Owen Keegan's Brainwaves Thread


#1

There’s so much wrong with issues within DCC’s control, e.g. Commercial Rates are way too high. But Now the corpo wants to slow traffic to 30kph within their area.

Is this part of a strategy to just make driving really annoying ?

Two practical implications of the existing 30kph zones are

  • on the quays and elsewhere cyclists undertake you at speed. Always a dumb move…because…
  • …in places like Dame street the 30kph encourages jay walking. Pedestrians just can’t seem to help it. Despite the fact you’re travelling slowly you end up having to stop in case they trip or don’t make it across

#2

That’s it.
They are trying to make people leave their cars and use public transport … but without the tedious task of providing an adequate public transport alternative.


#3

Barney, how long have you been away? You might want to check car insurance rates if your no-claims bonus has lapsed - I have heard that many people are cancelling thier return to Ireland due to extortionate car insurance rates.

Sorry for the thread sidetrack…


#4

I think that civilising the city is a great initiative. Cars are for getting from A to B. This can be achieved quite satisfactorily with a 30kph speed limit. Lets face most people will drive closer to 40kph but at least the complete speed merchants will stand out.


#5

Well having successfully torpedoed Dun Laoghaire Owen clearly has fucking retail in the city centre clearly in his sights.

Re the public transport element, it is more expensive than driving and a pain in the hole if you have kids.


#6

Id have to agree
They have based their spacial policy on accessing everything by car and then decided to make car use impossible. If you want effective public transport they need much higher housing densities. Still its not as FUBARed as Galway or Limerick.


#7

Wow.

Dublin already some of the most slow-moving traffic and best road safety in the world.


#8

What?

It is normal (and legal since Oct 2012) for cyclists to pass on the left. The only issue is with left-turning vehicles, but I don’t see how that issue is made worse by cars going more slowly.


#9

Yes it’s so “normal” it wasn’t legalised until 2012 :unamused:
Whether it’s legalised or not, it’s dumb. Cyclists are both undertaking and overtaking moving vehicles at speed and in silence. It means jaywalkers have to have eyes in the back of their head.

The “only issue” isn’t with left turning vehicles. If you have your indicator out and there’s no cycle lane you should have right of way when you indicate.


#10

Yeah, except the effect, if anyone sticks to the limit, will be to increase congestion and the length of both rush-'hour’s so they effectively merge into one long traffic-choked urban nightmare. Bring an extra long book for that bus journey. And forget about having kids and a job (unless 24h creches start opening).


#11

It was explicitly legalised because until then the law wasn’t clear, despite it being normal practice.

What are you on about? “Jaywalking” as you put it (are you American?) is only illegal close to a pedestrian crossing. Elsewhere it’s just called crossing the road.

Pedestrians crossing the road should look using the eyes in the front of their heads. No additional eyes are necessary.

Bicycles are legally required to have bells, and cars are also near silent.

These sentences just don’t make any sense together. Are you talking about left-turning vehicles or vehicles turning or changing lanes generally? Indicating never grants right of way, regardless of bicycles, it is a signal of intent.

The law on cyclists being allowed to pass on the left has reference to the case of left-turning vehicles, in which case cyclists should not pass on the left. Unfortunately it is common for cars to overtake cyclists and immediately turn left, forcing the cyclist to brake and/or swerve. That’s just bad driving, regardless of whether there’s any indicating.

It is also often the case that a vehicle is attempting to turn left through a stream of cyclists. Whatever about the law or sensible cause of action for cyclists (I wouldn’t pass on the left in this case, even if it was legal), the driver still has a legal duty of care to avoid an accident, which means in practice waiting for a gap. Anyone incapable of understanding this really shouldn’t be in charge of a motor vehicle.


#12

i’m not too concerned about the city centre speed limit … that tries to make some semblance of sense … but extending a 30kph limit out to the 'burbs is just batshit crazy. Imagine of the penalty points and increased insurance costs for those crazy speeders doing over 19mph out the Navan road.

it’s just hipster bullshit and caving in to desires of the holier than thou cyclists running who believe the city should be for them and them alone.


#13

now you are contradicting your self.

If a left turning motorist has to wait for a gap to form from a line of cyclist passing on his left handside to make a left turn it is the cyclists who are at fault. If a motorist were to undertake a car turning left who would be in the wrong.

Either cyclists are part of traffic or not. When a cyclist is coming behind a car with it indicator on to make a left hand turn of course they should give way …


#14

I’m not contradicting myself. All road users have a basic duty of care to each other (and to pedestrians), regardless of who has right of way. Accidents are avoided by accounting for other people’s mistakes.

Yes, the law says the cyclist should not pass left in that case. That doesn’t mean the driver, having observed a cyclist ignoring the right of way, should just plough on regardless.


#15

I never said the driver should plough on regardless … however in almost all cases the cyclist will plough on regardless. Unfortunately it would be difficult for me to claim for damage to my car from a cyclist’s corpse - so I will give way, but if I am making a turn and two wheeled hero is travelling a 30kph or more from my inside there will only be one person taking a fall … while drivers have to be observant we can’t be jedi’s and use the force.

Cyclists pick and choose what traffic laws they want to adhere to and now their hipster lobby is having an effect on policy.

Some people like me need my car in the city centre … not every day be a lot and it has become nearly impossible to conduct business in the city centre because of traffic, oneway systems and parking.


#16

No, people pick and choose what laws they adhere to. Cyclists are people. So are drivers. These are often not different people, they’re just the same morons using a different mode of transport.

Almost no drivers observe speed limits. These are laws.


#17

au-contraire according to dnproulx.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/slowing-down-traffic-can-actually-move-more-people/


#18

69 people travelling - a bus, 69 bicycles, 60 cars.
The project used 69 people, as this is the capacity of a standard Canberra bus, and 60 cars, as this is the number occupied on average by 69 people.
https://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e2017d3c37d8ac970c-800wi

In this sense it explains the push to bicycling and public transport. Don’t know what the CSO figures are for average journey distances travelled in Dublin.


#19

Yes, the label on the graph uses “time-interval”. Throughput is directly related to time interval, e.g. 1 second time interval = 3600 vehicles per hour.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens to traffic when we get self-driving cars. I assume near-gridlock with office workers spending the first and last three hours working-from-car, with a bunch of stand-up meetings and lunch sandwiched in the middle. In fact the vehicles will probably move so slowly that in the case of a missed lunch it’ll be possible to get out, buy food, and climb back into the car for the remainder of the journey.


#20

+1 to all that

As for splitting hairs on what constitutes “jaywalking”. I thought it would have been obvious that I was referring to the tendency for pedestrians to dart between moving traffic when crossing the road with little regard to its speed or distance. Pedestrians in Ireland basically do what they want and motorists are equanimous about it and live with it. You could say that they have the deadly vehicle so they’re forced to be equanimous but in London drivers are more aggressive to pedestrians.

Cyclists behaviour towards pedestrians is different they cycle through crossing pedestrian groups and break pedestrian lights if no one is crossing at the time (despite the fact someone might be about to cross)