A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

meeeeh

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It's the people driving in Dublin holding up the rest of us who cycle or walk or take the bus. We need to crack down on private car journeys into the city centre as much as possible.

You can just pedestrianize parts of it. However unless you offer different options you don't solve anything. I really don't see what difference 30kmph makesif everything else stays the same.

magicbastarder

is_that_so wrote: »

Your post suggests that it is the traffic density at the heart of it, it's not really. A long commute and long commuting time are not the same thing.

educate me, so?
why is traffic in dublin so slow at rush hour, frequently slower than walking pace?

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

because of the volume of traffic along the quays, because the 'dublin city centre traders alliance' aka 'the multi storey car park owners club' are threatening them with legal action, etc.

the problem is that in general, the people who benefit most from the likes of a decent liffey cycle route are often not resident in the areas where the route would be located.
if i'm cycling in to the IFSC from dublin 15, i'm the one to benefit.
but my councillor won't give a toss about working for it, because it's not in his ward - hell, it's not even in his council; and a councillor based in say stoneybatter won't give a toss either because i can't vote for him or her, so there's no votes to be gained by putting infrastructure in for me.

Wasn't an option of elected major floated about a few years ago and dismissed? That's what you get when nimbys run the city.

Hurrache

spurious wrote: »

It's cretinous.

'Proposal' like all the other whacko proposals.
Major shooting in foot by Greens going on.

Why do people use the silly excuse to blame it on the greens, when the greens don't control the councils bringing in all these proposals?

meeeeh

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The amount of whining on this thread is unreal.
People saying how this will be damaging to the economy whilst others saying how it will be ignored. Make up your mind FFS :rolleyes:

You do realize that people who don't agree with you are capable of different opinions?

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

Wasn't an option of elected major floated about a few years ago and dismissed? That's what you get when nimbys run the city.

yeah, it's gained traction in other parts of the country, but is still only a partial fix in the context of the specific example above, because someone cycling in from D15 lives in fingal council area, not a DCC area. depending on the mayor, they may still put the wishes (for good or ill) of a stoneybatter resident above those of a blanchardstown resident.

Hurrache

jams100 wrote: »

As someone who doesn't cycle why the f**k does it take them 4 years to build a cycle lane along the quays?

Because of carpark owners threatening legal action, and people whinging about how it will affect motorists. That's basically it.

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, it's gained traction in other parts of the country, but is still only a partial fix in the context of the specific example above, because someone cycling in from D15 lives in fingal council area, not a DCC area. depending on the mayor, they may still put the wishes (for good or ill) of a stoneybatter resident above those of a blanchardstown resident.

Weren't the councils supposed to merge too and that was dismissed? I have very little sympathy for complaints about traffic in Dublin when everything is done to cater to very small interest groups. Of course the traders will have strong sway, they pay rates and contribute to funds. Councilors to tending to their mickey mouse patch are irrelevant in the context of the whole city and all they can come up with are irrelevant changes.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

Because of carpark owners threatening legal action, and people whinging about how it will affect motorists. That's basically it.

Maybe if councilors didn't lower property tax there would be a bit more non commercial income into the council but when you play populist politics the paymaster can decide what you can or can not do.

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

You do realize that people who don't agree with you are capable of different opinions?

Pity none of the opinions from those who seem to disagree with me stand up to any sort if scrutiny. Otherwise it was be a good debate rather than the usual nonsense spouted by those who think the car is the most important form of transport within the city.

To prove me wrong, give one good verifiable argument as to why this proposal should not proceed.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe if councilors didn't lower property tax there would be a bit more non commercial income into the council but when you play populist politics the paymaster can decide what you can or can not do.

Wasn't DCC one of the few councils to reduce it? At the time, it was a SF majority council I think, so certainly populist politics bereft of economics at play there.

jams100

magicbastarder wrote: »

because of the volume of traffic along the quays, because the 'dublin city centre traders alliance' aka 'the multi storey car park owners club' are threatening them with legal action, etc.

the problem is that in general, the people who benefit most from the likes of a decent liffey cycle route are often not resident in the areas where the route would be located.
if i'm cycling in to the IFSC from dublin 15, i'm the one to benefit.
but my councillor won't give a toss about working for it, because it's not in his ward - hell, it's not even in his council; and a councillor based in say stoneybatter won't give a toss either because i can't vote for him or her, so there's no votes to be gained by putting infrastructure in for me.

Regardless, 4 years to build a few km's of a cycle route is a joke...they could also extend the dublin bikes initiative to the likes of lucan, blanchardstown, palmerstown etc.

Again I don't cycle I'm just pointing out the fact that they are willing to change the speed limits but are doing zero to actually fix our public transport problems

meeeeh

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Pity none of the opinions from those who seem to disagree with me stand up to any sort if scrutiny. Otherwise it was be a good debate rather than the usual nonsense spouted by those who think the car is the most important form of transport within the city.

To prove me wrong, give one good verifiable argument as to why this proposal should not proceed.

Can you tell what this will improve? Verifiable for Dublin. Like how much did congestion ease in Dublin since 30kph in certain areas was implemented? (Just to make it clear I'm very much on board with speed limits around schools and similar but they are effective because you pay more attention to them when it's warning you to lower the speed). I can't even find data how much safer the roads are since 30kph was implemented.

It's putting lipstick on a pig and nothing else. The change won't overly affect me, I drive very little in Dublin because life is too short to deal with the traffic there it's just pity that even when crisis hits and they have chance to rethink things this is the only thing they can come up with.

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

Can you tell what this will improve? Verifiable for Dublin. Like how much did congestion ease in Dublin since 30kph in certain areas was implemented? (Just to make it clear I'm very much on board with speed limits around schools and similar but they are effective because you pay more attention to them when it's warning you to lower the speed). I can't even find data how much safer the roads are since 30kph was implemented.

It's putting lipstick on a pig and nothing else. The change won't overly affect me, I drive very little in Dublin because life is too short to deal with the traffic there it's just pity that even when crisis hits and they have chance to rethink things this is the only thing they can come up with.

Assuming it is enforced, it will jave the effect of making roads safer for all users.
Now your turn to put forward a verifiable reason for it not happening please.

magicbastarder

i don't think it'd make much difference at all to commute times, certainly at rush hour. to flip it around, if you increased the speed limit to 60km/h, it'd make pretty much no difference either. it *might* mean you'd get to the next set of red lights faster, so you'd simply be sitting stationary for longer.

meeeeh

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Assuming it is enforced, it will jave the effect of making roads safer for all users.
Now your turn to put forward a verifiable reason for it not happening please.

Maybe tge one that congestion is worse every year despite oarts of Dublin operating 30kph limits. But hey what do I know, I could just assume things...

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe tge one that congestion is worse every year despite oarts of Dublin operating 30kph limits. But hey what do I know, I could just assume things...

Congestion is based on volumes though. What evidence is there in Dublin that changing the speed limit will reduce congestion?
The only link I guess is that if people are driving more slowly, you can fit more vehicles on the same length of road space.
As a corollary, the M50 has a speed limit of 100km/ for much of it with 120km/ for the rest. But you have loads of congestion there too.

Hamsterchops

seamus wrote: »

You can do 30km/h in fourth gear.

Technical:
So I've just taken the family 1.6 diesel out for a spin to check what gears are at what speeds, and this is what I found.

Changing gears at the earliest possible times...

1st gear take off, then 2nd gear @12 km/h, into 3rd gear @27km/h, with 4th gear @49km/h.

If I take my foot off the accelerator, the car carries on @49km/h in 4th, and if I slow down she'd stall unless I changed down to 3rd....It's a diesel.

So @30km/h it's either 2nd or 3rd gear.

The "which gear" argument depends on engine type/gearing. Petrol cars are much quicker revving so you can probably change up into 4th much earlier than a diesel.

Hurrache

Diesels have more torque which allows you to change gear earlier, at lower revs, than a petrol. You can even get moving from being stopped in 3rd gear in a diesel without too much chugging. Taking out the gear box factor, petrol requires you to change a bit more often as a result.

magicbastarder

Hurrache wrote: »

Why do people use the silly excuse to blame it on the greens, when the greens don't control the councils bringing in all these proposals?

the greens have turned into the most effective councillors yet, using jedi mind tricks on the other parties:

Cross-party support for 30km/h speed limits for Dublin
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/cross-party-support-for-30km-h-speed-limits-for-dublin-1.4269891

Hamsterchops

Hurrache wrote: »

Diesels have more torque which allows you to change gear earlier, at lower revs, than a petrol. You can even get moving from being stopped in 3rd gear in a diesel without too much chugging. Taking out the gear box factor, petrol requires you to change a bit more often as a result.

...but you cannot drive @30km/h in fourth gear. Not in out 1.6 anyway.

Truthvader

magicbastarder wrote: »

educate me, so?
why is traffic in dublin so slow at rush hour, frequently slower than walking pace?

Because even though Dublin City Council have devoted the past 20 years to making driving as unpleasant and expensive as possible and despite the illusory agenda's promoted here; people simply prefer to sit in a car at walking pace rather than to face the scummy bus "service" or a 10 mile cycle out to Blanchardstown or wherever. The alternatives to sitting in the car are simply more unpleasant and all the wishful thinking and beta male rage exhibited here cannot get over that fact.

If it is sunny and people are into it they will cycle but not if its raining and only if they don't risk death or injury. They will even take the bus if it goes somewhere they want to go, is clean, not driven by rude aggressive drivers or stuffed with junkies and loud mouthed thugs.

So rather than continue with the "war on cars" attitude soaking through this thread. No 1. Build an Underground, then build proper, safe cycle lanes for the Summer and for people who want that option year 'round, (ie not just a painted line 12 inches from speeding lorries,) train bus drivers to be public servants, clean the buses, provide security, make them so cheap that even I would consider using them. If we can pony up 80 billion to pay off international money traders who made a bad bet; we can afford this

magicbastarder

the bus service, train service, and other public transport services are not run by dublin city council. it's sheer volume of traffic which (before this crisis) caused the issues, and many of the attempts by DCC (and i'm certainly no apologist for them) and other agencies were stymied in the interests of car owners.

you call it a war on cars, but it's quite simple; as a means of moving people around, the private car is an appallingly inefficient means of doing so. if you want to call the recognition of that as 'war', so be it.

Podge_irl

Truthvader wrote: »

Because even though Dublin City Council have devoted the past 20 years to making driving as unpleasant and expensive as possible and despite the illusory agenda's promoted here; people simply prefer to sit in a car at walking pace rather than to face the scummy bus "service" or a 10 mile cycle out to Blanchardstown or wherever. The alternatives to sitting in the car are simply more unpleasant and all the wishful thinking and beta male rage exhibited here cannot get over that fact.

Factually untrue.

CharlesDarwin

Why sell cars here that go 300kph then impose a 120kph national limit? Seems like the way we need to go is get all traffic automated via self driving Teslas. Job done.

Thelonious Monk

Truthvader wrote: »

Because even though Dublin City Council have devoted the past 20 years to making driving as unpleasant and expensive as possible and despite the illusory agenda's promoted here; people simply prefer to sit in a car at walking pace rather than to face the scummy bus "service" or a 10 mile cycle out to Blanchardstown or wherever. The alternatives to sitting in the car are simply more unpleasant and all the wishful thinking and beta male rage exhibited here cannot get over that fact.

If it is sunny and people are into it they will cycle but not if its raining and only if they don't risk death or injury. They will even take the bus if it goes somewhere they want to go, is clean, not driven by rude aggressive drivers or stuffed with junkies and loud mouthed thugs.

So rather than continue with the "war on cars" attitude soaking through this thread. No 1. Build an Underground, then build proper, safe cycle lanes for the Summer and for people who want that option year 'round, (ie not just a painted line 12 inches from speeding lorries,) train bus drivers to be public servants, clean the buses, provide security, make them so cheap that even I would consider using them. If we can pony up 80 billion to pay off international money traders who made a bad bet; we can afford this

How have they made it more unpleasant for drivers? A few bus lanes and one way streets, to improve public transport? Oh my heart bleeds for you.

Sure let's build an underground, we've only been talking about it for about 30 years, and if it ever happens it'll probably take at least another 15 years. I don't think I'll see a metro in Dublin my lifetime, in fact I'm certain I wont. So that's not a solution, I think bus connects and better cycling infrastructure is the best most realistic way to get people around in the near future.

Bigmac1euro

Genuine question,

Would someone rather take their chances as a pedestrian against a car driving 30kph or a Bicycle doing 30kph?

Thelonious Monk

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

Genuine question,

Would someone rather take their chances as a pedestrian against a car driving 30kph or a Bicycle doing 30kph?

If that's a genuine question you're not very bright

double jobbing

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I would say none, the idea is to make it safer for dublins kamikaze cyclists, logic being hitting them at 30 vs 50 won’t injure them as badly, wont teach them as a group to stop cycling so poorly though.

This evening as I approached the left turn near the southside canal bridge beside Fitzwilliam Place a cyclist came at me, with his mate on the crossbar, in the cycle lane in the opposite ****ing direction. Litereally approaching me as I turned left, on the inside.

As I went over the bridge three of his mates were right there flying over the middle line causing me to break and shout at them.

Now, in a wholly statistical rarity it was a gang of teenage local howiyas, when to be fair this sort of craic is usually the persuit of either the lycra clad Green voter from Donnybrook or the Spanish Facebook worker (although for bonus points the Spaniard is usually staring at his phone while blocking out the wider world with Beats type earphones)

Either way why should responsible drivers be penalised to save the lives of morons?

double jobbing

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well to quote myself, "everybody but everybody will break the speed limit, either by design or by accident".

Conor Faughnan of the AA is incredulous to this madnesss of a 30 km/h limit on main arterial roads & dual carriageways, suggesting that introducing a rediculous law will make drivers indifferent towards sensible speed limits.

At least somebody with some profile speaking up.

The economics of this are madness.

What of couriers who have to make X amount of deliveries per day to make a half decent living? Say the courier can earn said living doing X drops between 7am and 6pm. He now has to keep going until 9 or 10pm to make up for the limits?

What of the knock on effects of delays in construction material delivered and removed? We've been off for 2 months and are barely back to 30% capacity by most reckoning.

Let me guess, get a better job says the Greens voters. I'm alright jack.