure turns out to be a positive one, why shouldn't it spread? If it turns out to have a negative effect, it'll be removed.

blorg

churchview wrote: »

I think you'll find that a concern that people have is that if this section is allowed to go ahead unhindered, then it will spread.

It's already being mooted for Cork and Galway.

Yes, it will spread- to other tiny areas around the centre of those cities. No-one is proposing a 30km/h limit on the M50 (indeed that should probably be raised.)

AllRot

Deleted User wrote: »

... but my logic and reasoning on the main issue have been sound.

Bo11ocks. You're a spiteful zealot. Get over yourself.

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

I think you'll find that a concern that people have is that if this section is allowed to go ahead unhindered, then it will spread.

It's already being mooted for Cork and Galway.

That would great.
The CC of Galway is pathetically conjested. It took a long, long time for the council to cop-on and finally pedestrianise Shop St, and they still need to crack down on motorists using it during the morning deliveries.

It should pedestrianised all over the place, the CC is this tiny, old medieval streets ffs. What a waste of a resource to have personal mechanized metal boxes taking up all the space.

?Cee?view

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. "If you tolerate this..." etc. If this measure turns out to be a positive one, why shouldn't it spread? If it turns out to have a negative effect, it'll be removed.

Well that all depends on your point of view doesn't it...which is why we're having this discussion.

malcolmtucker

The Scheme has spread widely in many of the other jurisdictions that have piloted it. I for one would welcome its expansion into other high density areas

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

That would great.
The CC of Galway is pathetically conjested. It took a long, long time for the council to cop-on and finally pedestrianise Shop St, and they still need to crack down on motorists using it during the morning deliveries.

It should pedestrianised all over the place, the CC is this tiny, old medieval streets ffs. What a waste of a resource to have personal mechanized metal boxes taking up all the space.

And taking Galway specifically (although I don't want to drag this off topic) can you not see that the provision of alternatives to cars is even worse in Galway than in Dublin, Cork or Limerick. Where are the buses etc.? Where is the proper road network to take cars out of the centre of Galway.....oh wait, the Greenomentalists have stopped the Galway bypass cars can't get around Galway, they have to go through it.

Anan1

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!

AllRot wrote: »

God, you're not very bright are you?

AllRot wrote: »

Bo11ocks. You're a spiteful zealot. Get over yourself.

Banned for a week for trolling. Read the charter before you come back.

ArphaRima

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?

You want to frustrate the motorists out of the cities?
Leaving whom exactly inside them?

Empty businesses. There are only so many hemp, used clothes and trinket shops that the city can support.
We could form drum circles on Dame st.

Yes, it will spread- to other tiny areas around the centre of those cities

This is not a tiny area. It would take some time to traverse by foot in the typically pleasant howling irish rain north-south.

Anyway can we stop talking about mass-pedestrianisation? That is not whats on the table.
This is about the 30kph limit.

Frustration should not be a valid aim of planners.

seamus

churchview wrote: »

Well that all depends on your point of view doesn't it...which is why we're having this discussion.

Well not really. You're proposing that the scheme be hindered before there's even a chance to assess if it's a positive or a negative one.

Since the evidence from other countries is overwhemlingly that this is a positive measure, that means we have a solid foundation on which to implement the scheme. Now we wait and watch and see how it gets on.

This is not a tiny area. It would take some time to traverse by foot in the typically pleasant howling irish rain north-south.

I don't think anyone is talking about pedestrianising the entire 30kph zone, but doing it for more key areas would increase the number of shoppers in the area. I've never understood why any traffic can get from college green to dawson st for example, that should have been pedestrianised years ago.

Offtopic, but it would only take around 30 minutes at an easy pace to traverse the entire 30kph zone on foot.

Frustration should not be a valid aim of planners.

But it is, all the time. Speed bumps, traffic calming, one-way streets, time-based turning restrictions - all with the aim of directing traffic in a particular direction and discouraging vehicles from taking particular routes, frustrating drivers.

maggy_thatcher

churchview wrote: »

Where are the buses etc.?

The buses (and the Luas) are going to be stuck in this 30km/h limit as well, so even if there were lots of buses, you'd still have to crawl along.

Here's the easiest compromise I think they should do:

1. Provide a free/cheap car parking service at the edge of the zone
2. Completely pedestrianize this zone (and that includes banning bikes too) for 20 hours a day (allow a few hours for deliveries, etc).
3. Have a DCC funded delivery service that will deliver any items purchased within the zone to lockers at the car parks that are now too far away to comfortably carry things to.
4. Provide some kind of special lightweight vehicle with a professional driver to take any mobility-impaired visitors around the city (as well as support the delivery service). This vehicle should have large bells that continuously sound off while it is moving to ensure no pedestrian accidentally steps in front of it. Alternatively, build an underground network for it
5. Ensure that there are sufficient alternative routes around the zone to bypass it safely (in particular the quays).

This would be a fair system in my view - people can still shop in the city centre and pedestrians are now safe from the big scary cars.

ArphaRima

Well not really. You're proposing that the scheme be hindered before there's even a chance to assess if it's a positive or a negative one.

Well yes, really. This is your opinion, and many disagree that we should even try it. Hence the discussion.

maggy_thatcher
All of those proposals (even if I agreed with them) cost money. Whereas this half-ass plan raises money. Guess which they are going to do.

maggy_thatcher

fluffer wrote: »

All of those proposals (even if I agreed with them) cost money. Whereas this half-ass plan raises money. Guess which they are going to do.

True, it does cost money, which will always be a problem. The 30km/h limit only really raises money if people break the speed limit (though as fuel-economy drops as a result of this, I guess they'll get some extra money via fuel taxes).

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

And taking Galway specifically, can you not see that the provision of alternatives to cars is even worse in Galway than in Dublin, Cork or Limerick. Where are the buses etc.? Where is the proper road network to take cars out of the centre of Galway.....oh wait, the Greenomentalists have stopped the Galway bypass cars can't get around Galway, they have to go through it.

I agree totally, but it's going to be a give and take approach.

The space on our roads simply does not exist to have both a efficient, priority public transport system (bus and rail) alongside the existing motorist-congested streets, both running concurrently. We have to get cars out of the way in order to create space for public transport.

I agree that Galway needs a bypass as a matter of priority.

KamiKazi

-Chris- wrote: »

Just curious, what would happen if I said I supported this plan? If I said I thought it was annoying & inconvenient, but ultimately will both save lives and make the city a more pleasant place to be in?

What would people say to me if I said that I feel that this initiative is GUARANTEED to save at least one life?
What would they say if I said that if it takes me an extra 5 minutes to cross Dublin city but I know that there's one less family who had the Gardai turn up on their doorstep with bad news this year, that I'm ok with that?

I wonder how unpopular that would make me...

Sure if you're gonna take that argument let's ban all cars altogether, that will save loads of lives.

Silly argument IMO.

Anan1

Deleted User wrote: »

Without fail people like you that think cycling is inferior haven't actually swung their fat legs over a bike since they were children.

If you're unhappy with a post then report it, don't respond in kind.

neutron

Apart from anything else it is patentley absurd to inflict a 30kph zone that is resulting in driving down business and forcing shoppers further from the city centre. Do we need this in a recession? No!
A quote from the council
"The council said: "Motorists can circumnavigate the zone by using the inner orbital route, which is signposted along the perimeter of the zone or travel through the zone at the appropriate speed."
So the DCC councillors are happy to drive shoppers and kill business from the city centre!
It added: "The new speed limit will reduce speeding between junctions and facilitate smoother traffic flow.
I see no evidence of either speeding between junctions or a smoother trafffic flow
"It will also promote modal shift to walking and cycling."
The whole plan is ideologically biased to be both anti-business and anti-motorist.
E-mail your councillor now to have the anti-business and anti-motorist 30kph zone removed!

seamus

neutron wrote: »

Apart from anything else it is patentley absurd to inflict a 30kph zone that is resulting in driving down business and forcing shoppers further from the city centre. Do we need this in a recession? No!
A quote from the council
"The council said: "Motorists can circumnavigate the zone by using the inner orbital route, which is signposted along the perimeter of the zone or travel through the zone at the appropriate speed."
So the DCC councillors are happy to drive shoppers and kill business from the city centre!

Through-traffic doesn't generate any business whatsoever. In fact, the existence of through-traffic in the city centre discourages people from going there to shop, driving down business. If you encourage people to not drive through an area, the amount of shopping done in that area increases as we know full well from 20 years of building bypasses.

Do you think that the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street in the 1980s "drove away" business? Or do you think it had the exact opposite effect?

tomasrojo

Yes, and it was argued at the time that the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street would kill it as a shopping area.

And it was argued that businesses would close down because of the plastic-bag levy. And that pensioners would freeze because of the smokeless fuel ban.

It's worth a try, this 30km/h zone. It's only been in operation a few days.

BluePlanet

You forgot to include the LUAS. Those businesses also objected to it's construction saying they'd loose business.

?Cee?view

seamus wrote: »

Do you think that the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street in the 1980s "drove away" business? Or do you think it had the exact opposite effect?

You might want to consider some of the figures in Dundrum Shopping Centre (sorry Town Centre - stoopid name:rolleyes:) versus Grafton Street. Retail footfall in the city centre has plummetted compared to out of town centres. Grafton street businesses are suffering badly - the last thing they need is another blow.

ArphaRima

Can I just reiterate the base argument by saying 30kph/18mph is just a stupidly low max speed limit?

Making it a criminal offence to go over a stupidly low limit is in itself the crux of the argument here.

I dont want to "try it on".

I want to see this crushed. Now.

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

You forgot to include the LUAS. Those businesses also objected to it's construction saying they'd loose business.

Many businesses lost an absolute fortune during its construction. One chain of Irish owned shops (9 shops in Dublin) had turnover down by over 50% during its construction. They may have returned to normal (whatever that is these days!) now, but that loss is irrecoverable. People working in these businesses are affected; ordinary workers.

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

Many businesses lost an absolute fortune during its construction. One chain of Irish owned shops (9 shops in Dublin) had turnover down by over 50% during its construction. They may have returned to normal (whatever that is these days!) now, but that loss is irrecoverable. People working in these businesses are affected; ordinary workers.

So, by your estimation, we shouldn't have the Luas?
Waste of money was it?

Electric Fish

Hi all,

I organised a "go slow" protest on Dublin's Quays this morning and travelled at a snail's pace...unfortunately I couldn't go as slow as the traffic that was keeping within the speed limit so my protest was all in vain.

I heard a counsellor yesterday (2nd Feb) on Georgr Hook's programme tell how children will now be able to go to the shops on their own in safety. Will this new 30KPM speed limit really do away with all child abduction?

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

So, by your estimation, we shouldn't have the Luas?
Waste of money was it?

I didn't say that or imply it. Businesses lost money and peoples jobs were affected. You can't just reject those as valid concerns just because they don't suit the imposition of an ideologically based initiative dressed up as an improvement in road safety.

?Cee?view

Electric Fish wrote: »

Hi all,

I organised a "go slow" protest on Dublin's Quays this morning and travelled at a snail's pace...unfortunately I couldn't go as slow as the traffic that was keeping within the speed limit so my protest was all in vain.

I heard a counsellor yesterday (2nd Feb) on Georgr Hook's programme tell how children will now be able to go to the shops on their own in safety. Will this new 30KPM speed limit really do away with all child abduction?

:D:D:D:D

seamus

churchview wrote: »

You might want to consider some of the figures in Dundrum Shopping Centre (sorry Town Centre - stoopid name:rolleyes:) versus Grafton Street. Retail footfall in the city centre has plummetted compared to out of town centres. Grafton street businesses are suffering badly - the last thing they need is another blow.

What has Dundrum got to do with this? Reducing the speed limit won't affect business in the city centre. People go to Dundrum because the traffic in town is crap. If people avoid the city centre as a through-route then more people will shop there. Nobody will avoid shopping in the city centre because the last 500m of the trip have to be travelled at 30km/h.

Can I just reiterate the base argument by saying 30kph/18mph is just a stupidly low max speed limit?

Making it a criminal offence to go over a stupidly low limit is in itself the crux of the argument here.

It wouldn't be a criminal offence, it would be a traffic one.

It might be the base argument, but so far it's been baseless. No-one on any of the threads has yet produced any reasonable or logical reason why this is a stupid limit.

tomasrojo

Electric Fish wrote: »

Hi all,

I organised a "go slow" protest on Dublin's Quays this morning and travelled at a snail's pace...unfortunately I couldn't go as slow as the traffic that was keeping within the speed limit so my protest was all in vain.

I heard a counsellor yesterday (2nd Feb) on Georgr Hook's programme tell how children will now be able to go to the shops on their own in safety. Will this new 30KPM speed limit really do away with all child abduction?

You're aware that a child is forty times more likely to be killed by a car than abducted?