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

tomasrojo

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.

Most businesses are very happy to have the Luas passing by now. Collins Barracks has more visitors. The Aisling hotel went from being one step up from a flop house to a prestige hotel. The Luas is an absolute boon to businesses along its length. Some pain was inevitable during its construction, but now they have decades of being in a prime location. Sometimes you have to take a short-term loss in business.

?Cee?view

seamus wrote: »

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.

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 has yet to produce any reasonable or logical reason why this is a stupid limit.

..eh, it was a response to seamas comment about Grafton Street and the effect of pedestrianisation on it...that's what it has "to do with it".

The stated aim of the City Council is to remove cars from the City Centre. Therefore, cars will go where it's easier to go e.g. Dundrum, Liffey Valley etc. If you disagree with this, then it seems that you're just arguing for the sake of it.

?Cee?view

tomasrojo wrote: »

Most businesses are very happy to have the Luas passing by now. Collins Barracks has more visitors. The Aisling hotel went from being one step up from a flop house to a prestige hotel. The Luas is an absolute boon to businesses along its length. Some pain was inevitable during its construction, but now they have decades of being in a prime location. Sometimes you have to take a short-term loss in business.

I largely agree, but I dislike the attitude of some here that reject any valid concerns which don't suit their position. The Luas is a boon, and those businesses which survived are seeing the benefit. However, many suffered severe uncompensated and irrecoverable losses during its contruction, which caused some to close.

Also, equating the Luas in some way with this 30 khp limit is a bit of a red herring. The Luas increases access to the Centre. The new limit impedes or interferes with access.

seamus

churchview wrote: »

The stated aim of the City Council is to remove cars from the City Centre. Therefore, cars will go where it's easier to go e.g. Dundrum, Liffey Valley etc. If you disagree with this, then it seems that you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Banging my head against a brick wall here. The aim is to remove through-traffic, i.e. traffic that is not going to stop within the city centre. They have no plans to pedestrianise 3 square kilometres of city centre, simply to stop idiots from using Dame Street and the quays as their preferred route for getting from Templeogue to Glasnevin to go to work.

This speed limit will have little or no effect on traffic which is terminating in the city centre - i.e. shoppers - except to remove said through-traffic and make it *easier* to get your car into the city centre to shop.

maggy_thatcher

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

One child a week is abducted and taken out of the country

That doesn't even take into account abductions that occurred exclusively in the state.

How many children were killed in a year in the country due to being hit by a car that was travelling at 50km/h before the collision?

?Cee?view

seamus wrote: »

Banging my head against a brick wall here. The aim is to remove through-traffic, i.e. traffic that is not going to stop within the city centre. They have no plans to pedestrianise 3 square kilometres of city centre, simply to stop idiots from using Dame Street and the quays as their preferred route for getting from Templeogue to Glasnevin to go to work.

This speed limit will have little or no effect on traffic which is terminating in the city centre - i.e. shoppers - except to remove said through-traffic and make it *easier* to get your car into the city centre to shop.

Sorry Seamus,

But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I really think that it's another nail in the coffin for City Centre businesses. The perception (and in my opinion and many others, the reality), is that Dublin is now more difficult to get into and people in cars are being encouraged to stay away. Unless you use the useless bus service, or live close enough to use the dangerous and potholed cycle lanes, or walk, you're not welcome.

?Cee?view

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

One child a week is abducted and taken out of the country

That doesn't even take into account abductions that occurred exclusively in the state.

How many children were killed in a year in the country due to being hit by a car that was travelling at 50km/h before the collision?

My God, so according to tomasrojo's "statistics" and "facts" if children are forty times more at risk from cars, then 40 a week are being killed i.e. 2080 per year. I take it all back

Ban Cars; Save the Children!!!

Caroline_ie

AllRot wrote: »

your car is big and comfortable enough and you give yourself enough time for the journey you can catch up on some phone calls.

And you also use your phone while driving? I bet you drive a BMW* in which case I am not surprised you're being such a d*ck bully towards cyclists, you are probably the same with any human.

I can't believe this thread is turning into a anti cyclist thread yet again. Seems that everything annoyong motorists is cyclists fault. (I drive too btw)

Yes I can cycle at 30kph, so can most cyclists but knowing that there is a car behind me going at 29kph revving their engine out of frustration because they can't overtake me is not going to make things enjoyable that's for sure. Bullying cyclists for the 30kph limit is very childish.

*if not a Honda civic with full body kit and fake exhaust

?Cee?view

Caroline ie,

Other than hurling vile abuse at people, would it be possible for you to take the time to consider that maybe this imposition of a limit is seen by many as anti-motorist? Therefore, what you perceive as an anti-cyclist reaction could really be the reaction of motorists to ideologically motivated regulation of road use?

We are all enjoying our heated debate and thankfully, most of us have given little trouble to the moderators. Insults have for the large part been carefully worded, witty and well chosen, rather than personally insulting.

zynaps

Nakatomi wrote: »

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

You've done it again, putting words in my mouth by equating my more specific statements with a more general (and more ridiculous) statement.

I don't think no legislation would help, I think this legislation won't help. I thought the current speed limit was reasonable.

Nakatomi wrote: »

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

A quick google turned up this HSE document which states that 7.5% of older people require medical treatment following a fall every year, with 2800 people treated for hip fractures in particular (80% of whom are over 75 years of age, and a quarter of those die within 6 months of the injury). No stats there on falling down stairs in particular, but the RoSPA claim that 300,000 A&E attendances (in the UK) follow falls down stairs every year.

Hopefully you've actually thought about the point I was trying to make, rather than issuing a kneejerk disagreement. This measure seems less fruitful as a safety gain (since the yearly deaths are in the range 0-2 people) - there are more serious dangers out there that deserve attention.

And to those suggesting that "no cost is too much to save even one life", you're wrong: if you could have used that money and effort to save more lives through some other initiative, then this one was poorly-chosen.

Nakatomi wrote: »

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.

I'm afraid I'll have to take your convenient personal assertion with a grain of salt here.

BluePlanet

churchview wrote: »

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.

TBH that's a red herring.
Just because a shop exists doesn't mean all public works projects get frozen forever.
A couple posts ago you were calling for a bypass around Galway.
Well guess what: loads of shops will be affected during it's construction, and loads of others will loose business because through traffic that was once forced down the road, gets routed away.
Can't have it both ways churchview.

Either cities are allowed to grow and progess and modernise or not, and become conjested sh*tholes full of metal boxes.

The businesses in Claremorris consistantly objected to it's bypass, citing loss of business. Eventually the decision was taken out of the Chamber of Commerce's control and Mayo CoCo forced it to happen.
It's cut traveling times between Galway - Sligo by at least 30min.
Plus Claremorris is a much more pleasant town today as result.

SleepDoc

What astounds me is the sense of entitlement of some knuckle dragging motorists to drive as fast as they darn well see fit. We do not live in a vacuum and the new regulations will save lives. This is more important than getting home early to watch Corrie.

So suck up the new rules. It's a privilege to drive, not an inalienable right.

Caroline_ie

churchview wrote: »

Caroline ie,

Other than hurling vile abuse at people, would it be possible for you to take the time to consider that maybe this imposition of a limit is seen by many as anti-motorist? Therefore, what you perceive as an anti-cyclist reaction could really be the reaction of motorists to ideologically motivated regulation of road use?

We are all enjoying our heated debate and thankfully, most of us have given little trouble to the moderators. Insults have for the large part been carefully worded, witty and well chosen, rather than personally insulting.

Sorry I didn't mean to insult but how else would you describe bullying a cyclist out of boredom or frustration? What would you say if I was driving my JCB at 5kph on a one way alley JUST because I feel like it?
Very stupid indeed, childish or rude, selfish and inconsiderate -> that's what I meant. Appologies for the insult.

?Cee?view

BluePlanet wrote: »

TBH that's a red herring.
Just because a shop exists doesn't mean all public works projects get frozen forever.
A couple posts ago you were calling for a bypass around Galway.
Well guess what: loads of shops will be affected during it's construction, and loads of others will loose business because through traffic that was once forced down the road, gets routed away.
Can't have it both ways churchview.

Either cities are allowed to grow and progess and modernise or not, and become conjested sh*tholes full of metal boxes.

The businesses in Claremorris consistantly objected to it's bypass, citing loss of business. Eventually the decision was taken out of the Chamber of Commerce's control and Mayo CoCo forced it to happen.
It's cut traveling times between Galway - Sligo by at least 30min.
Plus Claremorris is a much more pleasant town today as result.

Sorry in advance - I don't know how to multiquote.

"A couple posts ago you were calling for a bypass around Galway.
Well guess what: loads of shops will be affected during it's construction, and loads of others will loose business because through traffic that was once forced down the road, gets routed away.
Can't have it both ways churchview."

I don't know if you know the proposed route for the Galway Bypass, but you'd struggle to find any shop or business that it's near. The Galway Chamber of Commerce and the vast majority of businesses are calling for its construction. Claremorris had quite different concerns than Galway, principally founded on the loss of business from traffic going to Sligo.

"Either cities are allowed to grow and progess and modernise or not, and become conjested sh*tholes full of metal boxes."

Those metal boxes transport people into cities. It's difficult to see how regulating the use of one class of road user (motorists and public transport) while not also regulating others (pedestrians, cyclists) allows a city to progress or modernise.

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

One child a week is abducted and taken out of the country

That doesn't even take into account abductions that occurred exclusively in the state.

How many children were killed in a year in the country due to being hit by a car that was travelling at 50km/h before the collision?

We're talking about random events here. One child per week is not randomly abducted - they're abducted by a parent or grandparent.

To go back to the original quote - the abductor in these cases doesn't swoop when you let a child out to run down to the shops on their own.

"Abducted" is the wrong word to use in these cases, because abduction denotes randomness.

Anyway, this is diversionary tactics because there are no other.

DaBull

Ever heard of hands free kits? Bluetooth headsets?

I can't speak for AllRot and he/she can't speak for him/herself because of being banned for using the same kind of language that you have in your post.

Caroline_ie wrote: »

And you also use your phone while driving? I bet you drive a BMW* in which case I am not surprised you're being suck a d*ck towards cyclists, you are probably the same with any human...

Caroline_ie

typo it was 'such' .. I never use that type of language. and I corrected it as well.

?Cee?view

Caroline_ie wrote: »

typo it was 'such' .. I never use that type of language. and I corrected it as well.

...but you accused him of driving a BMW! Terrible insult to some of us petrolheads

Anan1

DaBull wrote: »

I can't speak for AllRot and he/she can't speak for him/herself because of being banned for using the same kind of language that you have in your post.

Next time, report the post. I'm not taking action this time, as Caroline_ie has since edited the abuse out of her post, but personal abuse will not be tolerated here.

General Zod

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

considering everyone who recieves it is ignoring what he says anyway why not just use the coly and paste? hell, he could use 500 characters of lorem ipsum and would still get replies which pay no attention to what he's saying.


I'm a cyclist who stops at red lights, wears a helmet and flouresence when necessary.

All this caterwauling from motorists is unnecessary. the traffic lights will be timed to your benefit. Obey the law and get on with your day.

General Zod

churchview wrote: »

Sorry Seamus,

But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I really think that it's another nail in the coffin for City Centre businesses. The perception (and in my opinion and many others, the reality), is that Dublin is now more difficult to get into and people in cars are being encouraged to stay away. Unless you use the useless bus service, or live close enough to use the dangerous and potholed cycle lanes, or walk, you're not welcome.

which businesses moaned the loudest about the College Green bus gates?

The owners of car parks (and the two businesses which have a vested interest in the car parks beside them).

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

We're talking about random events here. One child per week is not randomly abducted - they're abducted by a parent or grandparent.

To go back to the original quote - the abductor in these cases doesn't swoop when you let a child out to run down to the shops on their own.

"Abducted" is the wrong word to use in these cases, because abduction denotes randomness.

Anyway, this is diversionary tactics because there are no other.

I was going to say that. The one per week figure is for child custody disputes between estranged families. Abduction is perhaps the wrong word for that. But, ok then, I should have made it clear: I was talking about abduction by strangers. And so was the person who raised the whole abduction issue.

maggy_thatcher

General Zod wrote: »

All this caterwauling from motorists is unnecessary. the traffic lights will be timed to your benefit. Obey the law and get on with your day.

I guess the question this raises is why wasn't the traffic lights timed before they changed the speed limit? Also, traffic light timing only works on grids...Dublin isn't arranged that way, so chances are you have to switch roads several times to get from place A to place B - meaning you will get stuck at several points.

blorg

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I guess the question this raises is why wasn't the traffic lights timed before they changed the speed limit? Also, traffic light timing only works on grids...Dublin isn't arranged that way, so chances are you have to switch roads several times to get from place A to place B - meaning you will get stuck at several points.

It would work fine on at least some of the roads that people are complaining the most about the limit on, e.g. the quays.

maggy_thatcher

<<ignore this sorry -- actually checked and the new zone doesn't cover that yet>>

thecretinhop

The lunatics are running the country! as alan partridge says hes a mentalist!:eek:



CuFFes Blog:

Now let's take a leaf from the Dutch book and put in 15kph speed limits on residential streets. Then, maybe our children can feel safe playing outside, rather then spending to much time on their Nintendos, instead of exploring their neighbourhood.

Chips Lovell

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.

Irish Times, 15/12/2009:

The property consultants' research shows that an average of over 20,800 people per hour shopped on Henry Street on Saturdays during the last quarter of the year, while approximately 21,200 persons per hour visited Grafton Street in the same period.

These figures are consistent with footfall over the last six years and are above the long-term average for both streets.

churchview wrote: »

One chain of Irish owned shops (9 shops in Dublin) had turnover down by over 50% during its construction.

What chain?

zynaps

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

Ah now hold on. I can drive around a busy multi-storey car park at 5-10kph for ten minutes without the car exploding or shaking apart from all the noise - it's not noticeably louder than driving at 50kph IMO.

And the assertion that some cars can't drive comfortably at 30kph seems a bit suspect, too. Cars don't just come with 1st and 5th gear - there's a whole range of ratios in between which allow the car to drive close to its optimal RPM with a decent selection of speeds and loads. There is not some black hole between 5kph and 50kph where the car is incapable of driving smoothly or efficiently.

Someone mentioned that (some) automatics can get stuck hunting between gears at low speeds, but this only tends to happen on an incline where the computer gets confused (nobody drives completely mechanical/hydraulic automatics anymore), and even then it's more likely to be the torque converter slipping due to contaminated ATF or some other issue. I drive a CVT automatic which can't really suffer from this (it's always in gear, it just changes the ratio on the fly), so can't shed much light there.

Would be nice to hear from people who've driven through the zone at 30kph for a decent amount of time, and see if they had any trouble.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

Irish Times, 15/12/2009:


You need to consider the source of statistics. It is obviously in Estate Agents interests to boost various figures. Some would argue that that's part of how the property bubble arose. You only need to walk down Grafton Street to see how it's effected.

[ /QUOTE]

What chain?

I'll check to see if this is in the public domain and come back to you. I became aware of this through work so can't just say it here.

-Chris-

Well, I just had my first experience of this.


I was dropping a car into town for a customer and taking his car away.


It was around 1ish, so the streets were busy but not as busy as rush-hour. Loads of pedestrians as people walked to their various lunch venues.


IMHO, 30KMPH does not feel as comically slow in town as it does doing a "practice" in our local industrial estate.


Maintaining 30KMPH is difficult enough, but I'd be +/-5KMPH quite easily without having to refer to the speedo all the time. I wouldn't expect any right-minded Garda to give points for 35KMPH.
Based on this experience - driving two different cars of different ages/conditions - driving at 30KMPH will not cause any mechanical issues, juddering or additional wear on the car if you're a competent driver.


People did[/] jaywalk, but no more than they did in Donnybrook or Stillorgan on the way in.


In all honesty, I didn't actually get to hit 30KMPH all that often due to traffic, but this was the first time I've ever been aware of that fact.


I can possibly see this being more frustrating at 3am when the streets are relatively empty, I'll have to wait and see.

monument

In reply to speed and noise above, 50km/h is louder than 30km/h:


Source: OECD, International Transport Forum report on Speed Management

thecretinhop

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

dave.obrien

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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.

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?

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

Assuming that all the other factors are true.

I'm sorry, I was away for a while, work and all that, but I'd like to respond.

If the law is effective, cars will not be there for longer, in fact the opposite. As I mentioned, it is a law designed to discourage people from entering the city in their cars in the first place=> lower emissions. With fewer cars, there will be fewer standstills=> less time wasted waiting=> lower emissions. Mentioning maximum efficiency in terms of speed limits is kind of moot in any environment where the car is not the ONLY (or at least primary) method of transport, eg, the motorways. I say car, because car drivers are the people who this law is aimed at discouraging, not commercial drivers who NEED to drive in the city.

In terms of the 'crossing the road illegally' argument, I think blorg kind of put highlighted it already in terms of the actual parameters of this law. Also, fewer cars travelling at lower speed with less congestion is conducive to the safe relationship between pedestrian and driver, I'm unsure as to how this isn't self evident.

That some cars can't operate comfortably at 30kmph in 2nd gear may be true, but they have one gear below that and a number of gears above that, and I am sure that one of those gears would allow the car to operate comfortably at 30kmph. If none of them allow the car to operate comfortably at 30kmph, then perhaps the car is not in roadworthy condition.

monument

thecretinhop wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

Just in case you're trying to fob all cyclist crashes on HGVs, that also says:

"Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars. Although left-turning vehicles were involved the majority of fatalities, the most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just under 20 per cent of incidents. The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle."

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

You need to consider the source of statistics. It is obviously in Estate Agents interests to boost various figures. Some would argue that that's part of how the property bubble arose. You only need to walk down Grafton Street to see how it's effected.

Any figures of your own aside from anecdotal evidence?

churchview wrote: »

I'll check to see if this is in the public domain and come back to you. I became aware of this through work so can't just say it here.

The accounts for limited companies are already in the public domain. Anyone can check them at the CRO.

seamus

thecretinhop wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

What's your point? This doesn't actually add much safety for cyclists at all because they're unlikely to be struck from behind by moving vehicles.

In fact, it doesn't really make a pedestrian much less likely to be hit by a car either.

The point is that a 30km/h collision is far less likely to kill a pedestrian than a 50km/h one.

zynaps

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!

If I had found a 60" TV in a city centre shop for a good price, I wouldn't let a 30kph speed limit stop me from buying it. It's not forcing shoppers anywhere, and if they do choose to shop elsewhere via less congested/higher speed-limit routes, how is that driving down business? Even if business does go down inside the city centre, then it will go up outside the city centre! So what's the big deal? :rolleyes:

Electric Fish wrote: »

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?

Yes that seems disingenuous IMO - how many children have been killed in traffic accidents in the city centre in the last few years? I think the answer might be "none", but in any case, the accident rate seems extremely low as it is. It seems more likely that children will die of meningitis on the way to the shop than be struck by a car.
Quite a few good things have been mentioned that might come out of the lowered speed limit, but the safety argument just seems insincere and misleading. Children were already safe going to the shops on their own.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

Any figures of your own aside from anecdotal evidence?

Empty shops are physical rather than anecdotal evidence.

The accounts for limited companies are already in the public domain. Anyone can check them at the CRO.

Yea, well I'm not sure of this groups corporate structure. As I said I'll check into it.
[/QUOTE]

blorg

It's extending to Cork. Will really slow down the traffic on Patrick Street, that was such a high-speed thoroughfare. :pac:

EDIT: Incidentally Patrick Street is a good example of the "more pedestrian crossing points" approach maggy_thatcher seems so fond of, you should really try driving down it some time.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Empty shops are physical rather than anecdotal evidence.

So that's a no then for statistics?

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

So that's a no then for statistics?

What??

It's a no for anecdotes.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

What??

It's a no for anecdotes.

You still have no numbers to back up your assertions re. Grafton Street.

tomasrojo

zynaps wrote: »

Yes that seems disingenuous IMO - how many children have been killed in traffic accidents in the city centre in the last few years? I think the answer might be "none", but in any case, the accident rate seems extremely low as it is. It seems more likely that children will die of meningitis on the way to the shop than be struck by a car.

Mayer Hillman looked into the British record of child injuries and fatalities on the road in the early 90s. At the time, the British government were very proud of the falling statistics. Hillman found that the reason for the lower numbers of injuries and fatalities were because parents no longer let their children play on the road, because it was perceived as so dangerous.

I did use to travel through town on my own as a ten year old. I think very few ten year olds do that now.

However, I think that the centre of town is perceived as being more dangerous than it is; fair enough.

projectmayhem

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.

Grafton St has consistently remained within the top 10 in the world for footfall since the early 2000s and sits at around 8th today. Also, reports suggest that the number of people visiting our city streets is the same now, but the amount of money spent is different.

Your argument is flawed because you reckon spending is down in the city because of cars not being allowed in, when really it's because we're in a recession. Dundrum, Blanchardstown and other commuter-belt type shopping centers are popular because they provide weekly shopping and what not, where most spending in such places is done throughout the year.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

You still have no numbers to back up your assertions re. Grafton Street.

Guess what - I don't need any. The absence of statistics doesn't disprove what I'm saying (and there may be relevant stats but I'm not googling for them just to win an internet argument). Have a walk down Grafton Street and you'll see for yourself.

Chips Lovell

churchview wrote: »

Guess what - I don't need any.

Resorting to logical fallacy isn't going to win you any arguments.

?Cee?view

projectmayhem wrote: »

Dundrum, Blanchardstown and other commuter-belt type shopping centers are popular because they provide weekly shopping and what not, where most spending in such places is done throughout the year.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. There's probably one shop in Dundrum that you could do a weekly shop in.

Accessibility is the major draw for out of town centres, while the City Centre is actively being made more inaccessible.

zynaps

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

But not in the city centre, if the numbers quoted are correct. Even the estimate provided by Andrew Montague of 2-3 people per year is freakishly low (i.e. statistically insignificant) compared to the number of pedestrians passing through the city centre each year (millions). And how many of those 2-3 people per year are children?

-Chris- wrote: »

Maintaining 30KMPH is difficult enough, but I'd be +/-5KMPH quite easily without having to refer to the speedo all the time. I wouldn't expect any right-minded Garda to give points for 35KMPH.

Thanks for this, nice to have some actual real-world input in the thread

How sure are you though that the Gardaí are going to be tolerant of going 5kph above the limit? Someone told me a while back that there's a 10% leeway on speed limits, such that they won't stop you for doing 55kph or 66kph or, presumably, 132kph at various limits. I'd certainly find it hard to keep my car between 27-33kph without checking the speedo, but then I'm not a very experienced or skilled driver.

?Cee?view

el tonto wrote: »

Resorting to logical fallacy isn't going to win you any arguments.

Yes, but this isn't a competition to win an argument. It's a discussion on a 30kph limit.

Furthermore, logical fallacy requires an element of misconception. One can't but see empty stores in Grafton Street, and it's difficult to see how this fact can be misconceived.

zynaps

monument wrote: »

In reply to speed and noise above, 50km/h is louder than 30km/h:


Source: OECD, International Transport Forum report on Speed Management

And on that graph, it looks like a kind of worst-case scenario with 30kph being near the top of 2nd gear's RPM range. If one could stay in third comfortably (32kph as in the graph) the noise would be lower (and presumably less wasteful in emissions).