Why 30 km/h speed limits are important in the context of Jake's Legacy vigil

expectationlost

Shared Space, Shared Surfaces and Home Zones from a Universal Design Approach for the Urban Environment in Ireland

In the short term, if there is still a genuine absence of a reliable alternative to the traditional kerb as a delineator of comfort zones, any shared space design that proceeds should maintain a kerb to act in this capacity. When evidence exists that demonstrates the successful application of an alternative delineator such as a wide tactile strip or similar, then Shared Surfaces may be considered, in consultation with local stakeholders and end-users

the NDA commission research http://www.academia.edu/6151629/Shared_Space_Shared_Surfaces_and_Home_Zones_from_a_Universal_Design_Approach_for_the_Urban_Environment_in_Ireland_Key_Findings_and_Recommendations summary and recommendations

full report http://universaldesign.ie/Built-Environment/Shared-Space/Shared-Space-Full-Report.pdf

but of course we not just talking about implementing kerbless shares spaces here, it not mandatory to do that, its unlikley to happen widely, we're also talking about the use of the sign for 30kph road areas.

ps o'connell street has the metal knobs instead of kerb near the spire

expectationlost

i don't really get the 5 black parallel lines on white / 80km sign either, is to be shown at the end of a 50kph section in order show its 80kph zone (but may also have a slow sign under it, because a combination sign saying 80kph / SLOW would be silly? http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/si/0488.html

The purpose of these Regulations is to prescribe an alternative format for the regulatory speed limit sign RUS 041. The RUS 041 sign in this new design may be provided, instead of a RUS 041 sign in the other format, on local roads where the default speed limit of 80km/h applies under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 2004 and at a location where a special speed limit under section 9 of the Act is applied to a local road in a built-up area under speed limit byelaws by a local authority.

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_signs_2006v_EN.pdf

8. End of prohibition or restriction
(a) The point at which all prohibitions notified by prohibitory signs for moving vehicles cease to apply shall be indicated by sign
C, 17a "END OF ALL LOCAL PROHIBITIONS IMPOSED ON MOVING VEHICLES". This sign shall be circular and have a white or yellow ground; it shall have no border or only a black rim, and shall bear a diagonal band, sloping downward from right to left, which may be black or dark grey or consist of black or grey parallel lines.

some saying this is like the old sign the old sign was solid black bar http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html

expectationlost

a little more info on speed limits http://www.speedlimits.ie

patrickbrophy18

I am generally in favor of 30 KM/H speed limits in areas where children are at play. This includes (but is not limited to) cul de sacs, enclosed neighbourhoods and gated communities. In fact, gated communities should have a 15-20 KM/H speed limit. Places such as these often include amenities like green fields and/or playgrounds which are adjacent to the roads which serve them. With that comes the very high likelihood of kids crossing such. This should answer the question raised in the thread title of "Why".

Having said that, speed limits on main arterial routes served by buses should still remain at 50 or 60 KM/H while dual carriageways remain at between 60 and 80 KM/H. It all depends on the activities on either side of such roads.

schemingbohemia

Whilst this article is about cycling it also refers to the huge number of deaths of children in road accidents in the Netherland in the late 60's early 70's as being the catalyst for bringing about the increase in cycling numbers since.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

MGWR

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Whilst this article is about cycling it also refers to the huge number of deaths of children in road accidents in the Netherland(s) in the late 60s early 70s as being the catalyst for bringing about the increase in cycling numbers since.

Manchester Guardian and its agenda

False dilemma. The real cause of child deaths on the city streets is irresponsible parenting. A bicycle can kill a child running out in front of it recklessly as much as an automobile can kill a child recklessly running into the street.

mrbike

MGWR wrote: »

A bicycle can kill a child running out in front of it recklessly as much as an automobile can kill a child recklessly running into the street.

Really? If you think bicycles can kill children as easily automobiles (they don't) then why weren't the Dutch campaigning to ban these killer bicycles in the 70's?

Irresponsible motorists kill children. Driving at inappropriate speeds through residential areas, where children live and play is irrepressible, dangerous and tragically, does kill children.

Iwannahurl

MGWR wrote: »

False dilemma. The real cause of child deaths on the city streets is irresponsible parenting.

A bicycle can kill a child running out in front of it recklessly as much as an automobile can kill a child recklessly running into the street.

Care to provide some authoritative evidence for your apparent claim that bicycles pose a safety risk as great as that posed by cars?

For example, Irish stats showing the number of children killed by being struck by bikes in, say, the past 20 years?

Or the number of children killed in collisions with bicycles in countries with a large number of cyclists, eg the Netherlands, or in cities such as Copenhagen. The numbers have got to be readily available, since the level of risk has been so well established, right?

Tragedy

He didn't say that bicycles kill as many children as cars. Nice to see you're still posting nonsense as ever IWH, and even nicer that you still request studies given your proven history of refusing to read them when provided.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

He didn't say that bicycles kill as many children as cars. Nice to see you're still posting nonsense as ever IWH, and even nicer that you still request studies given your proven history of refusing to read them when provided.

Two quite specific claims were made:

MGWR wrote: »

The real cause of child deaths on the city streets is irresponsible parenting.


A bicycle can kill a child running out in front of it recklessly as much as an automobile can kill a child recklessly running into the street.

What measure would you suggest to compare the fatality risk of a child running out in front of a bicycle versus a child running out recklessly in front of an automobile?


When we have that metric then we can check for the existence of evidence to support it.


There is no such history. Where there is evidence to support a claim I provide it, and I generally try not to make claims that can't be supported by evidence.


Oddly, just recently I included sources in a post (which was making the point that increasing motorisation makes for a fatter society), which led to an accusation that I was including external links in my posts!


Evidence-based posting: damned if you don't, damned if you do.

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

He didn't say that bicycles kill as many children as cars. Nice to see you're still posting nonsense as ever IWH, and even nicer that you still request studies given your proven history of refusing to read them when provided.

Attacking posters rather than their post is not allowed.

This is Commuting and Transport -- play by the house rules or get out.

- moderator

galwaycyclist

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Whilst this article is about cycling it also refers to the huge number of deaths of children in road accidents in the Netherland in the late 60's early 70's as being the catalyst for bringing about the increase in cycling numbers since.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

An interesting thing about that is that at the end of the 1990s Ireland had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe.

However, in contrast to the Netherlands, the Irish media and civil society chose to look the other way. There was no Dutch-style collective self-examination or soul searching about the issue.

Indeed it may be that many Irish remain blissfully ignorant of this aspect of recent Irish social history.

It would be interesting to examine why the Irish state chose not intervene to protect children when other states clearly offered successful models.

patrickbrophy18

Going by the last few posts, I don't think this is part of the movement aimed at inconveniencing motorists nor do I think it has anything to do with cyclists. The scope of the thread is answering the question as to why 30 KM/H speed limits may be needed in light of the recent passing of a child pedestrian who was knocked down in a public cul de sac. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victim, his family and friends.

While the media don't mention the speed at which the car was going at the time, it highlights that the current speed limits in housing estates and cul de sacs is inappropriate given the purpose and people they serve and the amenities adjacent to them. So, I decided to cherry pick a sample area from Google Earth to better explain how I think speed limits should be distributed from one road to another:



Blue: Primary Arterial Routes - where the existing speed limits would stay.
Cyan: Secondary Arterial Routes - with moderate traffic calming such as speed ramps 50-100 meters apart to enforce the existing speed limit and make it easier for pedestrians to cross.
Pink: Side Road - Lower the speed limit to 30 KM/H with pinch points (horizontal deflections), speed ramps 20 meters apart and junction tightening for re-enforcement. Static speed cameras could be placed between speed ramps when similar roads are developed in the future.
Yellow: Cul De Sac - Lower the speed limit to 10/20 KM/H and enforce it with a one-lane two-way arrangement with passing loops every 30-40 meters as well as speed ramps. Again, static speed cameras could be placed between speed ramps when similar roads are developed in the future.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Two quite specific claims were made:





What measure would you suggest to compare the fatality risk of a child running out in front of a bicycle versus a child running out recklessly in front of an automobile?


When we have that metric then we can check for the existence of evidence to support it.


There is no such history. Where there is evidence to support a claim I provide it, and I generally try not to make claims that can't be supported by evidence.


Oddly, just recently I included sources in a post (which was making the point that increasing motorisation makes for a fatter society), which led to an accusation that I was including external links in my posts!


Evidence-based posting: damned if you don't, damned if you do.

He still didn't make the claim that you are lying about his making. You've now misread two posts by two different people in your desperate attempt to scare people off by insisting that they post evidence that you can then safely ignore.

When you post with evidence, we can see about you being damned for doing so. Until then, and continuously for the last 4 years, you're damned for not doing so.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

He didn't say that bicycles kill as many children as cars. Nice to see you're still posting nonsense as ever IWH, and even nicer that you still request studies given your proven history of refusing to read them when provided.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What measure would you suggest to compare the fatality risk of a child running out in front of a bicycle versus a child running out recklessly in front of an automobile?

When we have that metric then we can check for the existence of evidence to support it.

Tragedy wrote: »

He still didn't make the claim that you are lying about his making. You've now misread two posts by two different people in your desperate attempt to scare people off by insisting that they post evidence that you can then safely ignore.

When you post with evidence, we can see about you being damned for doing so. Until then, and continuously for the last 4 years, you're damned for not doing so.

I guess we'll never know the answer...

expectationlost

Fingal Council backed a motion calling for speed limits in housing estates to be reduced to 20kph http://www.thejournal.ie/jake-brennan-speed-limits-2-2132063-May2015/

do they really mean it ? How many councils have backed such a motion,(SDCC and its on list for sligo etc) they have the process set up at speedlimits.ie but what year do you reckon, any of the new 20kph limits will be implemented.

video of meeting http://bit.ly/1Qg8KcB 19 in favour 4 against 2 abstentions

meanwhile

Reduced 30kph speed limits on the way
Fingal County Council confirmed the areas which will have the reduced 30kph speed limit introduced at the recent Balbriggan-Swords Area meeting. (others areas also)
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/reduced-speed-limits-on-the-way-31251749.html
list them for public display for statutory consultation

MGWR

expectationlost wrote: »

Fingal Council backed a motion calling for speed limits in housing estates to be reduced to 20 kph. How many councils have backed such a motion (SDCC and its on list for sligo etc)—they have the process set up at speedlimits.ie but what year do you reckon any of the new 20 kph limits will be implemented?

Government micro-managing madness strikes again. 12.4 miles per hour will make many an engine overheat and wear out many gearboxes.

galwaycyclist

MGWR wrote: »

Government micro-managing madness strikes again. 12.4 miles per hour will make many an engine overheat and wear out many gearboxes.

Only if you don't know how to drive.

You simply select the correct gear (2nd or 3rd) and let the car do its thing.

Competent drivers have nothing to fear.

If someone does not know how to drive correctly on a residential street then they would equally not be able to drive in congested city traffic either, or in a supermarket car park etc.

Iwannahurl

Driving at 30 km/h or less does seem to be a problem for some drivers, perhaps especially those who refer to the speed limit in mph so as to make the hardship seem even more extreme.

There are even some who lament that their cruise control won't function at such dangerously low speeds.

Iwannahurl

Via the Jake's Legacy campaign (emphasis added by me):

I acknowledge that changing drivers attitudes toward the use of excessive speed, while a worthwhile venture is also an extremely challenging and difficult task, but this will be made even more difficult if impractical speed limitations are forced on drivers.

I feel that the widespread application of a 30km/h speed limits in housing estates will prove to be impractical unless substantial traffic calming works are carried out in tandem with the proposed implementation.

Speed Limits should only be applied on roads where the limit appears to the driver to be appropriate to their surroundings and the cost of the works required to “force” drivers to physically drive at 30 km/hrs will be substantial and beyond the capabilities of Wexford County Council to fund.

My experience with Speed Limits shows that simply reducing a Speed Limit does not imply that drivers will obey the new Speed Limit and if a speed limit is set unrealistically low, it will more than likely prove ineffective.

On a personal note I have attempted to drive in housing estates at your proposed 20km/hr speed limit and found that the amount of concentration required to maintain my speed at or below this limit seriously detracted from my ability to see potential dangers on the road ahead.

~Chief Technician / Road Safety Officer, Wexford County Council

expectationlost

oh wexford passed a motion in March on jake's law

€10m cost of safety http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/10m-cost-of-safety-31077076.html

15.6 Councillor J. Mythen:
“That this council recognising the need for safety for children at play in the housing
estates in which they live, calls on the Minister for Transport to pass the Road Traffic
Amendment Bill 2015 commonly known as Jake's Law, in memory of Jake Brennan, in
order to introduce a new mandatory speed limit of 20km specifically for housing estates.
The council further commits to writing to the Minister on this issue, as well as circulating
this letter to all other local authorities in the state for their consideration”.

The above motion was proposed by Cllr. J. Mythen seconded by Cllr. M. Farrell and
agreed by the Council.

Director for Road Transportation, E. Hore advised that a list of 76 estates compiled from
correspondence with members of the public and representations from members of the
Council had been presented to a previous meeting of the Council as having priority
status for lower speed limits.

http://www.wexford.ie/wex/Departments/CorporateServices/Downloads/WCCMinutes/2015/Thefile,25496,en.pdf

expectationlost

still no inquest does it matter?

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Via the Jake's Legacy campaign (emphasis added by me):

Yes, when you set a stupid speed limit, drivers have to spend more time watching their speedometers and less time watching the road ... that's not exactly rocket science.

monument

20km/h is too slow for any kind of default.

30km/h as an urban default with 40-60km/h on less constrained main routes where there's footpaths, cycle paths and safe crossings.

Aard

We're talking about a 30kmph limit in housing esates, which are generally no more than 500m from a main road which will remain 50kmph. It's not rocket science -- go slow until you hit the main road

the groutch

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Blue: Primary Arterial Routes - where the existing speed limits would stay.
Cyan: Secondary Arterial Routes - with moderate traffic calming such as speed ramps 50-100 meters apart to enforce the existing speed limit and make it easier for pedestrians to cross.
Pink: Side Road - Lower the speed limit to 30 KM/H with pinch points (horizontal deflections), speed ramps 20 meters apart and junction tightening for re-enforcement. Static speed cameras could be placed between speed ramps when similar roads are developed in the future.
Yellow: Cul De Sac - Lower the speed limit to 10/20 KM/H and enforce it with a one-lane two-way arrangement with passing loops every 30-40 meters as well as speed ramps. Again, static speed cameras could be placed between speed ramps when similar roads are developed in the future.

MGWR

Aard wrote: »

We're talking about a 30kmph limit in housing esates, which are generally no more than 500m from a main road which will remain 50kmph. It's not rocket science -- go slow until you hit the main road

Absurdly low speed limit. Converting back into imperial units, that's a mere 18.6 miles per hour, no faster than a horse's trot, and not very friendly to cars' engines or gearboxes never mind fuel economy. Is it really so that Ireland's newer generations are not taught to stay on the footpath? because everyone I knew during my youth had no problems following the rules of the road while walking.

And if main roads remain at 30 mph (50 km/h), there will be yet more visits to the auto repairman.

Enough Luddism. And enough of demanding the government make things "eejit-proof".

MGWR

the groutch wrote: »

Not a city I'd like to live in.

Aard

MGWR wrote: »

Absurdly low speed limit. Converting back into imperial units, that's a mere 18.6 miles per hour, no faster than a horse's trot, and not very friendly to cars' engines or gearboxes never mind fuel economy.

Yep -- a low speed limit for about 500m. If that. Then back to 50 kmph.

MGWR

Aard wrote: »

Yep -- a low speed limit for about 500m. If that. Then back to 50 kmph.

Why should that be acceptable, presuming half a kilometre if not more? Why is it even necessary?

Consider further the additional auto emissions this will result in.