30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892941#Comment_119892941

Quick, look over there.

Great distraction tactic. Most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists and passengers. You’ll find it hard to find a way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893133#Comment_119893133

Money making? Our network of speed vans costs us about €10 million more each year than it brings in through fines. There is no money making racket, but there is one simple trick to avoid speeding fines.

https://southendnewsnetwork.net/news/driver-reveals-one-simple-trick-to-avoid-speeding-fines-and-penalty-points/

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892900#Comment_119892900

I'd be curious to know your definition of perfectly serviceable. This "perfectly serviceable" cycle path is in reality a footpath used by pedestrians, joggers and people walking dogs.

Secondly, there is plenty of glass and other matter flicked onto it by vehicles on the main carriageway. I've no desire to be fixing punctures every time I travel to and from work.

Both if which aren't considering the fact that when I travel along the cycle path, I'm expected to giveaway to drivers who expect to cross my path.

So, when travelling along at 30-40km/h neither make it suitable for use. But maybe I'm self-entitled for travelling absolutely legally and safely (which you found in one video I believe where a bus driver got irate for having to travel slightly slower for 200m).

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894285#Comment_119894285

Perhaps if some cyclists are travelling at 30 to 40kph then we should be looking at speed limits for bicycles as well and how we could implement this. After all, I would have thought a pedestrian is going to be watching the larger vehicle doing 30kph rather than a cyclist doing 30 to 40kph when crossing the road

Subzero3

There's people driving unlicensed scramblers around built up area's and the state couldn't give 2fs.

But if paddy goes 35k in his car they'll screw him.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894345#Comment_119894345

Can you show us an example of someone being screwed for travelling at 35km/h in a 30 zone?

I still see nothing that suggests this proposal is to make every road stay at 30km/h. The proposal is to make council's justify giving it a higher limit. If the road can allow drivers to travel at higher speeds then it should be easy to demonstrate this. If it can't be demonstrated then can we justify allowing people drive faster on it?

People are getting their knickers in a twist over something sensible. People say that councils never thought through speed limits appropriate for our roads. When there is a proposal to do exactly this, they lose their sh*t!

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894333#Comment_119894333

Go on, put your idea to your local TD and tell us how you get on 🙄

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894417#Comment_119894417

I will, hopefully you can see the sense of limiting all traffic to 30kph, but somehow i doubt it.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894392#Comment_119894392

Its not sensible, its pernicious.

30 km/h is absolutely sensible for cul-de-sacs, residential through roads, school zones, access roads to industrial areas with a lot of heavy vehicle movement and traffic calmed streets in central urban areas.

But compared to the overall urban road network, these stretches are exceptional in number and they should remain an exceptional limit, delineated by bye-law from a long standing and reasonable default limit of 50.

I wouldn't trust Dublin City Council or indeed any, to act properly if they were handed a default limit of 30. They should be perfectly capable of achieving what they propose for calmed locations under the current law.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894434#Comment_119894434

Again, you're showing your inability to understand a very simple concept. Not all traffic will be limited to 30km/h because not all roads will be limited to 30km/h. They will need to be able to justify a higher limit but given your belief that it would be safe to do so, where exactly is the problem?

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894495#Comment_119894495

But on those roads limited to 30kph, which is a maximum rather than a target, does it not make sense to limit all traffic, rather than rely on pedestrians having to judge the relative difference in speeds between bicycles at 30-40kph and cars at 30kph to safely cross

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894509#Comment_119894509

As you are referring to me saying how I travel along the N4 bus lane between 30 & 40km/h, are you disingenuously trying to suggest that the N4 will be lowered to 30km/h?

Anyhow, I'm not playing whatever stupid game you're attempting here.

Spook_ie

Doesn't matter which road it is, you have stated you can cycle at 30-40kph, I assume other cyclists are also capable of this and therefore if a road has a 30kph limit it should surely apply to all traffic?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894558#Comment_119894558

I stated that I cycled on the N4 doing 30-40km/h. Now you're taking that to mean that I do this speed on every road - something I never stated.

But given your question, how do you propose that anyone on a bike is aware of their current speed? Bear in mind that you also have to include bikes for 5 year olds in your reply. How would you propose to enforce speed limits for bikes? Would cyclists need licences (even 5 year olds)? Would bikes need reg plates? And now we're back to this feckin stupid concept put forward every so often by people who don't think things through properly!

Spook_ie

No I didn't, I extrapolated that if you're capable of cycling at 30-40 kph on whatever road, then surely other cyclists are capable of cycling at that speed on whatever road, including roads with a 30kph limit. Given that, does it not make sense to limit ALL traffic to the maximum speed limit. Identification and enforcement are a whole new topic but I suspect a sign such as you see on some roads near schools etc. that flashes up your speed might be one way and if a problem were highlighted to the local superintendent then a Garda could be allocated to stand by it and pull in any traffic that activated it. The signs could even be mobile and used where ever there were percieved problems of traffic exceeding the limit.

Furze99

I'd have thought any ordinary cyclist doing more than 25 kph would be a danger to both themselves and others. Unless they're in a controlled bike race.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894676#Comment_119894676

It depends on the road but in general, where the road allows it, 25km/h would not be dangerous at all. The danger would be from elements out of my control e.g. a driver passing too close

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894690#Comment_119894690

Maybe or maybe not for you, one small stone or object on the road that you don't spot could throw you. But the point is that speed guidance is for the motoring population as a whole and so speed guidance for the cycling population would have to be likewise. You can't have one driver in their motor saying they can drive safely at 70kph in a 50kph zone and likewise you can't have one cyclist saying they can clip along at 40kph when others can't safely.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894676#Comment_119894676

You'd be shocked how perfectly ordinary 25 feels on a bike.

Usain Bolt topped out at 44.72 km/h in his best 100m.

Which makes a 30 km/h limit for motor vehicles sound even more daft.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894676#Comment_119894676

why? genuine question. i average a shade over 30 on the flat. 25 is easy and safe.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894764#Comment_119894764

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0ftfKFEJg

...

billybull999

That's like banning big spoons so people wont eat as much sugar. Be much better off banning phone and earphones within 1.5m of roadways.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894754#Comment_119894754

Different laws for different types of vehicles with different levels of risk makes perfect sense. That’s why we already have different speed limits for HGVs.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895042#Comment_119895042

They would be better off enforcing the existing ban on phones for drivers.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894392#Comment_119894392

It's the making of 30kph zones in the first place that's doing the screwing. Amazing mental faculties people have to say that 97% of drivers are speeding so lowering the speed limit even further is therefore clearly called for. Maybe the speed limit is actually too low? There's a really good example of such in Galway on the traffic light infested N6 where heading in after the Tuam rd lights there is a long stretch to the Hedford rd roundabout that has no entrances, or exits or driveways, and yet it's a stupid 50kph limit on a 4 lane rd, when it should be 80 at least. Set speed limits too low and you create speeders.

Limits are often set with not much sense to them. After the big motorway building push, there were lots of N roads that suddenly lost 99% of the traffic they used to carry. Now remember, these are roads engineered and designed for inter city traffic volumes travelling safely at 100kph. So what did the geniuses who set speed limits do - the clowns we are supposed to respect for being professionals who know what they are doing? Why they lowered the speed limit to 80kph. With a tiny fraction of former traffic volumes it was now deemed less safe to do 100kph. It didn't happen to me, but I'd imagine there were not a few people fined for 'speeding' on these roads due to the stupid new limits. Those who were speeding were in the moral and technical right, as shown a few years later when the speed limits were put back up to where they should have always been, 100kph.

Seth Brundle

@cnocbui - Now remember, these are roads engineered and designed for inter city traffic volumes travelling safely at 100kph.

Like you, I used to have a windscreen sized view of the world. However, i was wrong and then realised that while the roads might be able for people to drive at say 100km/h, there are others who use them (or want to use them) but cannot travel at those max speeds. For many, the speed differential is felt to be too great to be safe.

@cnocbui - Limits are often set with not much sense to them. After the big motorway building push, there were lots of N roads that suddenly lost 99% of the traffic they used to carry. Now remember, these are roads engineered and designed for inter city traffic volumes travelling safely at 100kph. So what did the geniuses who set speed limits do - the clowns we are supposed to respect for being professionals who know what they are doing? Why they lowered the speed limit to 80kph.

I dont think that your recollection of events is correct. The roads were reclassified as regional roads once the motorway opened and replaced the need for a parallel National Primary Route, something that has always happened here when a motorway is created to replace the "old" road. As a regional road, it's speed limit was at most 80km/h.

Your insults of those involved is unnecessary and also incorrect!

Edit: had originally intended to add this...

It's the making of 30kph zones in the first place that's doing the screwing.

The claim was that people were being screwed for travelling at 35km/h. I'd like to see a verifiable example of this claim. Otherwise, I'll keep my assumption that @Subzero3 making up stuff to further the agenda against this proposal.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896776#Comment_119896776

Lots of people get assaulted in Dublin. Let's roll back the laws on assault and make it easier to get assaulted.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896776#Comment_119896776

a) there is no Headford Road Roundabout. It has been replaced by a four arm junction.

b) while there are are no driveways, there is an an entrance to a residential estate and multiple entrances to private land, which are used regularly

c) there are pedestrian crossings at either end which, despite being traffic light controlled, have seen pedestrians seriously injured in multiple separate instances.

It has been widely demonstrated that speed limits do control speed, even where they are not adhered to. People have their comfort zone where they feel they can exceed the speed limit by X amount. Put 50km/h signs on a long straight stretch and you might find that 50% of drivers travel at 70km/h but very few will hit 90 km/h. Change the signs on the same stretch to 80km/h and suddenly you'll get a majority travelling above 90km/h.

Having people approaching pedestrian crossings, that are already proven accident black spots, at 90km/h, seem reckless to me. Add to that, for most journeys, you're still going to get through the junction at either end at the same time whether you get your speed up to 50km/h or 80km/h in between. You're still going to be sitting in a queue at the junction. It doesn't shorten your journey if you get to the back of that queue more quickly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896776#Comment_119896776

There's a really good example of such in Galway on the traffic light infested N6 where heading in after the Tuam rd lights there is a long stretch to the Hedford rd roundabout that has no entrances, or exits or driveways

Why you are choosing to ignore the fact there is an entrance to 2 estates (Glenburren Park & Barr Aille)on that stretch is beyond me but would explain why that is 50k.

Also, that stretch is 1.8km in length.

Assume you pass through the start and end at max speed limit of 50k and have nobody slowing you down, the total time to drive it is 2 mins 10 seconds.

The same at 80k will take 1 min 21 seconds.

So 50 seconds of a gain if you get 100% positive circumstances, which would never happen for the majority of folks driving it. For most it will be a few seconds of a time saving to get from one traffic jam to another

Thats before we look at the increased emissions as a result of increasing the speed limit.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896843#Comment_119896843

Yes, because beating someone to a bloody pulp is exactly the same as exceeding an arbitrary number on a sign.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897145#Comment_119897145

Yes, because killing your best friend in an avoidable road crash is exactly the same as pushing someone across a pub.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/speeding-driver-who-told-gardai-i-killed-my-best-friend-i-wish-it-was-me-after-fatal-road-crash-avoids-jail-42096941.html

SeanW

How does this case apply to the other 2.8 million Irish drivers that were not involved? Or the greater than 99.5% of Irish drivers that will never be involved in a fatal incident, let alone the cause of one?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897678#Comment_119897678

The point was about the slightly twisted logic of increasing speed limits because most people don’t comply.

SeanW

By conflating a victimless crime with a serious one?

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897691#Comment_119897691

So you agree that the logic of reducing speed limits further because observance isn't great, is slightly twisted?

I knew you'd see the light eventually.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897709#Comment_119897709

Tell me more about these victimless crimes

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40758009.html

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897742#Comment_119897742

Yes, running red lights and disregarding pedestrians is bad, that's why no road user group should do it. Not going to defend that POS either, they deserve everything they've got coming.

Your logic, if I understand it correctly, is that because you can find a very small number of bad actors, you have grounds to punish all 2.5/2.8 million drivers in this country collectively. Am I correct?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I prefer to punish individual wrongdoers rather than entire collectives.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897736#Comment_119897736

Nice catch. Post corrected now.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897768#Comment_119897768

As pointed out yesterday, speed limits aren’t a punishment. They are a prevention measure.

SeanW

You want 2.8 million people and their passengers to have to waste inordinate amounts of time and fuel for no reason, which is what 30kph limits are for.

There is no realistic argument about prevention when more than 99.5% of drivers will never be involved in a fatal collision of any kind, let alone the cause of one, the numbers remain broadly similar even if you include serious injuries. This is about something else.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897893#Comment_119897893

Slower speeds save fuel. But god forbid that drivers would be 'punished' by having to travel at four times their rush hour speed, poor things.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20445549.html

SeanW

Slower speeds save fuel.

No, it doesn't. Crawling at 30kph for no reason wastes fuel.

https://myengineeringworld.net/2012/05/optimal-speed-for-minimum-fuel.html

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897893#Comment_119897893

You're still making the assumption that all new roads will be 30km/h without any evidence to show that this will be the case. The proposal is to start with a default limit of 30km/h and if it can be justified then the limit will be raised.

Why would people be "punished" (to use your victimhood phrase 🙄) if it can be shown that the road is not suitable for people to drive at higher speeds?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897893#Comment_119897893

You could use the same logic to argue against seat belts, ABS, traffic lights, 50k limits, speed bumps etc etc

Thankfully that logic doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny and collapses pretty quick when challenged.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897678#Comment_119897678

I've never been involved in a fatal accident but I have to pay a hefty amount of cash each year for insurance. The logic is the same. I'm driving around a 2 tonne hunk of metal and about 150 people are going to die prematurely this year in Ireland because of large hunks of metal being driven at speed, plus a further 1000+ receiving life changing injuries. As a participant in this activity of propelling large chunks of metal at speed, an activity which is by far the biggest cause of accidental deaths in this and most other countries, I am bound by the mitigation measures in place for that activity, whether it's insurance or speed limits.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897982#Comment_119897982

Based on your link, are you seriously telling us that, under the proposed process, a road that has been deemed provably unfit for speeds over 30km/h should actually have a speed limit ideally between 55 and 80km/h?

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898018#Comment_119898018

Each of these things are likely much easier to defend as being proportionate. For example, seat belts probably save hundreds of lives each year by turning otherwise fatal accidents into minor ones.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898055#Comment_119898055

Yes, but you have an expectation that the regulations will be reasonable and evidence based.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898082#Comment_119898082

No. I'm saying that 30kph limits should only be applied sparingly and where the case for them is overwhelming. This can already be done with current rules.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898147#Comment_119898147

Each of these things are likely much easier to defend as being proportionate. For example, seat belts probably save hundreds of lives each year by turning otherwise fatal accidents into minor ones.

The same applies with getting hit at 50k vs 30k, therefore easy to defend as proportionate

SeanW

Something that happens less than once every billion vehicle-kilometres? And is often not the fault of the driver?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898186#Comment_119898186

Which can have its impact on society reduced by a reduction in limits.

Arguments for 30k

• Safer routes for all users
• Less intimidating for cyclists and pedestrians
• Less pollution
• Greater chance of survival in the event of an impact
• Lower chance of life altering injuries
• Lower traffic noise

Arguments against 30k

• It's not fair!!11!

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898082#Comment_119898082

I can't see where that leap of reason came from.

The only claim I could see was that driving at 30km/h uses more fuel than driving at between 50km/h and 80km/h. This is evidently clear from the information in the link.

It does seem bizzare that we jump up and down about pollution and climate change but would bring in a blanket change that would increase emissions by almost a third in urban areas without carefully considering the justification on a case by case basis.