A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

View

85603 wrote: »

I'm alright jack. I try to offer some objectivity but cyclists tend to be a cranky lot and it quickly descends to rhetoric, they're perpetually ready to be offended.

Thats why you have to go in dry, if you try to softly softly they'll just start playing games and eventually find offense. So facts up front.
Cyclists are de facto second class road users, and exist in a world designed for the motorist.
Dont believe me? have a look around. You need a roundabout that big? or a 100kmph limit sign? Why can all the bridges carry the weight of many tonnes of metal. None of its for you. Who's it all for?

If you can be honest and unemotional, and accept the objective reality it will alleviate much cycling related frustration. Dont shoot the messenger.

The overwhelming majority of the roads in the country were designed for horses and carts, not motorists. There was no need for (almost?) all of the rules of the roads, road signs etc until motorists arrived and started “elbowing” other road users out of their way.

85603

View wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the roads in the country were designed for horses and carts, not motorists. There was no need for (almost?) all of the rules of the roads, road signs etc until motorists arrived and started “elbowing” other road users out of their way.

Yep, its no longer 1720.

Also youre likely wrong too, since most of todays roads didnt exist back in horse cart days. Vast sections of external/suburban Dublin were just fields.
The vast majority of the roads in every new housing estate have only ever been primarily for cars.

View

85603 wrote: »

Yep, its no longer 1720.

Also youre likely wrong too, since most of todays roads didnt exist back in horse cart days. Vast sections of external/suburban Dublin were just fields.
The vast majority of the roads in every new housing estate have only ever been primarily for cars.

The vast majority of the major & minor roads in the country - ie those that carry the majority of traffic - predate the motor car. Roads in those “newer” housing estates in the suburbs were never designed or intended to carry large amounts of traffic, nor were they intended to be “car only” roads.

Were our roads designed for cars as you contend, our cities would look like LA, with 16 lane motorways, constant traffic jams and a “rush “hour” that last for four hours (each morning and evening). No Irish city even remotely approaches that (to the best of my knowledge only Belfast has significant amount of downtown motorways).

Seth Brundle

85603 wrote: »

Yep, its no longer 1720.

Also youre likely wrong too, since most of todays roads didnt exist back in horse cart days. Vast sections of external/suburban Dublin were just fields.
The vast majority of the roads in every new housing estate have only ever been primarily for cars.

So basically in your view, as urban planning (as decided by local councillors) was unsustainably centred around the car in the past, we need to continue with this policy regardless of all contrary evidence from international best practice?

85603

View wrote: »

The vast majority of the major & minor roads in the country - ie those that carry the majority of traffic - predate the motor car. Roads in those “newer” housing estates in the suburbs were never designed or intended to carry large amounts of traffic, nor were they intended to be “car only” roads.

Were our roads designed for cars as you contend, our cities would look like LA, with 16 lane motorways, constant traffic jams and a “rush “hour” that last for four hours (each morning and evening). No Irish city even remotely approaches that (to the best of my knowledge only Belfast has significant amount of downtown motorways).

So what?

Your life as you know it depends on the primacy of the motorist. Every time you need a piece of furniture delivered, or a trade to visit, or a gate put up its not some lad on a bike who arrives sweating with a radiator strapped to his back after 2 days travel.

The govt doesn't so much write down that the car is all important as they do infer it by action and construction.
Our roads have kerbs designed with motor vehicle wheels in mind, the traffic lights are timed to distances travelled by motorists, the speed limit signs are for speeds unexpected of most other vehicles, the widths of lanes are suspiciously similar to what a car might need.

cyclists have legal access to this network, but the defacto reality is that many parts are not meant for cyclists. so when a narky cyclist goes on social media whinging about a truck blasting past him its hard to not think 'well yeah obviously'. if you could think beyond your best time or how eco friendly you're being you'd know better. dont practice your sport at 4 oclock on the only road between the factory and the port.

but try getting through to him. you'll just hear about rights. a canoeist has rights, the right to paddle out in a storm for example.

85603

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So basically in your view, as urban planning (as decided by local councillors) was unsustainably centred around the car in the past, we need to continue with this policy regardless of all contrary evidence from international best practice?

I believe those were my exact words Cathy Newman, yes.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I am a motorist though. Of course I'm going to be worried by the idiot drivers I see all around me speeding, phoning, texting...

Considering Irish and global road safety statistics, methinks you're worried a little too easily. I know when I'm driving (or walking for that matter) I don't live in terror of all the supposedly horrible drivers. And the data suggests I'm correct in this.

crooked cockney villain

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'll bite.

You're driving a one tonne plus vehicle and you have a duty of care to other more vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians, both who will come off much worse than you in your metal box should you both collide.

What's difficult to understand about this?

But nobody can explain why it is on the motorist to drive at snails pace to accommodate ignorant pedestrians and cyclists. What do we owe them? Every time this country is hit by a big storm there's always video of some clown going for a swim off a pier in Galway and the general consensus is that they deserve to die and rescue services would do well not to bother looking for them if they get into trouble. Why shouldn't we hold devil may care pedestrians and cyclists in the same contempt?

These arguments always have some tool claiming that motorists do not have preferential use of the road. This is nonsense. If you disagree, try walking a few miles in the middle of the road instead of the footpath and see how long it takes before you're arrested for public order/ endangerment.

silverharp

I live off the Strand road in Sandymount, have to say I like the 30KM limit, I can jay walk with more confidence now, though I think any pretence of driving near 30km goes in the evening

Seth Brundle

silverharp wrote: »

I live off the Strand road in Sandymount, have to say I like the 30KM limit, I can jay walk with more confidence now, though I think any pretence of driving near 30km goes in the evening

Jay walk? Do you mean that you can now cross the road?

silverharp

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Jay walk? Do you mean that you can now cross the road?

do you have an English comprehension problem?

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

But nobody can explain why it is on the motorist to drive at snails pace to accommodate ignorant pedestrians and cyclists. What do we owe them?

The reason is fairly obvious - because no-one should be killing someone else - someone's husband or wife, someone's mother or father, someone's daughter or son - simply because they use a different mode of transport.

Do you need a better reason?

SeanW wrote: »

Considering Irish and global road safety statistics, methinks you're worried a little too easily. I know when I'm driving (or walking for that matter) I don't live in terror of all the supposedly horrible drivers. And the data suggests I'm correct in this.

This is quite hilarious, coming from the guy who claims to be terrified of menacing, threatening cyclists every time he exits his front door.
Have you not looked at the Irish and global road safety statistics for deaths and injuries caused by cyclists?

Motorists continue to kill 2 or 3 people each week on Irish roads.

85603 wrote: »

So what?

Your life as you know it depends on the primacy of the motorist. Every time you need a piece of furniture delivered, or a trade to visit, or a gate put up its not some lad on a bike who arrives sweating with a radiator strapped to his back after 2 days travel.

The govt doesn't so much write down that the car is all important as they do infer it by action and construction.
Our roads have kerbs designed with motor vehicle wheels in mind, the traffic lights are timed to distances travelled by motorists, the speed limit signs are for speeds unexpected of most other vehicles, the widths of lanes are suspiciously similar to what a car might need.

You're broadly correct here, in that we've suffered from decades of car-dominated planning and policy, and we're now paying the price in terms of traffic chaos, pollution and poor public health.

85603 wrote: »

cyclists have legal access to this network, but the defacto reality is that many parts are not meant for cyclists. so when a narky cyclist goes on social media whinging about a truck blasting past him its hard to not think 'well yeah obviously'. if you could think beyond your best time or how eco friendly you're being you'd know better. dont practice your sport at 4 oclock on the only road between the factory and the port.

but try getting through to him. you'll just hear about rights. a canoeist has rights, the right to paddle out in a storm for example.

Cyclists have legal access to this network, and the defacto reality is that cyclists have legal rights to this network. If you're unable to safely share the roads with other legal road users, maybe driving isn't for you.

crooked cockney villain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The reason is fairly obvious - because no-one should be killing someone else - someone's husband or wife, someone's mother or father, someone's daughter or son - simply because they use a different mode of transport.

.

But why do we owe a duty of care to ignorant pedestrians? Why should I have my commute nearly doubled, my free time cut considerably, to make the roads safer for some ignorant coont who can't follow the rules of a rhyme (the Safe Cross Code) that is taught to five year olds? What do we owe a cyclist who insists on blasting music in their earphones, using their phone while cycling, who can't be bothered glancing backwards when moving out?

I bring it back again to the people who insist on going sea swimming in the middle of a red alert storm. Why should society be responsible for people who can't take personal responsibility?

Happydays2020

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

But why do we owe a duty of care to ignorant pedestrians? Why should I have my commute nearly doubled, my free time cut considerably, to make the roads safer for some ignorant coont who can't follow the rules of a rhyme (the Safe Cross Code) that is taught to five year olds? What do we owe a cyclist who insists on blasting music in their earphones, using their phone while cycling, who can't be bothered glancing backwards when moving out?

I bring it back again to the people who insist on going sea swimming in the middle of a red alert storm. Why should society be responsible for people who can't take personal responsibility?

Will it be halved. Do you actually get to go at 60kph consistently?

crooked cockney villain

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Will it be halved. Do you actually get to go at 60kph consistently?

All but halved. 50 to 30.

Anyone know when the vote is? By my count there are 25 councillors likely to vote yes (Green ****, PBP, Labour tend to be a party that would support daft moves like this), there are 10 independents dunno what way they swing.

Seth Brundle

silverharp wrote: »

do you have an English comprehension problem?

I do not. However, what you describe as Jay walking is not an offence. You are describing people crossing a road.

Seth Brundle

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

But why do we owe a duty of care to ignorant pedestrians?

We live in a society. Being a member of a society means that you have a duty of care to everyone.

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

What do we owe a cyclist who insists on blasting music in their earphones, using their phone while cycling, who can't be bothered glancing backwards when moving out?

Are they using their phone or blasting music in their earphones? Either way, how does it affect you passing them? You've seen them so surely any potential endangerment can easily be avoided.

crooked cockney villain

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We live in a society. Being a member of a society means that you have a duty of care to everyone.

No, it doesn't. If that was the case we would stay in lockdown forever to protect the people who refuse a vaccine.

Are they using their phone or blasting music in their earphones? Either way, how does it affect you passing them? You've seen them so surely any potential endangerment can easily be avoided.

Ignorant behavior like this causes distraction, makes them more likely to pull into traffic without looking around them. We do not owe these gobshytes anything, and ideally they would be subject to licenses, points and road bans.

silverharp

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I do not. However, what you describe as Jay walking is not an offence. You are describing people crossing a road.

well if you are a wiki editor or know one, off you pop and amend this entry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Ireland

Ireland
Ireland maintains a jaywalking law, which requires a pedestrian to use a pedestrian crossing if they are within 50 metres (160 ft) of one. When crossing a road, pedestrians are advised to wait until it is safe to cross. Vehicles should give way to the pedestrian who uses a zebra crossing. Irish children are taught the Road Safety Authority safe cross code in schools where it teaches them to stop, listen, and look out for any incoming traffic whilst crossing a road and only cross a road if safe to do so. It also advises them to use traffic lights and zebra crossings to cross a road rather than jaywalk. The Garda Síochána usually do not take action on jaywalkers unless they caused possible harm to drivers or others.[27]

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

But why do we owe a duty of care to ignorant pedestrians? Why should I have my commute nearly doubled, my free time cut considerably, to make the roads safer for some ignorant coont who can't follow the rules of a rhyme (the Safe Cross Code) that is taught to five year olds? What do we owe a cyclist who insists on blasting music in their earphones, using their phone while cycling, who can't be bothered glancing backwards when moving out?

I bring it back again to the people who insist on going sea swimming in the middle of a red alert storm. Why should society be responsible for people who can't take personal responsibility?

Is it okay to kill bad drivers on the road? If you or your spouse or your adult child or your elderly parent make a mistake while driving, is it okay with you if the approaching pick-up truck or HGV flattens them and their vehicle to avoid delaying their important journey?

crooked cockney villain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it okay to kill bad drivers on the road? If you or your spouse or your adult child or your elderly parent make a mistake while driving, is it okay with you if the approaching pick-up truck or HGV flattens them and their vehicle to avoid delaying their important journey?

What are you suggesting here?

There are people out there sauntering around with a "the driver won't kill me" attitude. Why should we suffer to protect them?

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

What are you suggesting here?

There are people out there sauntering around with a "the driver won't kill me" attitude. Why should we suffer to protect them?

Why should the HGV driver suffer delays from your spouse or your child or your parent sauntering around in their Micra? Surely the busy, important trucker should be allowed flatten them and their vehicles if they get held up at all by your relative?

crooked cockney villain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should the HGV driver suffer delays from your spouse or your child or your parent sauntering around in their Micra? Surely the busy, important trucker should be allowed flatten them and their vehicles if they get held up at all by your relative?

Whataboutery nonsense.

This "the roads are for everyone equally" nonsense. The roads are for the primary use of motorists. That is why if you insist on walking on the middle of the road instead of the footpath you will get yourself arrested.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should the HGV driver suffer delays from your spouse or your child or your parent sauntering around in their Micra? Surely the busy, important trucker should be allowed flatten them and their vehicles if they get held up at all by your relative?

But that's not the argument he's putting forward. Cycist holding someone up is not the same as cyclist randomly swerves in front of car, but is still the victim.


Many a truck has ploughed a micra off the road over the years, but the micra wasn't instinctively the victim all the time because it was a more vulnerable road user.


By your logic, if a Micra deliberately pulls out in front of an articulated truck, and the truck hits it, the truck is the one at fault, because the Micra didn't consider anyone but itself.

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

Whataboutery nonsense.

This "the roads are for everyone equally" nonsense. The roads are for the primary use of motorists. That is why if you insist on walking on the middle of the road instead of the footpath you will get yourself arrested.

Nonsense indeed, you're right about that.

Btw, see if you can work out how much you are delayed by cyclists and pedestrians vs how much you are delayed by other drivers of mostly 80% empty vehicles, mostly doing short journeys that could easily be walked or cycled.

You might be surprised. If you want less delays in traffic, you should be promoting and encouraging people to switch from driving to cycling, instead of threatening to kill people with your massive sense of entitlement.

And please do hand in your driving licence to the relevant authorities. You are clearly in no fit state to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a public road.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So basically in your view, as urban planning (as decided by local councillors) was unsustainably centred around the car in the past, we need to continue with this policy regardless of all contrary evidence from international best practice?

What's the unsustainable part? Even if there were no cars, they all disappeared overnight, if you build a new housing estate, you still need to build a road to connect it to civilisation.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

But that's not the argument he's putting forward. Cycist holding someone up is not the same as cyclist randomly swerves in front of car, but is still the victim.


Many a truck has ploughed a micra off the road over the years, but the micra wasn't instinctively the victim all the time because it was a more vulnerable road user.


By your logic, if a Micra deliberately pulls out in front of an articulated truck, and the truck hits it, the truck is the one at fault, because the Micra didn't consider anyone but itself.

The arguement he's putting forward is that it should be OK for drivers to kill cyclists or pedestrians if they hold up drivers.

crooked cockney villain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The arguement he's putting forward is that it should be OK for drivers to kill cyclists or pedestrians if they hold up drivers.

The argument is actually that I shouldn't have my free time after work impacted by a 30km speed limit to protect the lives of grown adults who are incapable of responsible road usage.

How many lives are we even talking here? When was the last time a pedestrian was killed by a car on any of the roads this limit will apply to, by a motorist who was obeying the law?

This is the type of sick bastards you are dealing with. Hijacking the deaths of children for their wimpy little 30km cause.

twitter.com/GalwayCycling/status/1395334254884753411

These vermin have absolutely no idea of the circumstances of these incidents, whether the drivers were speeding or not. FFS one girl mentioned on their list was hit by a slow moving reversing bus. What does that have to do with a 30km limit? You can bet your life that they don't have the parents permission, and you can also bet none of the parents remotely approve of this nonsense. It is for woke Green party voters, nobody else.

Absolute scum is what we are dealing with here.

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's the unsustainable part? Even if there were no cars, they all disappeared overnight, if you build a new housing estate, you still need to build a road to connect it to civilisation.

It really isn't a difficult statement to understand...
"So basically in your view, as urban planning (as decided by local councillors) was unsustainably centred around the car in the past, we need to continue with this policy regardless of all contrary evidence from international best practice?"
Designing urban areas around the car does not mean that cars should be excluded but that they should not be prioritised, which has been the case in Ireland to date.
More and more cities around the world are realising this and reallocating space on this basis. This makes urban areas safer and healthier for people. It also improves trade for local businesses. The evidence that it works is out there in abundance.

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

The argument is actually that I shouldn't have my free time after work impacted by a 30km speed limit to protect the lives of grown adults who are incapable of responsible road usage.

How many lives are we even talking here? When was the last time a pedestrian was killed by a car on any of the roads this limit will apply to, by a motorist who was obeying the law?

Perhaps you haven't tried looking around much on your journeys, but what actually impacts your free time after work is the number of single occupancy cars being driven for short journeys that could easily be walked or cycled.
So it OK for vehicles to kill or maim those who are incapable of irresponsible road usage?

You've constructed this strawman arguement about people walking in the middle of the road for discussion about city speed limits. Maybe you'd like to stay on topic?

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

This is the type of sick bastards you are dealing with. Hijacking the deaths of children for their wimpy little 30km cause.

twitter.com/GalwayCycling/status/1395334254884753411

These vermin have absolutely no idea of the circumstances of these incidents, whether the drivers were speeding or not. FFS one girl mentioned on their list was hit by a slow moving reversing bus. What does that have to do with a 30km limit? You can bet your life that they don't have the parents permission, and you can also bet none of the parents remotely approve of this nonsense. It is for woke Green party voters, nobody else.

Absolute scum is what we are dealing with here.

No mention of the 30kmph issue in that tweet. Given that it's coming from Galway, it's a fair bet that they're not too invested in the 30 kmph issue in Dublin. I haven't heard of any suggestion of a 30 kmph proposal in Galway.

So no, they're not addressing the 'wimpy 30 kmph cause'. They're just calling on drivers to stop killing children.

But it is interesting to note your venom and invective. I guess if you've enjoyed the privilege of having the environment designed around your personal transport choices for decades, any slight measure of rebalancing to consider the needs of the whole population can seem like an attack.