Do city bypasses deliver the goods, and if so what's the evidence?

Aidan1

Sean, essentially this is another moral hazard problem. If zoning of lands and the planning system for the western side of the city (and the countryside beyond that) is policed properly, it shouldn't be an issue. Given that LA have demonstrated repeatedly that they can't be trusted in that regard, it's really an issue for national level Govt to resolve.

Moreover, any future plans for expansion on the eastern approaches should be planned in conjunction with transport improvements (bus, rail, cycle and road). Galway needs a CASP, in other words (just lets not call it 'GASP').

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

You are familiar with the concept of Moral hazard? Basically if you insulate Peter from the consequences of all or part of his stupidity by making Paul assume liability for it, Peter is going to act like a right tool. That's what happened in the banking system, and in the U.K. the cycling lobby wants a blanket "bigger vehicle pays" insurance law whereby in the case of any road accident, the user with the largest vehicle pays (via insurance) regardless of who caused the accident. I.E. under laws the cyclists lobbies want, a cyclist/pedestrian come come drunk out of an alleyway, charge right into the path of an oncoming car in such a way that the motorist could not possibly see them in time, but the motorist would be held absolutely 100% at fault and fully liable.

Also most people will have a "risk tolerance" (I think that's the term) which means that people will take risks for reward up until they perceive the risks to be of a certain level. Most pedestrians, myself included, will take MUCH greater care with traffic going at 80kph late at night than with traffic going at 30kph at most times of the day. Though I accept that you have a point re: children, I would imagine that's more of an issue in residential areas or around schools.

Regarding specifically the 30kph zone in Dublin, is there ANY evidence that it has saved lives? Had there been a single case in the preceding years of an accident causing a death that could have been avoided but for the fact that the motorist was traveling between 30kph and 50kph specifically? Even one case that you are aware of?

There may be applications of the Moral Hazard economic theory in transportation, but I doubt that the well-established causal link between lower speed and reduced risk of collision, death and injury is the best example.

Then again, it could be argued that a higher legal speed limit increases the moral hazard for the motorist, since a motorist travelling at any speed in a heavy metal box with insurance, crumple zones, seatbelts and airbags is -- relative to a pedestrian or cyclist -- "a party insulated from risk [who] behaves differently from how [they] would behave if [they] were fully exposed to the risk". "Moral hazard" also implies moral responsibility, and as you allude to yourself, it is questionable whether this should apply to children. Finally, lowering the speed to 30 km/h or less reduces the risk for all parties, ie of striking or being struck, therefore the effect is to reduce asymmetry not to increase it. It is the asymmetry -- ie the significant variance in mass and velocity -- that harms the cyclist or pedestrian who comes into contact with a motorised vehicle.

The theory of risk compensation, which also shows up in Economics, may be more relevant, but only to any 'debate' over the safety benefits of 30 km/h zones, which would be OT. I'd be happy to deal with it, but not in this thread.

When I get time I will return to some other debatable concepts that have surfaced in this thread, such as that population growth and economic growth must inevitably lead to growth in private car traffic and that supply-side measures (eg more roads, more bypasses) are the best solutions, or the most sustainable ones.

Iwannahurl

Aidan1 wrote: »

Sean, essentially this is another moral hazard problem. If zoning of lands and the planning system for the western side of the city (and the countryside beyond that) is policed properly, it shouldn't be an issue. Given that LA have demonstrated repeatedly that they can't be trusted in that regard, it's really an issue for national level Govt to resolve.

Moreover, any future plans for expansion on the eastern approaches should be planned in conjunction with transport improvements (bus, rail, cycle and road). Galway needs a CASP, in other words (just lets not call it 'GASP').

Oh, do let's.

I suggest Local and Sustainable Transportation - Galway Area Strategic Plan (LAST GASP).

monument

SeanW wrote: »

You are familiar with the concept of Moral hazard? Basically if you insulate Peter from the consequences of all or part of his stupidity by making Paul assume liability for it, Peter is going to act like a right tool. That's what happened in the banking system,

"moral hazard is a situation in which a party insulated from risk behaves differently from how it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk"

Err... you have this the wrong way around. It sounds far more like a motorist who is driving in a vehicle insulated from risk with their steel cage, airbags, etc.

It's why so many pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists are killed and injuries by motorists. When talking about risk you have to factor who can/is causing the most risk and make them responsible for such -- in the case of roads, motorists can cause the most risk followed by motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

You make the one causing the risk take most of the responsibly, not the one who may be harmed.

SeanW wrote: »

in the U.K. the cycling lobby wants a blanket "bigger vehicle pays" insurance law whereby in the case of any road accident, the user with the largest vehicle pays (via insurance) regardless of who caused the accident. I.E. under laws the cyclists lobbies want, a cyclist/pedestrian come come drunk out of an alleyway, charge right into the path of an oncoming car in such a way that the motorist could not possibly see them in time, but the motorist would be held absolutely 100% at fault and fully liable.

Given that being drunk is illegal in public strict liability would not apply.

I'd be in favour of strict liability -- it would be a huge deterrent for law breaking cyclists as well. In a short time it would cut out cycling on footpaths and breaking red lights at ped crossings, which would be very welcomed.

SeanW wrote: »

Also most people will have a "risk tolerance" (I think that's the term) which means that people will take risks for reward up until they perceive the risks to be of a certain level. Most pedestrians, myself included, will take MUCH greater care with traffic going at 80kph late at night than with traffic going at 30kph at most times of the day.

I love to know what traffic going at 80km/h has to do with any 30km/h zone. Pedestrians should be nowhere near traffic going a 80km/h.

Risk tolerance also works both ways -- motorists will take less risks in a 30km/h zone than they will in a 50km/h zone. When motorists take less risk, the streets are safer for everybody including them self.

SeanW wrote: »

re: children, I would imagine that's more of an issue in residential areas or around schools.

According to the Dublin 30km/h zone supporters, the zone includes 10 primary schools, 4 secondary schools, and 5 third-level institutions and some of the most densely populated areas in Ireland.

Even in the non-residential or mostly retail and office areas, pedestrians volumes are high compared to other traffic all day long.

SeanW wrote: »

Regarding specifically the 30kph zone in Dublin, is there ANY evidence that it has saved lives? Had there been a single case in the preceding years of an accident causing a death that could have been avoided but for the fact that the motorist was traveling between 30kph and 50kph specifically? Even one case that you are aware of?

It may be a good idea to do thing after the bloody speed limited is enforced.