30kph speed limit in cities and towns - an EU Citizens' Initiative

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
51,904
http://en.30kmh.eu/

About the initiative

30 km/h (20 mph) limits are an inexpensive and popular way to improve safety, cut pollution and encourage smarter travel choices. They lead to improved traffic flow and less congestion. People can move without fear. And so we want to achieve these benefits for the whole of the European Union. What is our vision? 30 km/h shall become the standard speed limits for villages, towns and cities with local authorities being able to decide on exemptions. Therefore, we will set the agenda for the European Commission. We want the commission to come up with a proposal to introduce 30 km/h speed limits.

We are organising a “European Citizen´s Initiative” - a fascinating, brand-new policy instrument in the European Union. We are determined to make every effort to collect the more than 1 million signatures needed within one year from at least 7 different member states of the EU.​
 
Sorry Brendan, but I see this as another money-making exercise in fines.
I move so slowly through town centres that I probably don't exceed 30kph. But I might. I am too busy watching for pedestrians running into the road, vehicles pulling out and stopping or changing lanes, traffic lights turning red abruptly that might leave me stuck on a pink bicycle-marked part of road. I have no time to watch my speedo that closely. I could be doing 32kph!
 
30 km/h (20 mph) limits are an inexpensive

Don't think so, Brendan. Traffic calming measures are a significant cost to local authorities
and popular
the dublin quays 30kmh scheme wasn't too popular
way to improve safety

highly debatable
cut pollution

Untrue. All that braking, accelerating, stopping and starting impedes fuel efficiency and adds to pollution.
and encourage smarter travel choices.

Yes for cities with decent (or any) public transport. Not for the vast majority of towns and villages where "travel choices" is an oxymoron.​
They lead to improved traffic flow
I would argue the opposite.
and less congestion.

Again, no evidence of this - in my experience, longer journey times = more time on the road = more cars on the road = more congestion
People can move without fear.

Is "moving without fear" a good thing or a bad thing? If we encourage people to walk around oblivious to moving traffic around them, they will be more susceptible to hazards.
 

Don't think so, Brendan. Traffic calming measures are a significant cost to local authorities
He's talking about a 30km speed limit, not traffic calming



Untrue. All that braking, accelerating, stopping and starting impedes fuel efficiency and adds to pollution.
With a lower speed limit there would be less braking & accelerating


Again, no evidence of this - in my experience, longer journey times = more time on the road = more cars on the road = more congestion

There are a couple of studies that show otherwise.

My only problem with this, is yes - it could be used as a money making scheme and wouldn't make a huge difference to the most dangerous road users who feel the rules don't apply to them.
 
Sorry Brendan, but I see this as another money-making exercise in fines.

That doesn't make sense - it's being proposed by citizens of the EU, not the Irish government. Why do they care about our governments ability to make money? I understand people don't like speeding fines but that doesn't make them unfair or a money making exercise - I see that as an excuse.

Don't think so, Brendan. Traffic calming measures are a significant cost to local authorities

Housing is a huge cost. Wages are a significant cost. Traffic calming measures are relatively cheap. And in any case, Brendan mentions speed limits, not traffic calming.

Again, no evidence of this - in my experience, longer journey times = more time on the road = more cars on the road = more congestion

This is proven untrue. Faster, more convenient trips leads people to make more discretionary trips which leads to more congestion. People feel that they have to be on the road and should be catered for but the vast majority of trips are discretionary to one degree or another. Travelling along the M50 past one shopping centre to get to another is discretionary. Living in Kildare and working in Dublin so you can have a bigger house is discretionary. Driving kids to school is discretionary. There's nothing wrong with any of those trips but it doesn't mean that motorists should be facilitated at the expense of other road users.
 
Faster, more convenient trips leads people to make more discretionary trips which leads to more congestion. People feel that they have to be on the road and should be catered for but the vast majority of trips are discretionary to one degree or another. Travelling along the M50 past one shopping centre to get to another is discretionary. Living in Kildare and working in Dublin so you can have a bigger house is discretionary. Driving kids to school is discretionary. There's nothing wrong with any of those trips but it doesn't mean that motorists should be facilitated at the expense of other road users.

Making services and infrastructure less attractive to use will reduce demand but the whole point of the state spending it's citizens money providing infrastructure and services is to improve their quality of life and facilitate economic activity. The busses would run on time and use less fuel if they didn't bother stopping to pick up passengers but that kind of defeats the purpose of providing the service, service being the operative word.

If we want to reduce congestion then proper infrastructure is the answer, not making existing infrastructure less attractive to use.

Urban roads are the safest in the country to use. Dublin is probably the safest place in the country to use the road, along with the other major urban areas.
Motorists are just as entitled to use the road as anyone else. If the road network is inadequate that's no more the motorists fault than any other road user so I don't understand your comment about them being facilitated at the expense of other road users.
 
I think the 30kph limit is very much a "seen to be doing something" rather than a meaningful attempt to improve the system. Considering there's no enforcement of the current limits, no real attempt to make meaningful cycling infrastructure improvements around the city. Painting lines in inappropriate places with poor junction design is another platitude to public opinion. As others have said a 30kph seems very much like a "ducks in a barrel" tax.
 
Great initiative. I'm in favour of it in cities and any built up area really (speaking as a motorist, bus user, cyclist, and pedestrian). It's about quality of life and providing incentives to people - myself included, of course - to drive more thoughtfully. Not about categorising road users (I can never understand how some motorists think they have a right of way over pedestrians).

We've come a long way in Dublin over the last 10 years in the sense that we have far more cyclists and pedestrians using the streets than during the credit bubble years. There are alternatives to driving - it's all about prioritising them and making driving less attractive than the cheaper, healthier, quieter and less dangerous alternatives (i.e. public transport, walking, cycling).

Myths about weather and poor public transport don't wash. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Use the bus and it will become a better service. Don't and it won't. Walk, and roads will be less congested. Drive more slowly and the roads will be safer for everyone, while your brake pads will last longer (especially when you start to walk/cycle/bus yourself).
 
OK if you have a bus service near by, not much good for the other half of the population living in rural areas. Why don't we just make the speed limits walking pace? this will encourage more to walk, and save more car accidents
 
OK if you have a bus service near by, not much good for the other half of the population living in rural areas.

Well of course you are being facetious, but in relation to your first point, might I remind you that this initiative is targeted at urban areas. And while of course many rural dwellers drive daily to urban areas, it would be no great hardship to slow down once they arrive.
 
I live near a rural town and there's a bit of give take between locals when driving, but some strangers treat the main street like a Motorway.
But 30kmph is a bit slow all right.
 
Most people do not obey the 50 kph why would obey 30kph?

This is the best argument for a 30 kph speed limit. It will reduce the effective speed of cars. And while I was unsure about a 30 kph limit, roker's argument now convinces me that it is a good idea. (By the way, my initial post was a quote - not necessarily my own views)

If there is a 50 kph speed limit, people will drive at or around 50 kph and often slighly exceed it. They feel really hard done by if they are stopped by the Gardai for driving at 55 kph.

If the limit is 30 kph, they will probably bring their speed down from 60 kph to 40 kph.

I don't drive that much in the city, but I must say I did find it difficult to stay below 30 kph on a traffic-free weekend day. But if the speed limit had been 50 kph, I might have found it difficult to stay below 50 kph.
 
Back
Top