Advocacy & Safety - Dublin lowers limit

from the Independent, Ireland


30kmh limit to protect cyclists and pedestrians


Council plan to reduce motoring fatalities in city

By Treacy Hogan
Friday August 03 2007


The new limit is 20kmh less than the current city-wide limit of 50kmh
(31mph).

The far slower speed limit is being introduced to help prevent the deaths of
cyclists and pedestrians, the Irish Independent has learned.

Key arteries including O'Connell Street, Dame Street, D'Olier Street,
Westmoreland Street, and the north and southside quays all currently have a
speed limit of 50kmh since the changeover to metric values.

Under the new Dublin City Council management initiative these will all be
slashed to 30kmh along with every other street and road in the city centre
core.

A small number of streets, including part of Talbot Street and Temple Bar,
already have a 30kmh limit but the vast majority are set at 50kmh, including
the high traffic volume routes. In order to effect the changes, the council
has held top-level discussions with the National Roads Authority. Because
streets such as O'Connell St and Westmoreland St are designated as national
primary roads, they will have to be delisted so that the new limit can be
introduced.

The NRA has agreed to delist all of the roads inside the M50 as national
primary routes to facilitate the new limit, it was also learned. It is
expected that other councils in cities such as Cork, Galway and Limerick may
follow the lead set by Dublin in bringing in a radically lower city centre
speed limit.

Tim O'Sullivan, senior Dublin City Council traffic executive, said
yesterday: "We are going to introduce a new lower speed limit of 30kmh in
the very core of the city centre. It is a safety issue and is a no-brainer.

"The change is imminent. All of the studies show that when you have a speed
limit of 20mph in the old values, then safety for cyclists and pedestrians
is radically improved." Success

The new limit will be backed with upgrading of the traffic light system and
a new raft of speed limit signs. The 30kmh limit will be presented to a
special traffic committee of the council before going out to public
consultation.

After that, a new bylaw will be introduced setting the new legal limit for
motorists.

Mr O'Sullivan said they were now in a position to make the change following
on from the success of the Dublin Port Tunnel in removing thousands of
trucks from the quays and the city centre and the introduction of new
quality bus corridors.

"This is about promoting the safety of cyclists and pedestrians," said the
city council traffic chief.

Stories like that make me mildly concerned that roads with higher speed limits would soon become off limits for cyclists and pedestrians due to safety concerns. Hopefully the lawmakers aren't that foolish.

Stories like that make me mildly concerned that roads with higher speed limits would soon become off limits for cyclists and pedestrians due to safety concerns. Hopefully the lawmakers aren't that foolish.

^^^ that is a concern, but lowering the speed limit is an excellent idea. We should lower them all here as well.

^^^ that is a concern, but lowering the speed limit is an excellent idea. We should lower them all here as well.

Why? It's not like anyone obeys them anyway. I fail to see what lowering the speed limit will acomplish. I would rather see strict enforcement of current limits and tougher penalties for breaking them, and furthermore absolutely draconian penalties for causing an injury while breaking them. Only once these laws are taken seriously can we hope that adjusting the limits will have an affect.

I too would like to see some semblence of enforcement of the laws already on the books.

I think the trend is to slow down vehicles for public safety.

Around here there are more and more "traffic calming" areas.

The article mentions Limmerick is considering the same change.

Why? It's not like anyone obeys them anyway. I fail to see what lowering the speed limit will acomplish. I would rather see strict enforcement of current limits and tougher penalties for breaking them, and furthermore absolutely draconian penalties for causing an injury while breaking them. Only once these laws are taken seriously can we hope that adjusting the limits will have an affect.

I support both, much lower speed limits and higher fines and penalties. For first offense $1000, second $3000, 3rd loss of license for 10 years, and seizure of vehicle.
Mandatory prison terms for causing an injury accident

Speed limits of 25 and 15 in most places

I'm kind of on the fence about this as 30K is waaaaay to easy to hit on a bike. So we'd all be speeding as well. Forcing motorists to slow down to the point they can be easily passed by cyclists.... I'm not sure how good an idea this is. Keeping in mind the average handling skill level of most cyclists, I can see more accidents as motorists (upset at slow movement), are now really competing for the same slivers of road as cyclists. Granted less peds and cyclists will be killed every year I think but I can more being injured.

It might even have a congestion effect as some motorists might not even bother with the car in the city at all because it's too damned slow, it would be cool. I hope I'm just being cynical but I'd rather see more aware drivers than slow-mo madness ones. .02$

40kph is the typical residential speed here in Toronto. 30 is mind numbingly slow in a car.

I'm kind of on the fence about this as 30K is waaaaay to easy to hit on a bike. So we'd all be speeding as well. Forcing motorists to slow down to the point they can be easily passed by cyclists.... I'm not sure how good an idea this is. Keeping in mind the average handling skill level of most cyclists, I can see more accidents as motorists (upset at slow movement), are now really competing for the same slivers of road as cyclists. Granted less peds and cyclists will be killed every year I think but I can more being injured.

It might even have a congestion effect as some motorists might not even bother with the car in the city at all because it's too damned slow, it would be cool. I hope I'm just being cynical but I'd rather see more aware drivers than slow-mo madness ones. .02$

40kph is the typical residential speed here in Toronto. 30 is mind numbingly slow in a car.

How about lowering the limits from 50 or 60 MPH, thats 80kph or 96kph... those are the posted speeds here on local arterials...


A nice 35MPH or perhaps 50Kph would be nice.

On the in-the-city arterials, such as Lakeshore we have 60kph limit. Cars do go faster, but very few cyclists ride on it as there are paths along this route next to the water. City streets are generally about 40-50, with residentials down to 30 in some places. 90kph is the expressway into town, and the Parkway. Highways are 100-110kph... traveled at 120-140 generally. 50kph is a nice pass without getting blown over and a good sprint speed for a cyclist to hit... I can't see drivers being too thrilled with being told to travel the same speed as cyclists.

On the in-the-city arterials, such as Lakeshore we have 60kph limit. Cars do go faster, but very few cyclists ride on it as there are paths along this route next to the water. City streets are generally about 40-50, with residentials down to 30 in some places. 90kph is the expressway into town, and the Parkway. Highways are 100-110kph... traveled at 120-140 generally. 50kph is a nice pass without getting blown over and a good sprint speed for a cyclist to hit... I can't see drivers being too thrilled with being told to travel the same speed as cyclists.


But that is the result if cyclists "take the lane."

On the in-the-city arterials, such as Lakeshore we have 60kph limit. Cars do go faster, but very few cyclists ride on it as there are paths along this route next to the water. City streets are generally about 40-50, with residentials down to 30 in some places. 90kph is the expressway into town, and the Parkway.

All those downtown drivers are making you soft. :D 60kph limit up here usually translates to 80-100 for the flow of unobstructed traffic. I'm talking Bayview, Finch, Leslie, Steeles.

Only if you are traveling slower than posted speed limit, which here is 40-ish...so it's doable. Taking the lane at the speed limit yeilds much less aggro.... imagine poking along at 30kph in your car and being passed by messengers and quicker commuters.

To be perfectly honest, who cares about car drivers?

My feelings on the idea are also quite mixed. Perhaps a compromise would help. Reduce the speed limits on most of the city roads but the major arterials---routes in/out and across the city---should be raised. I don't think people will tolerate snake speeds in vehicles that are designed to safely travel at far greater speeds.

Don't forget that when you are riding in your car, you can set a good example for other motorists by using a reasonable speed when it is called for, treating cyclists with courtesy and giving them (you) their proper space, etc. And if you go the speed limit, in many cases people behind you have no choice but to reduce their speed to yours as well.

roughstuff

^^ I'd much rather have a faster more courteous driver than a hobbled/bitter dink behind the wheel^^


All those downtown drivers are making you soft. :D
:lol: Tell me about it... I don't get out of here too often, but I do like Leslie for the shoot-the-gutter training. As soon as you get out of the lower end of the city it all speeds up.

Don't forget that when you are riding in your car, you can set a good example for other motorists by using a reasonable speed when it is called for, treating cyclists with courtesy and giving them (you) their proper space, etc. And if you go the speed limit, in many cases people behind you have no choice but to reduce their speed to yours as well.



The intention of this post is honourable, but I have to say that, at least on a per-mile basis, I have a lot more people screaming, honking, and exhibiting generally threatening behavior when I'm driving a car vs riding a bike. I'm not sure "setting an example" is entirely possible in the context you describe.

Of course with the windows rolled up and the radio on, these incidents are also a lot less memorable.

The intention of this post is honourable, but I have to say that, at least on a per-mile basis, I have a lot more people screaming, honking, and exhibiting generally threatening behavior when I'm driving a car vs riding a bike. I'm not sure "setting an example" is entirely possible in the context you describe.

Of course with the windows rolled up and the radio on, these incidents are also a lot less memorable.

I find I have no problem driving at or below the speed limit... with the windows rolled down. Although quite a few motorists feel they have to tailgate me. (as if THAT is going to make me go faster... ):rolleyes:

I support both, much lower speed limits and higher fines and penalties. For first offense $1000, second $3000, 3rd loss of license for 10 years, and seizure of vehicle.
Mandatory prison terms for causing an injury accident

Speed limits of 25 and 15 in most places

Be careful what you wish for, 30kph is 18mph. You probably ride your bike faster than that. Would you like to lose your bike and be fined thousands?

I'm kind of on the fence about this as 30K is waaaaay to easy to hit on a bike. [...] It might even have a congestion effect as some motorists might not even bother with the car in the city at all because it's too damned slow, it would be cool. [...] 40kph is the typical residential speed here in Toronto. 30 is mind numbingly slow in a car.This is within the _city_ of Dublin, which is a relatively small area compared to the suburbs. It is part of a general effort that has been going on for many years now to take motorized traffic out of the city and to slow down what remains; most of the centre has been made very difficult to get into if you are not a bus, taxi, or cycle, heavy trucks have been banned from the entire city from 7am-7pm, streets have been substantially narrowed (with pavements substantially widened, etc,) more have been pedestrianised or semi-pedestrianised.

Overall it is all much better and very much a step in the right direction. You wouldn't really have much of an issue with a 30k bike limit in Dublin city centre, I guarantee you. To encourage more cycling, more work needs to be done on the suburbs however where the bulk of the population lives. Work on the weather would also help (it has been raining since June 10.)

Be careful what you wish for, 30kph is 18mph. You probably ride your bike faster than that. Would you like to lose your bike and be fined thousands?

I don't speed now, when riding the car or bike. I wouldn't then. At the level of deaths in car collisions, I don't think it is unreasonable.
I also support yearly licensing, eye, and reflex tests that are difficul to pass.

This is within the _city_ of Dublin, which is a relatively small area compared to the suburbs... Overall it is all much better and very much a step in the right direction....

always good to hear from someone directly involved.

Thanks!

I don't think people will tolerate snake speeds in vehicles that are designed to safely travel at far greater speeds.



But are they really safe at higher speeds? If you drive a car head on into a telephone pole at say 55 mph, will you be uninjured? If not, then they are NOT designed to travel safely at higher speeds.

18 mph sounds awfully slow for city traffic. I go faster than that most of the time myself.

Speed limits of 25 and 15 in most places

That's just insane. I don't want limits that low when I'm *biking.*

That'll never happen, in any event. Completely unncesssary as well. Roads can be designed to safely accomodate vehicular traffic at the limits that are currently set. If your argument is that the 99% of traffic that is motorized should cut their speed in half to accomodate the 1% that isn't...good luck with that. You'll get us banned from roads before that happens. If your argument is that cars need to go 25 mph to accomodate bikes, then politicians will determine that we don't need to be there.

Incidentally, it makes sense where they've done it, in extremely dense areas. But outside of that, it would be needless.

But are they really safe at higher speeds? If you drive a car head on into a telephone pole at say 55 mph, will you be uninjured? If not, then they are NOT designed to travel safely at higher speeds.
Part of driving is actually using the brakes and streering apparatus and all that. They are designed to travel safely at higher speeds because you can avoid driving head on into a telephone pole and give you a good chance of actually being alive if you do hit one. I haven't seen many telephone poles upright in my path while driving though.:p

If the vehicles were not safe to drive at higher speeds the majority of the population wouldn't be alive with their cell phone/paper reading/fast food eating/crossword puzzle activitives while driving vehicles at said speed. Perhaps the problem is that vehicled are tooo safe for the occupants that they are lax. You can steer with your pinky and brake with barely pressing down your feet.

In my county they must enforce existing laws before adjusting them further. It is absolutely pointless to lower the limit to 20mph like some development are asking when people are driving 45 in a 30mph zone.

Part of driving is actually using the brakes and streering apparatus and all that. They are designed to travel safely at higher speeds because you can avoid driving head on into a telephone pole and give you a good chance of actually being alive if you do hit one. I haven't seen many telephone poles upright in my path while driving though.:p

If the vehicles were not safe to drive at higher speeds the majority of the population wouldn't be alive with their cell phone/paper reading/fast food eating/crossword puzzle activitives while driving vehicles at said speed. Perhaps the problem is that vehicled are tooo safe for the occupants that they are lax. You can steer with your pinky and brake with barely pressing down your feet.

In my county they must enforce existing laws before adjusting them further. It is absolutely pointless to lower the limit to 20mph like some development are asking when people are driving 45 in a 30mph zone.

The problem with your contention of vehicles being driven at higher speeds or being safe at high speeds is that while the vehicle may protect the passengers inside, through the use of airbags, restraint systems and crash barriers, what about the people outside... the cyclists, the pedestrians, and even the property damaged due to high speed crashes.

Reaction times of motorists are not improving... so handing a motorist a highly responsive powerful vehicle
to drive on the same old roads with varying sightlines and with the distractions of cell phones etc, is just a foolish proposal.

There really is no reason to expect motorists to behave properly when using such vehicles, and those of us that share the roads with said motorists are the ones that are going to be on the losing end... not the driver with all the fancy protection gear in the vehicle.

Why give a tool a more powerful tool? I STILL want my ACME floating anvil that will drop through the windscreen and onto the chest of driver of any car that hits me. Sharpen the tools that drive and it'll all get better. 30kph is still too darned slow..IMHO..too easy on my bike.

In Dublin ... if heavy trucks are banned 7-7...how do goods get delivered to stores and such?

The problem with your contention of vehicles being driven at higher speeds or being safe at high speeds is that while the vehicle may protect the passengers inside, through the use of airbags, restraint systems and crash barriers, what about the people outside... the cyclists, the pedestrians, and even the property damaged due to high speed crashes.

Reaction times of motorists are not improving...

Too many people think they're safe in a car because of seat belts and air bags when in fact the speed at which they're driving negates these safety devices

Restraint systems, air bags, etc all have their limitations. Plenty of people die inside automobiles as well as outside.

Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Keeping speed down is a good injury prevention move.

Here is a local editorial pushing for higher speed limits (45->55mph on streets used by cyclist) with flawed logic:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0809cr-spracale.html

Yeah I agree RLR are a problem, but so are speeds over 40mph on roads here. People know that they have an 11mph buffer before police will even pull them over so a 40mph SL is effectively a 50mph one.

35mph posted SL on all arterials is best from my perspective. Gets one around plenty fast (can't go this fast in rush hour anyway) and there are plenty of urban freeways to go faster on to traverse longer distances.

Al

On military bases, the speed limit is 25 mph unless otherwise posted. In base housing, it's 15 mph and zealously enforced.

Military bases have lots of vehicle traffic. Yet, I've never been in a traffic jam on one.

My point is that lower speed limits might actually reduce congestion.

someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't seat belts tested to their maximum strength in collisions with vehicles of the same size at 30 mph? Beyond that (as if in a collision at 30 mph with a vehicle of a larger size, or beyond a 30 mph collision), they're not going to withstand the impact.

Also, isn't it true that the impact of a collision doubles with each 10 mph increase in speed?

Kinda makes that "just 10 mph over the limit" excuse look lame.

I'm all for lower speed limits. I just wish auto manufacturers would let cruise control lock in below 25mph. I find it annoying when I want to drive a car a steady 20mph in low traffic to not be able to lock it in. Another good reason to drive a bicycle I guess.

Al

My point is that lower speed limits might actually reduce congestion.
You are absolutely correct. As well, ...something that happened here a few years ago was a huge highway crack down on following distances, so for one summer is wasn't stop and go and one could actually go out and drive the speed limit and get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time, even during rush hour. Someone wasn't alway swooping into the hole you let open in front of your car. The idea being if you had enough room to react to potential pitfalls at speed you could react without clogging the artery by not having to come to a stop unless you HAD to. It all makes perfect sense to any practitioners of defensive driving. Of course once the crackdown was over it went back to ****.

Here is a local editorial pushing for higher speed limits (45->55mph on streets used by cyclist) with flawed logic:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0809cr-spracale.html

Yeah I agree RLR are a problem, but so are speeds over 40mph on roads here. People know that they have an 11mph buffer before police will even pull them over so a 40mph SL is effectively a 50mph one.

35mph posted SL on all arterials is best from my perspective. Gets one around plenty fast (can't go this fast in rush hour anyway) and there are plenty of urban freeways to go faster on to traverse longer distances.

Al

And within that article is the prevailing mentality of so many motorists: "I'm not a big fan of the speeding aspect. I, like many drivers, feel the typical speed limit is outdated due to technology and the smoothness of today's automobile."

Nothing in that statement considers the other users of the roadway... pedestrians and cyclists...

And within that article is the prevailing mentality of so many motorists: "I'm not a big fan of the speeding aspect. I, like many drivers, feel the typical speed limit is outdated due to technology and the smoothness of today's automobile."

Nothing in that statement considers the other users of the roadway... pedestrians and cyclists...

That is some of the 'flawed logic' I was referring to. Also this:

"If most speed limits within city limits were raised to 55 mph, you'd probably see fewer violations. I think people have a tendency to slow down when they feel they're driving at a speed limit that's appropriate. At 40 and 45 mph, the limit is just too slow. .... Excessive speeders do the same and they also need to be punished to the fullest extent-just like the red-light runner."

The flaw here is that SL is already 45mph resulting in drivers knowing they can travel at 55mph without being pulled over (as local law enforcement has said only 11mph over will result in being pulled over, as they are only targeting 'excessive' speed.*) Flow is therefore already 55mph. So if limit is raised to 55mph, then only 66mph and over drivers will get pulled over.

*As explained by AZ traffic law enforcement FAQ:
"Why are speeders allowed an 11 mph buffer?

The 10 MPH margin is intended to address language in the Arizona Revised Statutes related to speed offenses that defines, "...reasonable and prudent..." speed. It also provides a reasonable margin of error/grace for inaccurate vehicle speedometers and short-term lapses of attention by otherwise law-abiding and generally cautious drivers.

Our primary focus is on intentional, aggressive and negligent drivers. Statistics tell us that at 10 MPH over the posted speed limit, the probability of being involved in a crash doubles. However, at 20 MPH over, the probability increases to 11 times greater. We are trying to change the driving behavior of those persons who are most likely to cause crashes."


Al

That is some of the 'flawed logic' I was referring to. Also this:

"If most speed limits within city limits were raised to 55 mph, you'd probably see fewer violations. I think people have a tendency to slow down when they feel they're driving at a speed limit that's appropriate. At 40 and 45 mph, the limit is just too slow. .... Excessive speeders do the same and they also need to be punished to the fullest extent-just like the red-light runner."

The flaw here is that SL is already 45mph resulting in drivers knowing they can travel at 55mph without being pulled over (as local law enforcement has said only 11mph over will result in being pulled over, as they are only targeting 'excessive' speed.) Flow is therefore already 55mph. So if limit is raised to 55mph, then only 66mph and over drivers will get pulled over.

Al

It is however the same flawed logic that allows the 85 percentile rule to modify speed limits in CA and other places...

That's just insane. I don't want limits that low when I'm *biking.*

That'll never happen, in any event. Completely unncesssary as well. Roads can be designed to safely accomodate vehicular traffic at the limits that are currently set. If your argument is that the 99% of traffic that is motorized should cut their speed in half to accomodate the 1% that isn't...good luck with that. You'll get us banned from roads before that happens. If your argument is that cars need to go 25 mph to accomodate bikes, then politicians will determine that we don't need to be there.

Incidentally, it makes sense where they've done it, in extremely dense areas. But outside of that, it would be needless.

Speaking from experience, here in my town the speed limits are mostly 15 and 25. 27 mph will get you a ticket. 17 in a 15 will get you a ticket. It is wonderful to ride here. Enforcement, it works!

No I don't believe cars need to go 25 to accomodate bikes, they need to go 25 to cut the horrendous number of traffic deaths. It is like an epidemic.

It is just a happy coincidnece that it also would makes biking easier, and safer.

In Dublin ... if heavy trucks are banned 7-7...how do goods get delivered to stores and such?Special permits can be obtained by businesses within the city for deliveries; these are quite specific as to load/unload points and route to be followed and are charged on a daily basis. (See www.hgv.ie) Alternatively deliveries can be made before 7am or after 7pm, or using lighter vehicles (the ban is on five axle trucks.)

A key aim of the ban was to stop trucks transiting through the city from the port. A significant (€750m) tunnel was constructed connecting the port to the outer ring motorway to facilitate this.

This map details the exclusion area. (http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/HGV%20Cordon%20Map_tcm35-39392.pdf)

It's a big improvement; truck squashing was the leading cause of cyclist death in Dublin city (80% of deaths in the last ten years.)

I think many of you may be missing the point that it is in Dublin city (you can read "city centre" for that, as "Dublin city" covers only the historical centre of Dublin.) E.g. lots of traffic lights, junctions, quite congested traffic, etc. Average traffic speed would be well below 30kph as it is. You are unlikely to get above 30 for long on a bike, this is not exactly the open road! While having a definate benefit for cyclist safety, I would imagine this will benefit pedestrian safety even more. On the enforcement side, people here are much more concerned about speeding since penalty points were introduced and the consequent risk of losing your driving license.

In Dublin ... if heavy trucks are banned 7-7...how do goods get delivered to stores and such?

The Guinness trucks will always be able to get in. Right?

In Dublin, can you take the lane on city streets and ride with traffic like you can in New York or SF?

In Dublin, can you take the lane on city streets and ride with traffic like you can in New York or SF?It's pretty much the same as any other city in that regard, probably with about the same likeihood of the person behind you getting pissed off. If you are being considerate (keeping up with traffic, or need to turn, etc.) and not just blocking for the sake of it you should be OK. Of course there will still be the minority who beep at any cyclist in the middle of the road no matter what their reason for being there.

The main reason other than those to take the lane (as I understand it) would be to force safe passing behaviour which is not so much an issue in the city centre with its typical speeds. There are quite a lot of on-road cycle lanes in Dublin city centre which I would generally stay towards the car-side of unless I needed to turn. Efficient progress generally involves squeezing past cars on the inside than taking the lane. Of course I don't undertake heavy trucks in this manner.

The Guinness delivery trucks are not large enough to be affected by the ban. The city council are not that stupid!

I support both, much lower speed limits and higher fines and penalties. For first offense $1000, second $3000, 3rd loss of license for 10 years, and seizure of vehicle. Mandatory prison terms for causing an injury accident
Speed limits of 25 and 15 in most places

Speed limit of 30km/h is too low even for cyclists, I don't always ride that speed but it's certainly not rare... Also instituting speed limits onto cyclists kinda forces cyclists to purchase speedometers, how impossible will that be to enforce!!!!!

In a social context, it is a very dangerous policy to institute heavy fines as it usually only stops poorer people while the upper class gets to break the law as much as they want. There a plenty of single moms around trying to make ends meet, three mouths to feed, groceries to get, practices to arrive on time to. Yeah they break the law once in a while, so what's the big deal.

However I do like the idea of stiffer sentencing when injuries result. IMHO If you break a rule responsibly, insuring that no one is being endangered, then NO harm is done. However inconsiderate breaking of the law resulting in injury is a completely different affair. Maybe a night for a small injury, a week for a medium injury and so on. There would have to be a no "copout" policy so the likes of Paris Hilton and Mel Gibson couldn't get out of doing their time.


SIGN... I fully support integration (riding the roads) and oppose segregation ( bike lanes). Bicyclists should be like Hedgehogs, small, but so mean and nasty nobody will want to fool with them

Dang, I guess that makes me a cross between a Porcupine and a Badger! :D

30 km/h? That is way to low. Hell I will be breaking that speed limit on my bike, although admittedly not by much but still. I think 50 km/h is a reasonable speed for a street if you keep your distance and actually drive instead of doing god knows what. Lowering the speed limit seems more a feel good measure, so that politicians can say they did something, instead of addressing the root of the problem.

... Also instituting speed limits onto cyclists kinda forces cyclists to purchase speedometers, how impossible will that be to enforce!!!!!


-----Nobody would force you to get a speedo, but it is up to you to obey the law.


In a social context, it is a very dangerous policy to institute heavy fines as it usually only stops poorer people while the upper class gets to break the law as much as they want.

------You're assuming money is off less value to the rich? And what do the meaninglessly low fines right now tell them?


There a plenty of single moms around trying to make ends meet, three mouths to feed, groceries to get, practices to arrive on time to.

-----Then they need to leave earlier.


Yeah they break the law once in a while, so what's the big deal.

------When does it become a big deal? I say 2 over, you say 5, she says 15? Either enforce the law or don't.
:D

That's my response

In a social context, it is a very dangerous policy to institute heavy fines as it usually only stops poorer people while the upper class gets to break the law as much as they want.
------You're assuming money is off less value to the rich? And what do the meaninglessly low fines right now tell them?

Your 1000$ fine is a month's salary if you live at poverty level, that's 1/12th of your yearly salary.
1000$ fine for lower middle class is a week's salary, that's 1/52 of your yearly salary
1000$ fine for upper class is 1% of their yearly salary
1000$ fine for the rich is a speck of dust on their yearly balance sheet.

In order for cyclists to be treated civilly by motorists, cyclists need to be examples of a civil and fair society and heavy fines for non injury tresspasses to the law only serve to harass the poor.

Today's low fines are low for everyone, your fines thinking take aim at the poor. Don't the poor suffer enough already? Isn't society already unjust enough for them?

..............
Today's low fines are low for everyone, your fines thinking take aim at the poor. Don't the poor suffer enough already? Isn't society already unjust enough for them?

Somehow you have concluded that life is supposed to be fair. Life is not fair. Are fines supposed to be punishment for violating the laws of our society? If a poor man and a rich man each murder someone do you hang the rich man three times because he is rich? There will always be people with more than you and less than you. Who are the poor you speak of, the 99.5% below the top 0.5%? It's all relative to your position on the food chain. There are those that are rich assets bit poor in friends. When you see a rich man with no friends do you say "I'll give him some of my friends". No, you resent him because you perceive him to have more than you and in your eyes, that's just not fair. You must measure poor in more ways than just money. Probably your "poor" are that way because of the choices they have made in their lives. They will continue to be "poor" because they will continue to make bad choices and take no steps to change their situation. You can have all the compassion in the world for them and give them breaks, but in the end, very few of them will change anything.

Today's low fines are low for everyone, your fines thinking take aim at the poor. Don't the poor suffer enough already? Isn't society already unjust enough for them?

My fines take aim at lawbreakers.

The "poor" in america are not really poor. Poor is not only having a 19" color tv. Poor is not only having one car. Poor is not only having a 1000 s.f. house.

"Poor" in america is what middle class used to be in the 50-60s. Poor is living in a dirt hut in Africa, drinking sewer water, eating flies, and waiting to die.

If you can't afford the fine, GOOD! GREAT! that's what I want, I want people to be so scared of getting a ticket that they would walk before speeding.

My fines take aim at lawbreakers.

The "poor" in america are not really poor. Poor is not only having a 19" color tv. Poor is not only having one car. Poor is not only having a 1000 s.f. house.

"Poor" in america is what middle class used to be in the 50-60s. Poor is living in a dirt hut in Africa, drinking sewer water, eating flies, and waiting to die.

If you can't afford the fine, GOOD! GREAT! that's what I want, I want people to be so scared of getting a ticket that they would walk before speeding.

Your goal of attacking a specific relatively insignificant (in effect) class of "lawbreakers" whom YOU have apparently declared to be Public Enemy #1 only shows your own sense of (counter culture inspired) priorities.