A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

Dravokivich

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have an email from DCC stating that they don't use zebra crossings much because they're poorly defined in irish law. IIRC, a pedestrian does not have right of way on them until they actually put a foot on it; which is pointless as it's supposed to present a pedestrian priority crossing, but you're expecting the ped to put a foot out onto a road where there's aleady approaching traffic (which is probematic), or wait until the road is clear (and this second option renders the crossing pointless)

I'm not too sure what would be poorly defined there. Did they go into it at all? What might catch some people out is when a road is split by a median or an island, each section is a separate road. So this becomes more of an education matter.

But regarding zebra crossings. There's a pedestrian crossing of the top of my head on Parnell St (across from cineworld) with lights for vehicles, but not for the pedestrians. If they won't do zebra crossings becuase they are afraid people don't know how to use them and it'll be difficult to defend themselves, how do they wind up with the Parnell St scenario? I wouldn't be surprised if people familiar with other sections of the city have seen something similar.

magicbastarder

andrew montague raised the question on my behalf, here is the response. as you can see, it was four years ago, i'm not aware whether any laws have changed since, but i doubt it:

Question to the Chief Executive
Council Meeting 04th JULY 2016
Q.85 COUNCILLOR ANDREW MONTAGUE
Can the Chief Executive install a zebra crossing at Castlemarket at the junction with South William Street?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPLY:
Dublin City Council does not recommend Zebra crossings as they may provide a false sense of safety for pedestrians. In Ireland, a pedestrian does not have the right-of-way until they have already stepped onto a Zebra crossing. For this reason Dublin City Council’s preferred option is for crossings where the onus is unambiguously on the driver to stop.

The location is listed for examination and report by the Traffic Advisory Group. The Councillor will be informed of the recommendation in due course.

Seth Brundle

Dravokivich wrote: »

Its what I see when driving. The lower speed limit sections in the city have more people coming out onto the roads without looking. The sections with 50kph, people generally always look before they step onto the road. Their behaviour has changed in because they think it's safer in those environments. We've encouraged carelessness by proxy.

ehm... why did you ask about conversations overheard in a pub?

oh so now it's something you've seen because a short while ago you referred to it as being something "we've told people"...

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not something that happens and is more likely to with lower speed limits becuase we've told people they dont have to be responsible when walking about.

So I was correct in asking you where you have heard someone being told that they don't need to be responsible when out walking.
In summary, you were talking crap!

Dravokivich

magicbastarder wrote: »

andrew montague raised the question on my behalf, here is the response. as you can see, it was four years ago, i'm not aware whether any laws have changed since, but i doubt it:

where the onus is unambiguously on the driver to stop.

The crossing I mentioned has always been the way it is. It's installation pre-dates that question. And nothing has been done to align it to the councils position referenced in the answer. It's also in one of the original 30kph zones. Shows all they are doing is slowing drivers, but not working to improve facilities for pedestrians.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

oh so now it's something you've seen because a short while ago you referred to it as being something "we've told people"...

So I was correct in asking you where you have heard someone being told that they don't need to be responsible when out walking.
In summary, you were talking crap!

I'm not talking crap. There's been someone else who's posting here saying the same thing. Try reading my other posts in this thread. If pedestrian safety is the concern. What are they doing to aid pedestrians?

Seth Brundle

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not talking crap. There's been someone else who's posting here saying the same thing. Try reading my other posts in this thread.

Nobody has ever told pedestrians that "they dont have to be responsible when walking about" so you were posting nonsense.

Dravokivich wrote: »

If pedestrian safety is the concern. What are they doing to aid pedestrians?

I'm not sure if it's solely for pedestrian safety but for all road users.
However, in the city centre they're making more space for pedestrians and at the same time they are rolling out more segregated cycle lanes...
https://twitter.com/DubCityCouncil/status/1268476293869420545

Seth Brundle

Just as an FYI (and I guess a knowing wind up of some), some SDCC councillors are also considering reviewing speed limits following the DCC Transport Ctte's review...

https://twitter.com/cllrbarrysaul/status/1268221194664382465

Hurrache

Dravokivich wrote: »

What are they doing to aid pedestrians?

They gave pedestrians more road space in some areas, putting down wands to distinguish the space from the road. Those wands were subsequently driven over by vans, trucks, or just parked between, negating all the good work the council did for the pedestrians.

Hotblack Desiato

double jobbing wrote: »

To think the law is being brought in for the benefit of cyclists. The biggest bunch of rulebreaking ignorant no test no taxed ****ers on the road.

On the footpath, usually, these days.

Bring in cycle lanes instead of stupid 30km/h speed limits. But that would involve the council actually having to do something.

punisher5112

Great idea put in more wands so cyclists will just stay out on the road

kenmm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Let me clarify in the comments I made, as a bus driver we have a particular set of skills.... This is reading the road ahead, beside and behind....

In near 80% of the time we know when the person is going to step out, run out or can see the cyclist will change direction before they even decided to.


What's happening more over this unforseen pandemic is the amount now that don't look and give no pre warning they are going to do stupid things.


And for the stupid comments made towards me, yes of course I can see the kids and know they are wobbly and could swerve so won't pass until I can give much more room then usual if that makes sense to you.


It's serious out there and one thing I've noticed with the 30km/h speed limits is more pedestrian and cyclists take bigger risks and will just walk out or cycle across in front.

Clarification wasn't needed tbh - the other comment was pedantry.

And not reading the road ahead (actually general lack of awareness) is the biggest issue I see on the roads. Not just professional drivers like yourself should practice these skills, its for everyone that uses the roads. The ped that steps out, the cyclist with full headphones (seriously wtf), the cars at lights texting and messing up the timings of the lights, the late brakers not looking behind before jamming on, the close pass drivers close overtaking to race to the red light 100m ahead etc etc etc.

Have a campaign to improve awareness and hazard perception and a lot of other issues on the roads will fall away..


But thats not taxable via "go safe" vans, doesn't make a good headline and makes for boring threads. Much more entertaining to categorise each other and start the name calling.

Hotblack Desiato

Hurrache wrote: »

I think someone asked what difference it would make

Cars have brakes. This just assumes that the driver is basically comatose or something. Nice graph but not representative of reality.

Hotblack Desiato

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well yes why stop at 30, we should be aiming at having less and less cars on the road, then speed limits wouldn't be an issue, especially in areas where there are lots of cyclists and pedestrians.

You want less cars (and so do I) but you, DCC and the government are providing no alternative.
Bus service is crap.
DART and Luas jam packed and don't serve most of the city anyway.
No metro.
Few proper cycling lanes.
Not even proper footpaths in many parts of the city centre.

Dr. Bre

Stay at home

kenmm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Cars have brakes. This just assumes that the driver is basically comatose or something. Nice graph but not representative of reality.

The graph is representative of reality and you are also right (if what you mean is people don't pay enough attention and that may actually cause as many accidents).

This may be true, but instead of focusing on that (as per my above post) its easier to have a nice easy rule (lower speed limit) that more people can understand.
That (I assume)is what the powers that be believe will have the knock on effect of fewer deaths on the roads. But really it also serves other purposes (more speed van revenue, discouraging car use in the city, raising awareness).

Hotblack Desiato

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Nobody has ever told pedestrians that "they dont have to be responsible when walking about" so you were posting nonsense.

Yet a few posts above you Stark is suggesting that they can just step out into the road, and 30km/h makes this somehow safe.

Hurrache

punisher5112 wrote: »

Great idea put in more wands so cyclists will just stay out on the road

As a bus driver, how do you not understand, or have seen, any of these wands and how they're used for both pedestrians and cycle lanes?

punisher5112

Hurrache wrote: »

As a bus driver, how do you not understand, or have seen, any of these wands and how they're used for both pedestrians and cycle lanes?

What are you on about

Seth Brundle

kenmm wrote: »

The ped that steps out, the cyclist with full headphones (seriously wtf), the cars at lights texting and messing up the timings of the lights, the late brakers not looking behind before jamming on, the close pass drivers close overtaking to race to the red light 100m ahead etc etc etc.

Out of curiosity, why the "seriously wtf" for a cyclist with headphones (which I am not encouraging but has negligible effect on the safety) but not similar expression for the law breaking and unsafe drivers?
If I cycle whilst listening to music, how am I going to injure someone (assuming I'm being as observant as I would be normally)? If I am listening to music, how will that stop a passing car from driving too close? It's somewhat of a strawman argument!

kenmm

Hurrache wrote: »

As a bus driver, how do you not understand, or have seen, any of these wands and how they're used for both pedestrians and cycle lanes?

I think the point is - tarting up crappy old bus lanes with those wands isnt working - and from what punisher is witnessing is that more cyclists are staying out in thr driving lanes. They do understand their usage - but the reality of how they are being used differs from what the planners originally thought.

I think they are terrible, as a cyclists upon entering them has the choice - enter and be restricted to ~15kmph (or whatever the slowest cyclist is doing ahead, as they are so narrow there is no room fro overtaking) or stay out of the cycle lane and stick to ~30kmph, which is often slower than the traffic, but with the freedom to overtake, turn right etc.

kenmm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why the "seriously wtf" for a cyclist with headphones (which I am not encouraging but has negligible effect on the safety) but not similar expression for the law breaking and unsafe drivers?
If I cycle whilst listening to music, how am I going to injure someone (assuming I'm being as observant as I would be normally)? If I am listening to music, how will that stop a passing car from driving too close? It's somewhat of a strawman argument!

try not to focus on tiny point but look at the wider message - I gave an example of a few acts of what I see as having a lack of awareness - full ear covering cans on the road (in my mind) is as stupid as driving through a city with the volume up full whack.

I am deliberately not making this an "us vs them" statement, like every other thread on this godforsaken corner of the internet.

If you want to get into it tho - listening to loud music will not (of course) stop a car from close passing you, but you are more likely to be aware of it (hazzard perception, which was my point) by using all of your senses. By deliberate deadening one of your main senses you cannot possible be just as observant.

Seth Brundle

kenmm wrote: »

I think the point is - tarting up crappy old bus lanes with those wands isnt working - and from what punisher is witnessing is that more cyclists are staying out in thr driving lanes. They do understand their usage - but the reality of how they are being used differs from what the planners originally thought.

I think they are terrible, as a cyclists upon entering them has the choice - enter and be restricted to ~15kmph (or whatever the slowest cyclist is doing ahead, as they are so narrow there is no room fro overtaking) or stay out of the cycle lane and stick to ~30kmph, which is often slower than the traffic, but with the freedom to overtake, turn right etc.

Firstly they haven't been tested properly because most people are still staying at home.
However, the still is a complete lack of enforcement; partly because the enforcers tend to ignore them also...


This does not mean that we should not have them if the choice is between a wand segregated cycle lane and cyclists mixing directly with traffic.
However, yes, some cyclists may choose to stay in the regular lane, as is their right. But given the number of "new" cyclists out there, we need some way that allows them to feel safe.

kenmm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Firstly they haven't been tested properly because most people are still staying at home.
However, the still is a complete lack of enforcement; partly because the enforcers tend to ignore them also...


This does not mean that we should not have them if the choice is between a wand segregated cycle lane and cyclists mixing directly with traffic.
However, yes, some cyclists may choose to stay in the regular lane, as is their right. But given the number of "new" cyclists out there, we need some way that allows them to feel safe.

ye fair enough - more testing required is what I will say then.

That pic is brilliant tho

Tea drinker

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'd say the most ignorant ones on the road are the cars killing and maiming people, bikes are totally harmless in comparison

I saw a cyclist cycle out of his house in an effort to cross 2 lanes of traffic.
If I hadn't spotted him and directed him in front of the car he would have been absolutely creamed by a garbage truck in front of his house. That was fairly ignorant on his part.
I absolutely hate that "im going to kill or injure myself unless you yield to me" attitude some road users have, not exclusively bikers.

Amirani

punisher5112 wrote: »

Great idea put in more wands so cyclists will just stay out on the road

Tried that already, car drivers keep destroying them when they park over them. Maybe if certain car drivers refrained from doing stuff like that then more measures wouldn't be needed.

punisher5112

Amirani wrote: »

Tried that already, car drivers keep destroying them when they park over them. Maybe if certain car drivers refrained from doing stuff like that then more measures wouldn't be needed.

But cycle lanes for up till now we're free game for parking after 7pm and even others from 10 to 12 or up to 4pm at times....

Bus lanes, bus stops and clearway actually kept clear would really speed up public transport.

magicbastarder

punisher5112 wrote: »

But cycle lanes for up till now we're free game for parking after 7pm and even others from 10 to 12 or up to 4pm at times....

i will always go back to the fact that *by far* the worst bus lane/cycle lane within several km of my house, for people parking in during the operational hours of the bus lane, is the one directly outside the front door of the local garda station.

punisher5112

magicbastarder wrote: »

i will always go back to the fact that *by far* the worst bus lane/cycle lane within several km of my house, for people parking in during the operational hours of the bus lane, is the one directly outside the front door of the local garda station.

Rathmines?

Shefwedfan

Just shut down the entire city centre in Dublin to traffic, start at the castleknock gates and draw a big circle in both directions. Then based on that anything inside it just stop all traffic apart from bus/train/taxi/bike etc. Job done.

Next one please

PommieBast

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Just shut down the entire city centre in Dublin to traffic, start at the castleknock gates and draw a big circle in both directions. Then based on that anything inside it just stop all traffic apart from bus/train/taxi/bike etc. Job done.

Next one please

You forgot that city centre shops need deliveries..

Shefwedfan

PommieBast wrote: »

You forgot that city centre shops need deliveries..

Most shops are now getting deliveries at night time....

Most large construction sites now get deliveries at night time as well. You could easily have traffic open during the night time if large deliveries are required....

If you have a will you will find a way

PommieBast

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Most shops are now getting deliveries at night time....

You didn't mention time limits first time round :P

punisher5112

Big issue is road sweeping, bin trucks, deliveries(where to load or unload),
Getting in or out of bus stops as buses are quite large....

Shefwedfan

punisher5112 wrote: »

Big issue is road sweeping, bin trucks, deliveries(where to load or unload),
Getting in or out of bus stops as buses are quite large....

Road sweepers are tiny, not sure why you would want a big one in a city centre

Bin trucks are once a week

Deliveries should be done at night anyway if large deliveries, Tesco etc all do at nighttime.

punisher5112

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Road sweepers are tiny, not sure why you would want a big one in a city centre

Bin trucks are once a week

Deliveries should be done at night anyway if large deliveries, Tesco etc all do at nighttime.

The road sweepers don't fit, have watched the smaller ones too....

Shefwedfan

punisher5112 wrote: »

The road sweepers don't fit, have watched the smaller ones too....

What road are they sweeping? :-)

Tell the lad to get out with the brush will do his heath the world of good

Chiparus

punisher5112 wrote: »

Let me clarify in the comments I made, as a bus driver we have a particular set of skills.... This is reading the road ahead, beside and behind....

In near 80% of the time we know when the person is going to step out, run out or can see the cyclist will change direction before they even decided to.


What's happening more over this unforseen pandemic is the amount now that don't look and give no pre warning they are going to do stupid things.


And for the stupid comments made towards me, yes of course I can see the kids and know they are wobbly and could swerve so won't pass until I can give much more room then usual if that makes sense to you.


It's serious out there and one thing I've noticed with the 30km/h speed limits is more pedestrian and cyclists take bigger risks and will just walk out or cycle across in front.

If you are doing 30kmph or less you can stop in a shorter distance.

magicbastarder

punisher5112 wrote: »

Rathmines?

ballymun. there are never not cars parked in it.

donvito99

Is there anything to suggest that, if we return to pre-COVID levels of rush hour traffic, that the 30kph speed limit would make any difference to journey time at all?

Shefwedfan

donvito99 wrote: »

Is there anything to suggest that, if we return to pre-COVID levels of rush hour traffic, that the 30kph speed limit would make any difference to journey time at all?

F**k all....if you are doing 30kph you are flying in :-)

donvito99

I think the only ones likely to be nabbed are motorcyclists and cyclists. All the drivers will be crawling along, you could have a 15kph limit and they'd still be safe midweek.

punisher5112

Chiparus wrote: »

If you are doing 30kmph or less you can stop in a shorter distance.

True but not if they step out a foot or two in front of you.

magicbastarder

donvito99 wrote: »

I think the only ones likely to be nabbed are motorcyclists and cyclists.

nabbed for what? there's no speed limit for cyclists.

Vestiapx

magicbastarder wrote: »

nabbed for what? there's no speed limit for cyclists.

is that true ? I'm a cyclist, and a motorist, and a pedestrian, i'm a person and i have very little opinion on whether it is a good or bad thing that there is no speed limit for bikes but i do find it a strange one. Is it because bikes don't have to have speedometers?

donvito99

Vestiapx wrote: »

is that true ? I'm a cyclist, and a motorist, and a pedestrian, i'm a person and i have very little opinion on whether it is a good or bad thing that there is no speed limit for bikes but i do find it a strange one. Is it because bikes don't have to have speedometers?

They're not MPVs i.e. no engines.

magicbastarder

yep, they're not required to have speedos, and cyclists 'speeding' was never historically an issue anyway. certainly before the first 30km/h limits were adopted, it'd take a very fit cyclist to beat 50km/h on the flat, and even with that, the amount of kinetic energy they'd be carrying compared to a car is very small.

Vestiapx

donvito99 wrote: »

They're not MPVs i.e. no engines.

I have an electric bike with narrow tyres its within the current legal spec, but its a very fast and easy way to get up to 25kmph and in can easilly do 35kmph.

I know this from using an app on my phone, I also know that if I'm overtaking all the 30kmph traffic that there will be a backlash from the anti cyclists. Will my bike then be MPV although I wont be using the power over 25kmph?

magicbastarder

no, as it meets current legal standards for an e-bike, legally it's considered a pedal cycle.

Hamsterchops

km/h

...is the correct abbreviation.

magicbastarder

there are multiple correct abbreviations.
km/h is the SI unit, but since people know what is meant by kmph, it's not an issue.

Vestiapx

Hamsterchops wrote: »

km/h

...is the correct abbreviation.

its the SI abbreviation its not the only one

from wiki


Abbreviations for "kilometres per hour" did not appear in the English language until the late nineteenth century.

The kilometre, a unit of length, first appeared in English in 1810,[3] and the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was in use in the US by 1866.[4] "Kilometres per hour" did not begin to be abbreviated in print until many years later, with several different abbreviations existing near-contemporaneously.

1889: "k. p. h."[5]
1895: "km:h"[6]
1898: "km/h"[7]
1899: "km./hr." [8]
1900: "kms./hr."[9]
1902: "k.m.p.h."[10]
1903: "KMph."[11]
1910: "km ph"[12]
1911: "K.P.H."[13]
1914: "km. hr."[14]
1915: "km/hour"[15]
1915: "km.-hr."[15]
1916: "km. per hour"[16]
1921: "kms/hr."[17]
1922: "Kmph"[18]
1927: "kmph."[19]
1933: "KPH"[20]
1939: "kmph"[21]