Dublin @30km

Fighting Tao

Every time a person gets out of their car they are a pedestrian including motorists who pull in to the left and get out of their car into traffic. Pedestrians are not a minority.

_Kaiser_

magicbastarder wrote: »

is this the level of debate we have? that accidents are not caused by motorists, but by pedestrians and cyclists?

Again.. context.

We're talking about the inner city area here. Aside from fender-benders which will happen at ANY speed due to inattention, any accident involving a pedestrian is probably because the latter took a chance they shouldn't have such as darting across between traffic. There are designated crossing points everywhere, but yet people will just wander out anywhere regardless.. especially in slow moving traffic

Where cyclists are concerned, they tend to zip up alongside traffic and between it at will without any signalling (y'know.. like we were all taught as kids) although I'll grant you that motorists have a greater responsibility to be aware of and watching for this.

However, all slowing things down further will do is lead to more of the above chances being taken and more fender-benders as motorists are forced to jam on, or jump between lanes out of frustration. I see all of this almost every day as it is. 30 km/h signs will do nothing to address that and will probably make things worse.

Jimmy Garlic

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If you round like a normal person it's 19mph. Only a bad driver can't drive at that speed. Keep up the practice. You should improve. I can drive in 4th gear in my car at that speed. No problem at all.

Sweet suffering gearboxes.. I'll say a prayer for your clutch.

_Kaiser_

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Every time a person gets out of their car they are a pedestrian including motorists who pull in to the left and get out of their car into traffic. Pedestrians are not a minority.

Minority in the context above refers to the significant percentage of people who carry on oblivious to the conditions around them (as they are buried in their phone or with music blasting in their ears), taking no responsibility or care for their own safety - relying on "someone else" to watch out for them instead.

magicbastarder

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Where cyclists are concerned, they tend to zip up alongside traffic

huh? is that not the point of cycling?

transport for london commissioned a study examining the fatal and near fatal collisions in london; the motorist was found to be in the wrong in i think 60% of collisions.
obviously, that study can't claim to speak for dublin (and one notable difference in dublin's favour is the HGV ban) but it does help illustrate why cyclists are just bone tired of being portrayed as the architects of their own downfall.

beauf

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again.. context.

We're talking about the inner city area here. Aside from fender-benders which will happen at ANY speed due to inattention, any accident involving a pedestrian is probably because the latter took a chance they shouldn't have such as darting across between traffic. There are designated crossing points everywhere, but yet people will just wander out anywhere regardless.. especially in slow moving traffic

Where cyclists are concerned, they tend to zip up alongside traffic and between it at will without any signalling (y'know.. like we were all taught as kids) although I'll grant you that motorists have a greater responsibility to be aware of and watching for this.

However, all slowing things down further will do is lead to more of the above chances being taken and more fender-benders as motorists are forced to jam on, or jump between lanes out of frustration. I see all of this almost every day as it is. 30 km/h signs will do nothing to address that and will probably make things worse.

The plan is to remove cars from much of the city center. That will solve the problem for drivers unable to drive appropriately in built up areas.

monument

Back on topic please! Cycling is not the topic.

Re 30km/h on this thread: please only discuss normal roads in urban buildup areas only -- motorway junction limits are aimed at stopping trucks from crashing, and this is off-topic here.

-- moderator

_Kaiser_

magicbastarder wrote: »

huh? is that not the point of cycling?

transport for london commissioned a study examining the fatal and near fatal collisions in london; the motorist was found to be in the wrong in i think 60% of collisions.
obviously, that study can't claim to speak for dublin (and one notable difference in dublin's favour is the HGV ban) but it does help illustrate why cyclists are just bone tired of being portrayed as the architects of their own downfall.

My point is that they come flying up between slow/stopped traffic without paying any heed to what the traffic is/may do (ie: anticipating/reading the road) - instead relying solely on the driver to watch out for them rather than realising that they too have a responsibility to be aware of the traffic (though this is not helped by the lots of inexperienced cyclists who have taken to the roads with Bike to Work schemes and Dublin Bikes - like it or not, there's a definite case for a common test to ensure a minimum level of training - and no, you can't rely on the idea that the cyclist MAY also be a motorist)

It's also not a great idea to start cutting across cars to lane-hop but this happens all the time as well in slow traffic... by cyclists AND other vehicles to be fair, something that will increase under this plan IMO

Fighting Tao

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My point is that they come flying up between slow/stopped traffic without paying any heed to what the traffic is/may do (ie: anticipating/reading the road) - instead relying solely on the driver to watch out for them rather than realising that they too have a responsibility to be aware of the traffic (though this is not helped by the lots of inexperienced cyclists who have taken to the roads with Bike to Work schemes and Dublin Bikes - like it or not, there's a definite case for a common test to ensure a minimum level of training - and no, you can't rely on the idea that the cyclist MAY also be a motorist)

It's also not a great idea to start cutting across cars to lane-hop but this happens all the time as well in slow traffic... by cyclists AND other vehicles to be fair, something that will increase under this plan IMO

While making a case in that detail then surely you should be able to see where lower speed limits will help prevent all these collisions that you must have witnessed. Drivers will be able to stop in a shorter distance helping avoid them. Also it is a drivers responsibility to be aware of their surroundings at all times and should be checking their mirrors before making any manoeuvre.

monument

Infraction for the next person to continue this off-topic cyclist discussion.

You can feel free to continue the testing of cyclists discussion on this new thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057685510#

-- moderator

Victor

Deedsie wrote: »

Hi, can anyone confirm whether the speed limit on Leeson Street Lower will have a 30 km/h speed limit from March 1st?

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Traffic/Documents/358,%20DCC%20Special%20Speed%20Limit%20Bye-laws%202016%20(1).pdf

East of Fitzwilliam Place will remain 50 km/h, west of that seems to be changing to 30 km/h.

The map is from the public consultation and may not take any subsequent changes into account: http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Documents/Appendix%20E%20-%20rt3369_10%20-%2030KP%20Speed%20Limit%20Review-01.06.2016.pdf

dolallyoh

Is there a limit for driving too slow ? I'd be nervous of having a police car behind me and would probably drop down to 20km just be be safe. Safer that way anyway.

CramCycle

dolallyoh wrote: »

Is there a limit for driving too slow ? I'd be nervous of having a police car behind me and would probably drop down to 20km just be be safe. Safer that way anyway.

I presume on motorways there is, dangerous driving etc.

Plenty of people though will tell you driving at 20kmph is impossible so nothing to worry about there

I love Sean nos

dolallyoh wrote: »

would probably drop down to 20km just be be safe. Safer that way anyway.

If you ask nicely, the chap below may dedicate a decade of the rosary on your behalf to St. Lumag, patron saint of clutches.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Sweet suffering gearboxes.. I'll say a prayer for your clutch.

Feckofff

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Sweet suffering gearboxes.. I'll say a prayer for your clutch.

I will be passing through the 30kmph zone tomorrow, I will be driving at 30kmph max. If you can't drive at 30kmph best avoid the city centre or your gearbox might explode. I feel sorry for you but there is nothing I can do about your inadequate gearbox.

Cookie_Monster

dolallyoh wrote: »

Is there a limit for driving too slow ? I'd be nervous of having a police car behind me and would probably drop down to 20km just be be safe. Safer that way anyway.

not as such but failure to make progress is a rule and part of the driving test. you need to keep up with the flow of traffic (as the limit allows). Needlessly travelling 33% under the limit would fall foul of the above progress rules IMO

Feckofff

Drove lesson street today and speeds do seem to reduced. Maybe people will see the benefits and it will become the cultural norm.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Nanny statery at its worst - Dublin already has safe roads relative to other EU capitals...just a box ticking exercise for Dublin city council; news laws just for the sake of it.

By your logic, our crime rate is quite low relative to other EU cities, so we shouldn't focus on lowering it even more. Only those cities at the bottom of the list should focus on improving.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

an absolute disgrace and totally un-necissary. the 50 limit was fine and is what I will continue to use.

That's not a great attitude to have on our roads and one I would love to see removed. There's too many people on the road who have the same attitude as you and they need to be dealt with.

It's nothing to do with a nanny state, it's called city planning.

The more we can move away from car centric attitudes the better it will be for all.

magicbastarder

i just wonder how you're meant to drive at 50km/h in heavy traffic?

Dravokivich

magicbastarder wrote: »

i just wonder how you're meant to drive at 50km/h in heavy traffic?

There's only heavy traffic for about 3 hours a day.

Ricky Yellow Self-satisfaction wrote: »

That's not a great attitude to have on our roads and one I would love to see removed. There's too many people on the road who have the same attitude as you and they need to be dealt with.

It's nothing to do with a nanny state, it's called city planning.

The more we can move away from car centric attitudes the better it will be for all.

I don't think the issue is "Car Centric," there's too many people driving who don't consider the potential impact on others.

Dublin is anything but car centric with the way traffic is routed around it.

I love Sean nos

dolallyoh wrote: »

Is there a limit for driving too slow ? I'd be nervous of having a police car behind me and would probably drop down to 20km just be be safe. Safer that way anyway.

The average speed in Dublin city centre is less than 30km/h anyway. I wouldn't worry about it.

Dravokivich

Deedsie wrote: »

Dublin is totally car centric and has been since the 1950's. They damage this has done is shocking, thankfully it is ever so slowly starting to change but it is a long long way to go.

Bottom line 20% full private cars are an extremely inefficient mode of transport in urban areas. City and town centres need to reduce the impact private cars have on the urban environment.

That's symptomatic of setup of public transport services. It's a pain in the arse to drive in the city unless you know the layout of the one way sytems.

Feckofff

Deedsie wrote: »

I fully support the new speed limits. I really hope they extend it to Donnybrook. That bend in the road around Kielys is deadly, zero lane discipline from speeding motorists.

Agree the bend at kielys is going to seriously injure or kill some one. DCC is fully aware of the issues and has chosen to do nothing about it.

Donnybrook is being deliberately neglected by DCC for traffic calming. When you compare the design rules that have been used in say ballymun or dun laoghaire it seem clear that it is willful neglect rather than ignorance.

When the "accident" does happen, I hope there will be no crocodile tears out of DCC or any of our fine councillors.

Dravokivich

Deedsie wrote: »

Good, no need for the number of cars in Dublin everyday. Hopefully the numbers of cars within the canals and in other urban centres throughout Ireland will reduce significantly over the next 50 years.

I don't see how it's "good" that someone has to be run around the mills when there's services that aren't suitable to them. You'll only see traffic change when the services available are predominantly more suitable. Not because you've punished someone into submission.

I love Sean nos

Dravokivich wrote: »

You'll only see traffic change when the services available are predominantly more suitable. Not because you've punished someone into submission.

That's an excuse. Evidence suggests otherwise.

Chris_5339762

Theres a short section from the canal to Rialto and the South Circular thats 30kmh. Not one person obeying it.

TheQuietFella

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Excellent news. There really is no need to go above 30 in those areas. Hopefully a safer area for all people.

It will only encourage more people to cross the roads where and when they like
without a blind piece of consideration for other road users as is already the prescribed practice!

Dravokivich

Deedsie wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-12-000-cyclists-a-day-commute-into-dublin-city-1.2982547

From 2008 to 2016 7000 less private cars & 7000 more cyclists crossing the canals. So it is already working.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

That's an excuse. Evidence suggests otherwise.

That'll be down to Bike To Work scheme which came in I believe 2008/2009 and Dublin Bikes around about the same time also. What was that I said about more suitable services leading to a shift...

LeChienMefiant

TheQuietFella wrote: »

It will only encourage more people to cross the roads where and when they like
without a blind piece of consideration for other road users as is already the prescribed practice!

If they waited until they were allowed to cross then they would be waiting a long time. The priority afforded to motor traffic in the city is unreasonable. The outright agression by some drivers to pedestrians is completely anti-social.

magicbastarder

TheQuietFella wrote: »

It will only encourage more people to cross the roads where and when they like

society will break down, man shall lie with the beast, boyzone will reform, and the living will envy the dead.