A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

Hurrache

double jobbing wrote: »

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?

Now we know you're waffling.

No self respecting member of the lycra clad cycling deep state would allow anyone to sit on their cross bars.

That's an activity purely reserved for when they're all wearing baggies and have their stunt pegs on their Burners.

johnmcdnl

double jobbing wrote: »

Certainly the idea of people going at 35kph being put in a position where they see a distant speed van and jam the breaks seems like a recipe for a pile up.

How in the name of christ would a line of cars drivingat 35kmph hitting the brakes to get down to 30kmph result in a pile up? Why isn't there pile ups at rush hour every day as people hit brakes when they see a red light in front of them, or when a pedestrian runs across the road.
And how would it be any different to someone seeing a speed van while at 55kmph or 105kmph be any different?

Even if there was, you'd have a bunch of cars hitting each others bumpers so the damage would be minimal in the absolute worst case

Truthvader

Springy Turf wrote: »

It might seem like people prefer to sit in a car because they still dominate the road space, but in fact as of 2017, only 30% of people crossing the canal into town at rush hour travel by car. 50% by bus. 18% active transport. And the trend it recent years for car use is going down.

Reference: NTA Canal Cordon Report 2017

Car usage is being driven down by Dublin City Council and the parade of supporters here. That is nothing to do with what people actually prefer. Know what I prefer. Anyone who can afford to drives - or walks in fairness. Bicycles and buses are the second rate second choice. Original question asked was why anyone would sit in a car travelling at walking pace. The answer is because they can.

magicbastarder

Truthvader wrote: »

Anyone who can afford to drives

true, lots of people are able to earn lots of money but not understand the sunk cost fallacy.

Andrewf20

Seems completely draconian. Are there any stats that show an uptick in pedestrian or cycling accidents since February?

It could be argued that with less cars on the road, visibility of bikes and people is better.

magicbastarder

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Seems completely draconian. Are there any stats that show an uptick in pedestrian or cycling accidents since February?

It could be argued that with less cars on the road, visibility of bikes and people is better.

a doubling of pedestrian fatalities to the end of april, compared to last year.
one factor is that with fewer cars on the road, the average speed of cars appears to have increased.

https://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2020/Concern-over-speeding-drivers-as-number-of-pedestrian-deaths-doubles-in-2020-/

ILoveYourVibes

How is a speed limit going to stop covid?

I mean it could mean people are stuck on bus with others longer??

magicbastarder

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How is a speed limit going to stop covid?

who claimed it was?

tjhook

These things are cyclical (!)

For years the Mad Max drivers had their way.

Now the Cycling Taliban are enforcing their dogma.

In another few years, electric self-driving cars will be common and safe, and we'll be cracking down on these dangerous cyclists who bring chaos to an otherwise ordered automated system.

punisher5112

One major factor for the extra deaths is really down to the amount out walking that have never before or nowhere near as much.


I've never seen so many walkers, runners or cyclists in my life and as a bus driver I'm not surprised that deaths have increased but also surprised it's not higher....

Another big thing is big families with all the kids and them letting extremely young ones out on the road, this imo is a disaster waiting to happen as they are weaving and unsteady.... Of course extra room is given but of course not by all.

People seriously need to take personal responsibility and take a look at their own actions.

The amount of people I've come very close to killing over the past few months has been unreal compared to normal as it were before.

Funny thing is with less traffic, no traffic jams I seen more and more stressed out drivers or just absolute numpties driving dangerous just because they could.

The only Gardai I see now are those doing speed checks and haven't seen a checkpoint I'm around 2 weeks or so....

magicbastarder

tjhook wrote: »

Now the Cycling Taliban are enforcing their dogma.

keep it up, this is great to read.

tjhook

magicbastarder wrote: »

keep it up, this is great to read.

Thanks, I will.

Hurrache

punisher5112 wrote: »

The amount of people I've come very close to killing over the past few months has been unreal compared to normal as it were before.

Did you just injure them instead, or in fact did something simply not happen? You said yourself that you see kids out on bikes, and are aware that they don't exactly take a dead ahead heading, so I'm also sure you give them a wide berth when driving by them. Unless they took a dramatic swerve right as you were going by them, I imagine you're using creative licence when you claim to close to killing some amount of people.

Thelonious Monk

tjhook wrote: »

these dangerous cyclists who bring chaos

can you expand on this? what danger?

seamus

Hurrache wrote: »

I imagine you're using creative licence when you claim to close to killing some amount of people.

As a bus driver I would hope so. If "coming close to killing someone" is a common occurrence, it casts serious doubt on the individual's competence.

tjhook

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

can you expand on this? what danger?

I think you're taking the post a bit too literally. Every group seems to think every other group is a danger. The only thing that changes is which group is in the ascendancy, and thus on their high horse. It used to be drivers, now it's cyclists. I'm imagining a time when the pendulum swings again.

Seth Brundle

tjhook wrote: »

I think you're taking the post a bit too literally. Every group seems to think every other group is a danger. The only thing that changes is which group is in the ascendancy, and thus on their high horse. It used to be drivers, now it's cyclists. I'm imagining a time when the pendulum swings again.

So you're saying that the cyclists that you described as dangerous are not in fact dangerous?

Dravokivich

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Thats how slow we have to drive through school zones here , which consist of a few hundred feet at certain times of the day only. Cant imagine having to go that slow on normal roads and for extended periods. Youd be constantly looking at the speedometer to check you werent going too fast.

No you wont. 30kph is easy to keep to. The problem is others who dont.

Personally I dont mind it, since the speed limit is justified. I dont feel it is however. Protecting pedestrians? We are all pedestrians when out of the car.

Chiparus

Average speeds may increase ironically.

Hurrache

I think someone asked what difference it would make

Dravokivich

Hurrache wrote: »

I think someone asked what difference it would make

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.

Hurrache

Dravokivich wrote: »

we've told people they dont have to be responsible when walking about.

Thanks, something less to worry about.

Dravokivich

Hurrache wrote: »

Thanks, something less to worry about.

The sections with lower speed limits in the city, tend to be the areas where people just stroll onto the road without looking around first.

If you want to protect pedestrians, remind them they are also road users first.

tjhook

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So you're saying that the cyclists that you described as dangerous are not in fact dangerous?

I'm saying the cyclists would claim not to be, whereas some others would say they are (as seen in this thread).

Oddly enough, no driver has gotten their knickers in a twist over my suggestion that drivers can be seen as having "Mad Max" tendencies. I wonder if they will. Or maybe cyclists and drivers really are different breeds.

Seth Brundle

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.

Where have you ever heard that apart from a conversation you overheard down the pub?

Thelonious Monk

Oh for all of you who think less cars in the city and more restrictions is destroying commerce in the city centre, here's yet another example on how less cars = better business

https://twitter.com/GeogheganCllr/status/1268199570430967812

Dravokivich

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Where have you ever heard that apart from a conversation you overheard down the pub?

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?

Thelonious Monk

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?

I guess people need to be more alert to pedestrians in that case.

Dravokivich

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I guess people need to be more alert to pedestrians in that case.

Then why stop at 30? why not go lower? If we are to protect them. Are some people too sensitive to be told how to use the road correctly?

Stark

Dravokivich wrote: »

Then why stop at 30? why not go lower? If we are to protect them. Are some people too sensitive to be told how to use the road correctly?

This whole thread was started by someone being oversensitive about being told how to use the road correctly.