A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

CramCycle

Tea drinker wrote: »

the cycle lanes in Dun Laoire are sometimes ignored and cyclists go down from the main road to cycle through the car park at the sea front, or cycle in the car lane beside the new cycle lanes,- nothing legally wrong there... but a bit ignorant after lots of money and time spent to make it safer.

Actually the local council contacted all cycle clubs in the south Dublin area and asked them not to use the cycle lane as it is not appropriate for training or club groups. And they are right, most club cyclists commuting or training will be going at pretty much the speed limit for the main road and it is the appropriate place to be. Funny how many people want to go faster than you when on a bike even though you are at the speed limit or an appropriate speed for the area.

cnocbui

Hamsterchops wrote: »

That's why 40km/h (25mph)is the magic number!

Works on most cruise controls ✓

30km/h (18moh) is too bloody slowwwww

If Usain Bolt can do 44.72 kph, you might think 50 kph isn't really a dangerous speed for a car to be doing.

Hamsterchops

cnocbui wrote: »

If Usain Bolt can do 44.72 kph, you might think 50 kph isn't really a dangerous speed for a car to be doing.

Not sure what Usain Bolt had to do with it, he's but flesh & blood, but a car is made of harder stuff, so yes, it is dangerous and it can kill (if you hit a person), so you don't want to be going 50km/h outside the school gates or in a housing estate.

Agreed.

Larbre34

cnocbui wrote: »

If Usain Bolt can do 44.72 kph, you might think 50 kph isn't really a dangerous speed for a car to be doing.

It isn't.

The traffic collision statistics for this City don't justify in any way the introduction of 30 kph speed limits on main routes and they simply won't happen.

So much more that resources should be targeted at, enforcement of the existing limits, enforcement of mobile phone use laws, the presence of death trap cars without NCTs and worn tyres out there too.

VinLieger

Thank god the Stillorgan dual carriageway is exempt from this idiocy, its already too slow at 60kph as seen from whenever you drive on it the average speed most cars do is between 70-80kph as that is the natural speed for that road.


Forcing people to drive slower than the natural speed of a road dictates will only lead to frustration and thus in my opinion cause more collisions as people pull stupid maneuvers to try to compensate for the slower journeys.

AndrewJRenko

VinLieger wrote: »

Thank god the Stillorgan dual carriageway is exempt from this idiocy, its already too slow at 60kph as seen from whenever you drive on it the average speed most cars do is between 70-80kph as that is the natural speed for that road.

Forcing people to drive slower than the natural speed of a road dictates will only lead to frustration and thus in my opinion cause more collisions as people pull stupid maneuvers to try to compensate for the slower journeys.

'Natural speed'? Cars don't have natural speed. Drivers have natural speed, based on habit, culture, lack of enforcement and lots more.

They just might have to change their habits.

Tea drinker wrote: »

the cycle lanes in Dun Laoire are sometimes ignored and cyclists go down from the main road to cycle through the car park at the sea front, or cycle in the car lane beside the new cycle lanes,- nothing legally wrong there... but a bit ignorant after lots of money and time spent to make it safer.

No more ignorant than the motorists who drive on Grange Road or Leopardstown Road when they could be using the M50.

Deleted User wrote: »

Try cycling or walking that with a baby and a toddler in tow and/or with bags of shopping.

Lots of people cycle with kids and/or with shopping using cargo bikes or other options. eBikes are making more and more journeys realistic.

Larbre34

Don't worry Vin, everywhere will be exempt from this idiocy. Except the side streets and estates already covered by the appropriate 30 limit.

CramCycle

VinLieger wrote: »

Thank god the Stillorgan dual carriageway is exempt from this idiocy, its already too slow at 60kph as seen from whenever you drive on it the average speed most cars do is between 70-80kph as that is the natural speed for that road.


Forcing people to drive slower than the natural speed of a road dictates will only lead to frustration and thus in my opinion cause more collisions as people pull stupid maneuvers to try to compensate for the slower journeys.

People pull stupid manoeuvres as they aren't getting in trouble due to lack of enforcement, nothing else. Nothing to do with the "natural speed" LOL, what a silly idea, if a road had a natural speed you wouldn't have so many drivers struggling to hold their wheels to the road on R roads.
As someone who drives and cycles the N11 daily, I wouldn't hold it up as a positive example of any group of road user. Every red light, cars running through, endemic mobile phone use, to the point I am more surprised when I see a motorist not using their phone. Nipping up the bus lanes at 100kmph as kids wait at overcrowded bus stops, the N11 is a sh1t show. I'd live with the speed limit on it if they actually enforced any of the rules on that road but the gardai from Donnybrook don't get as far as UCD before they are too busy giving out tickets.
The road needs ANPR red light/average speed cameras, bus lane cameras, make the bus lanes 24 hours a day Job done, little investment that would pay for itself in a few weeks and have a positive effect.

magicbastarder

VinLieger wrote: »

the average speed most cars do is between 70-80kph as that is the natural speed for that road.

as is my wont, i'll defer to google maps on this, who actually have data on how fast traffic is moving on that road.
it's past midnight on a friday night/saturday morning, and google is estimating, for the 10.3km trip from UCD to cherrywood, an 11 minute journey.

that's 56km/h, at a time it would probably not be physically possible to drive faster on it.
which begs the question - what in god's name is a 'natural speed' if it can't even match a real world speed?

Varik

magicbastarder wrote: »

as is my wont, i'll defer to google maps on this, who actually have data on how fast traffic is moving on that road.
it's past midnight on a friday night/saturday morning, and google is estimating, for the 10.3km trip from UCD to cherrywood, an 11 minute journey.

that's 56km/h, at a time it would probably not be physically possible to drive faster on it.
which begs the question - what in god's name is a 'natural speed' if it can't even match a real world speed?

Depending on exactly where your start end point is there's like 15 sets of lights on that route, and excluding pedestrian.

Atlantic Dawn

I see the 30kph increasing the accident rate by a lot in congested areas with increased pedestrians taking risks but the death rate could reduce by 50% of these incidents, not sure in reality what that means, possibly to leave it at 50kph would make more sense on a person dead by being hit by a car basis.

VinLieger

magicbastarder wrote: »

as is my wont, i'll defer to google maps on this, who actually have data on how fast traffic is moving on that road.
it's past midnight on a friday night/saturday morning, and google is estimating, for the 10.3km trip from UCD to cherrywood, an 11 minute journey.

that's 56km/h, at a time it would probably not be physically possible to drive faster on it.
which begs the question - what in god's name is a 'natural speed' if it can't even match a real world speed?

LOL as another poster pointed out Google maps doesn't show how fast traffic is moving it simply shows journey time which does not correlate to speed.

Go down and drive that road at any time other than rush hour from between donybrook and Cornelscourt and tell me the average speed all other cars are getting up to.

Also notice how after Cornelscourt it magically because safer to drive 20kmh higher on exactly the same road. Funny that....

CramCycle

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL as another poster pointed out Google maps doesn't show how fast traffic is moving it simply shows journey time which does not correlate to speed.

It correlates to the fact that a lot of people don't seem to realise it is actually a residential area with multiple light controlled junctions. The reason the speed limit is lower than a motorway is because motorways don't have houses that can drive straight onto them, footpaths on both sides, numerous schools, bus stops businesses and one of the largest universities in the country.

Go down and drive that road at any time other than rush hour from between donybrook and Cornelscourt and tell me the average speed all other cars are getting up to.

Google does tell you the average speed, that is exactly what it is telling you. What you are thinking of is max speed, which is dependent solely on how heavy someone's foot is between lights. Often unnecessarily so. I always laugh on the commute in the morning, the driver nipping in and out between traffic or even ramming up the bus lane. They rarely make a minute or two on the traffic they are dangerously overtaking at the moment. Christ, you often see cars straddling the middle coming past Cornelscourt to decide whether to stay left and safe so you won't get caught by turning traffic or stay right and hope they get a break and the turning traffic has moved on, but they block both lanes with their fluttering about, every morning. It's rare but the few times the Gardai catch people it lifts the mood of everyone else on their commute. If they took dash cam and helmet cam footage driving would improve on that road immensely within 3 months and ironically, I can imagine commute times would improve for everyone.

Also notice how after Cornelscourt it magically because safer to drive 20kmh higher on exactly the same road. Funny that....

Because there are no houses on the road after that, because the lights are not as frequent, because the lanes are slightly wider, because there are no schools on the road, because there are multiple adjacent roads for pedestrians (although they are, I think, allowed use the bike track), because there are clearer sight lines. Any other reasons you need?

magicbastarder

Varik wrote: »

Depending on exactly where your start end point is there's like 15 sets of lights on that route, and excluding pedestrian.

ehm, that's the point.

magicbastarder

VinLieger wrote: »

Go down and drive that road at any time other than rush hour from between donybrook and Cornelscourt and tell me the average speed all other cars are getting up to.

that question makes no sense. 'average speed' and 'all other cars are getting up to' are different.

the difference between being able to do 60km/h for that 10km, and 80km/h, is a theoretical max of two and a half minutes (10 minutes vs 7.5 minutes).
the aforementioned 15 sets of traffic lights will drag that difference way down.

VinLieger

I don't care what pathetic excuses people make up for the 60kmh speed limit or pedantry over averages vs top speed, ive driven that road almost daily for the last 20 years and anyone who else who has lived along it for even a small period of time or driven on it regularly knows full well the speed limit of 60kmh is not obeyed by the vast majority of drivers because it is not a natural speed to drive at for a road of its design.

magicbastarder

there's no such thing as a 'natural speed'.
what you are talking about is the speed *you* want to drive at.

Lockheed

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't care what pathetic excuses people make up for the 60kmh speed limit or pedantry over averages vs top speed, ive driven that road almost daily for the last 20 years and anyone who else who has lived along it for even a small period of time or driven on it regularly knows full well the speed limit of 60kmh is not obeyed by the vast majority of drivers because it is not a natural speed to drive at for a road of its design.

Nothing about driving a two tonne hunk of pedestrian killer down a road is 'natural', in fact its quite the opposite.

punisher5112

Roads would be safer if people got off their phones, that includes driver's, pedestrians, cyclists, scooter users etc....

If people crossed at crossings correctly and actually took some personal responsibility for their own lives it would be one hell of a lot safer out there.

Dublin has some of the safest roads in Europe, death rates much lower too....
What has happened recently though is people are been terrified into thinking another walking by is like a rat that's going to give them a disease..... Ye are walking, not spitting in each other faces so cop the hell on and stop jumping off the path into traffic, no wonder death rates went up....

Children should be minded and watched like you are a hawk obviously age dependent and how mature they are to understand crossing safely....


Roads are not play areas for their new bikes, e bikes or scooters....
Amount of this in my area and they shoot out from behind parked cars, corners that can't be seen out from hedges etc etc..... coming head on at you on wrong side.....

These 30km/h speed limits of course make sense in small or big estates where there isn't a chance of doing 50 safely but having the likes of leeson st at 30km/h where it's 4 lanes wide is beyond a joke...

CramCycle

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't care what pathetic excuses people make up for the 60kmh speed limit or pedantry over averages vs top speed, ive driven that road almost daily for the last 20 years and anyone who else who has lived along it for even a small period of time or driven on it regularly knows full well the speed limit of 60kmh is not obeyed by the vast majority of drivers because it is not a natural speed to drive at for a road of its design.

It's not obeyed because there is no enforcement, simples. Please stop using that "natural speed" phrase. It's weird and makes no sense. If they put in a green wave on the traffic lights as far as Cabinteely and it was set to a certain speed, that would become the "natural speed" or whatever phrase you want to use. From Donnybrook until Cabinteely there are numerous schools, houses, junctions (including right turns), bus stops. Do you really not see why they would have a lower speed limit until later on down the road?

Kermit.de.frog

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't care what pathetic excuses people make up for the 60kmh speed limit or pedantry over averages vs top speed, ive driven that road almost daily for the last 20 years and anyone who else who has lived along it for even a small period of time or driven on it regularly knows full well the speed limit of 60kmh is not obeyed by the vast majority of drivers because it is not a natural speed to drive at for a road of its design.

Agree completely.

It angers people when they are told to drive well below a road's speed capacity.

Of course it's going to be ignored, is ignored every day, and should be.

We have elections for people who try to enforce dumb ass things so we can toss them out. That's why there is no enforcement of patently stupid rules.

magicbastarder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It angers people when they are told to drive well below a road's speed capacity.

lots of things anger motorists, many of them legitimately. but being angered by being asked to sacrifice maybe a *minute* of your day by driving a little slower is a strange one though.

traffic lights also prevent you from driving at a nice steady 80km/h on the N11. i like to think your attitude about righteously violating the speed limits does not also apply to traffic lights. even though that must anger also?

Kermit.de.frog

magicbastarder wrote: »

lots of things anger motorists, many of them legitimately. but being angered by being asked to sacrifice maybe a *minute* of your day by driving a little slower is a strange one though.

traffic lights also prevent you from driving at a nice steady 80km/h on the N11. i like to think your attitude about righteously violating the speed limits does not also apply to traffic lights. even though that must anger also?

That's not the issue. The issue is when the intention is to anger motorists and it's obvious. Not about safety. These roads are specifically design for certain speeds and safety at those speeds.

It's only about annoying people on ideological grounds.

Nothing more.

PeadarCo

magicbastarder wrote: »

lots of things anger motorists, many of them legitimately. but being angered by being asked to sacrifice maybe a *minute* of your day by driving a little slower is a strange one though.

traffic lights also prevent you from driving at a nice steady 80km/h on the N11. i like to think your attitude about righteously violating the speed limits does not also apply to traffic lights. even though that must anger also?

To be fair while in the grand scheme of things changing the speed limit to 30km/hr would have minimal impact on journey times it's no good if its not adhered to.

If you want to change the speed limit to 30km/hr you also need to look at redesigning the road to encourage people to drive at that speed. A good example would be the strawberry beds along the liffey where all the speed ramps have made if very difficult to do any remotely high speed(also look at ramps in housing estates). It's an example of where changing the road design changed driver behaviour. That's not to say speed bumps are the solution in this case but you do have to look at road design and the type of driving/road use it encourages/facilities.

cnocbui

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be fair while in the grand scheme of things changing the speed limit to 30km/hr would have minimal impact on journey times it's no good if its not adhered to.

If you want to change the speed limit to 30km/hr you also need to look at redesigning the road to encourage people to drive at that speed. A good example would be the strawberry beds along the liffey where all the speed ramps have made if very difficult to do any remotely high speed(also look at ramps in housing estates). It's an example of where changing the road design changed driver behaviour. That's not to say speed bumps are the solution in this case but you do have to look at road design and the type of driving/road use it encourages/facilities.

Speed bumps are great if your house catches fire or you need an ambulance quickly.

PeadarCo

cnocbui wrote: »

Speed bumps are great if your house catches fire or you need an ambulance quickly.

If you actually read my post you will notice I specifically mentioned that speed bumps may not be the best solution in this case. So I don't understand your point. My point was if you want a 30km/hr speed limit you have to factor in road design and look at potential changes in addition to other factors. Speed bumps aren't the only way to slow traffic down and are not always appropriate.

magicbastarder

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be fair while in the grand scheme of things changing the speed limit to 30km/hr would have minimal impact on journey times it's no good if its not adhered to.

worth mentioning - my post was in response to one complaining about the 60km/h limit on much of the N11. not about any proposed 30km/h limit.

AndrewJRenko

cnocbui wrote: »

Speed bumps are great if your house catches fire or you need an ambulance quickly.

Funny how we don't see the emergency services complaining about them though?

They do frequently complain about how badly parked cars block their routes, if you follow DFB on Twitter.

Hamsterchops

punisher5112 wrote: »

Roads would be safer if people got off their phones, that includes driver's, pedestrians, cyclists, scooter users etc....

Agreed.

punisher5112 wrote: »

If people crossed at crossings correctly and actually took some personal responsibility for their own lives it would be one hell of a lot safer out there.

I agree.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Dublin has some of the safest roads in Europe, death rates much lower too...
Roads are not play areas for their new bikes, e bikes or scooters....
Amount of this in my area and they shoot out from behind parked cars, corners that can't be seen out from hedges etc etc..... coming head on at you on wrong side.....

Very true.

punisher5112 wrote: »

These 30km/h speed limits of course make sense in small or big estates where there isn't a chance of doing 50 safely but having the likes of leeson st at 30km/h where it's 4 lanes wide is beyond a joke...

I totally agree ✓

PeadarCo

magicbastarder wrote: »

worth mentioning - my post was in response to one complaining about the 60km/h limit on much of the N11. not about any proposed 30km/h limit.

I get your point. But one of the things that should be looked at is road design and the type of road behaviour it encourages. When other posters were saying it wasn't natural to go X speed because it felt too slow, I just think it raises an issue with how the road has been designed(potentially badly) . Or put it another way plenty of country back roads have a speed limit of 80km/hr but which is never reached because a driver would crash if they did that speed. The road design renders the official speed limit largely pointless in these situations.

You have the opposite issue in urban areas where the road design encourages speeds that maybe higher than desired. I think if you are looking at lowering speed limits in urban areas you also need to look at existing road design in the relevant areas and how it impacts road user behaviour pedestrians, bike, cars etc and if it needs to change.