New 30km/hr city speed limit

Victor

iblis wrote:

One particularly bad spot is crossing from the top of Grafton street to Stephen's Green. Stand there for 5 mins during the day time and you will see several cyclists cycling through the traffic lights against the one way traffic flow, while the crossing light is green, and people are trying to cross...

The design included a contra-flow cycle lane, the site works didn't

It is clearly marked "cyclists dismount".

No legal basis for such signs.

Cyclists often cycle in the middle of traffic lanes,

This is to stop you running over them.

or on the right hand side of a traffic lane.

This is so they can turn right.

I would doubt more than half wear proper reflective gear.

No obligation to wear reflective gear.

The vast majority do not use hand signals. Again many cycle against the traffic flow on narrow one way systems without a care in the world. Expecting buses and cars to move over.

Mostly hyperbole, but some road engineers encourage such behaviour. Of course one-way streets are there solely for the convenience of motorists.

And now we are to accept an almost halved speed limit to protect these helpless citizens?

So what of the people run over on Wellington Quay? Or Henry Street?

iblis

First up, I'm not mounting a challenge to the cycling community, pedestrians and motorists do stupid things too. Please read through this before you reject what I'm saying. My concern is as much for the lives of cyclists I might come across as a motorist as it is for my life when I come across a cyclist as a pedestrian.

iblis wrote:

One particularly bad spot is crossing from the top of Grafton street to Stephen's Green. Stand there for 5 mins during the day time and you will see several cyclists cycling through the traffic lights against the one way traffic flow, while the crossing light is green, and people are trying to cross...

Victor wrote:

The design included a contra-flow cycle lane, the site works didn't

I fail to see how this makes it safe for them to do this? The fact that there was a contra-flow cycle lane that didn't get implemented does not change the fact that the pedestrians are crossing on a green light and the cyclists are travelling the wrong way down a one way street through their path. Why are they cycling down a one way street? To get somewhere faster? If someone in a car broke the law to get somewhere faster, thus endangering pedestrians they'd be chastised on here.

iblis wrote:

It is clearly marked "cyclists dismount".

Victor wrote:

No legal basis for such signs.

Again, lol, that does not make it safe. What's the issue? You want to get there faster? Then what does someone elses safety matter... Again, if a motorist took the same attitude...

iblis wrote:

Cyclists often cycle in the middle of traffic lanes,

Victor wrote:

This is to stop you running over them.

They are going to be overtaken regardless, they are forcing the overtaking car into another traffic lane which increases the likelyness of something unexpected happening which could cause the driver to swerve. This is putting their own lives at risk. Do they really expect people to drive at, say uphill going over the bridge on the Ballybough Road towards Parnell Street, as I see most mornings, approximately 10kph when the road ahead is clear? If they move to the left hand side of the road they are safer IMO. No, I do not mean cycle in the gutter.

iblis wrote:

or on the right hand side of a traffic lane.

Victor wrote:

This is so they can turn right.

In that case of course it's fine. Again I don't think cyclists realise the danger they put themselves and others in some times. What I was referring to in particular here was again, the Ballybough road, where I frequently see cyclists cycling on the right hand side of the left hand lane on a 2+2 road. That means a car has to try and squeeze by in the inside, or when it comes to an uphill stretch, drive at mabe 10kph.

iblis wrote:

I would doubt more than half wear proper reflective gear.

Victor wrote:

No obligation to wear reflective gear.

No there is no obligation. But I don't think cyclists realise just how invisible they can be, even in city lighting. I have above average eyesight, before any smart comments. But it's astounding how cyclists with no lights or reflective gear can just appear from behind a parked car when you are trying to pull out of a junction, or cross a road on foot.

It's dangerous for cyclists if it's a car (pulling out means < 30kph, clearly) and it's dangerous for the pedestrians if they are crossing.

iblis wrote:

The vast majority do not use hand signals. Again many cycle against the traffic flow on narrow one way systems without a care in the world. Expecting buses and cars to move over.

Victor wrote:

Mostly hyperbole, but some road engineers encourage such behaviour. Of course one-way streets are there solely for the convenience of motorists.

Again, I'm astonished at your attitude. It's the danger to cyclists I'm trying to hilight here, when I talk about hand signals. Motorists cannot read your mind. If they decide to speed up and overtake you at the same time you decide to go right without signalling, you're going to end up in hospital! Surely you can see that?

I'm not sure what your point is regarding one way streets... Mine is they are one way. And they are intended to be one way for all traffic. Going the other way (to save time again I'm guessing) is dangerous. Dangerous to cyclists, dangerous to pedestrians, and frustrating to motorists. Motorists may or may not pay adequate attention to the opposite direction when pulling on to a one way street. I am not saying this is correct behavior on the part of the motorist, but it happens. Pedestrians crossing the street do likewise. It's not right, but neither's cycling down a one way street against the traffic flow.

iblis wrote:

And now we are to accept an almost halved speed limit to protect these helpless citizens?

Victor wrote:

So what of the people run over on Wellington Quay? Or Henry Street?

Again, I don't see your point. You'll have to enlighten me as to what's different here.

From your points I get the impression you are primarily a cyclist. But I also get the impression you do not perceive half the danger around you. That is truly frightening. And it's no wonder they have to reduce the speed limit if that is the attitude of the majority of cyclists. However, I don't believe for one second it will make it safe for cyclists to act in the manner you seem to think is completely reasonable. I truly hope you take in something of what I have said before you ruin your life and that of whoever hits you.

markpb

iblis wrote:

I fail to see how this makes it safe for them to do this? The fact that there was a contra-flow cycle lane that didn't get implemented does not change the fact that the pedestrians are crossing on a green light and the cyclists are travelling the wrong way down a one way street through their path. Why are they cycling down a one way street? To get somewhere faster?

You can cycle from the south-west corner of the Green, past RCSI using the cycle lane but when you get to the north-west corner, suddenly there are no road markings and no traffic lights to allow you to continue to the two-lane road on the north side of the park.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Basically it means that you can get from a to b and c to d but you have to teleport from b to c because they forgot to implement the design. Of course, drivers won't know this, all they'll see are stupid cyclists not following the rules and bitching about them without knowing what they're talking about.

If someone in a car broke the law to get somewhere faster, thus endangering pedestrians they'd be chastised on here.

Drivers do silly little things but they don't realise how dangerous they are. No indicators could be lethal to a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist and I don't need to tell you how poor the use of indicators is. Weaving while you check your phone, change the radio station, brush your hair, do your makeup and a whole host of other things are also potentially to cyclists but drivers don't even realise. What's a few centimetres when you're in a car? I could wager you weave unintentionally every time you get in a car.

Again, lol, that does not make it safe. What's the issue? You want to get there faster? Then what does someone elses safety matter... Again, if a motorist took the same attitude...

Have you ever seen a motorist jump into a bus lane and jump back out at the head of the queue, change lanes suddenly to beat traffic, undertake, turn left without slowing down and checking their mirrors, roll forward at red lights or hop into the pavement to get past a right turning vehicle? I can assure you I have and those things are _extremely_ dangerous for other road users.

They are going to be overtaken regardless

Of course overtaking when it's not safe is against the law. But according to you, it's okay as long as a driver does it and if a cyclists tries to keep themselves safe, they're breaking the law? At least try to be consistent in your argument.

they are forcing the overtaking car into another traffic lane which increases the likelyness of something unexpected happening which could cause the driver to swerve. This is putting their own lives at risk. Do they really expect people to drive at, say uphill going over the bridge on the Ballybough Road towards Parnell Street, as I see most mornings, approximately 10kph when the road ahead is clear? If they move to the left hand side of the road they are safer IMO. No, I do not mean cycle in the gutter.

Do we really expect drivers to drive safely and treat other road users with respect? No, not at all. That's precisely why you see cyclists in the middle of the lane, to prevent the downright dangerous manoeuvres you just admitted drivers do.

Again, this stems from your lack of experience as a cyclist (not that I'm blaming you). It's a well known fact that staying on the left of the lane is the most dangerous place to be. If you're in the middle of the lane, you're visible and in control. If you're on the left, you're practically invisible, not in control and people will overtake in the most ridiculous of situations.

Again, I'm astonished at your attitude. It's the danger to cyclists I'm trying to hilight here, when I talk about hand signals. Motorists cannot read your mind. If they decide to speed up and overtake you at the same time you decide to go right without signalling, you're going to end up in hospital! Surely you can see that?

I fully agree with you about the poor standard of signalling but there are two reasons (apart from rudeness and laziness) that this happens. The first is that when I indicate that I'm moving right (either to turn right or move around a parked car) exactly nothing happens. No-one slows down to let me out, no-one moves right to let me continue straight on. I'm completely and utterly ignored, often for several minutes. Why should I show any courtesy to drivers when they fail to return it?

The second, and only a cyclist will realise this, is that you can't brake and signal at the same time. I can't approach a parked car, signal right and slow down so I have to do one or the other. Since no-one is going to let me out, I have to slow down to prepare to stop.

I get the impression you're primarily a motorist and like most motorists, you have no understanding of other road users point of view. You have no idea what it's like to cycle round and city, you freely admit motorists will race past, overtake dangerously and generally expect other road users to stay out of their way. Sharing a road is all about compromise and drivers, in my experience, have no consideration for each other or for others. Until they do, pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to frustrate them and they won't have a clue why.

biko

I support it because of
(1) Reducing fatalities
A pedestrian hit by a car at 40mph has only a 15% chance of surviving. At 30mph this chance increases to 55%. But at 20mph the chance of survival increases to 95%. [1] In Galway city 28% of accidents involve pedestrians, but these account for 43% of fatalities. [2] 128 people were injured, and 6 killed in traffic accidents in Galway City in 1997. [3]

(2) Reducing casualties
Lowering the speed limit to 20mph reduces total road traffic casualty levels by around 60% and child casualties by around 70%, according to studies in both Britain and Denmark. [4] This would mean at least 80 fewer road traffic casualties in Galway City each year.

Seth Brundle

Thats all true biko but I think many people feel they are effectively being blamed for the stupidity of others.
However, this is the easier option to manage as people will always be stupid!

craichoe

markpb wrote:

You can cycle from the south-west corner of the Green, past RCSI using the cycle lane but when you get to the north-west corner, suddenly there are no road markings and no traffic lights to allow you to continue to the two-lane road on the north side of the park.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Basically it means that you can get from a to b and c to d but you have to teleport from b to c because they forgot to implement the design. Of course, drivers won't know this, all they'll see are stupid cyclists not following the rules and bitching about them without knowing what they're talking about.



Drivers do silly little things but they don't realise how dangerous they are. No indicators could be lethal to a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist and I don't need to tell you how poor the use of indicators is. Weaving while you check your phone, change the radio station, brush your hair, do your makeup and a whole host of other things are also potentially to cyclists but drivers don't even realise. What's a few centimetres when you're in a car? I could wager you weave unintentionally every time you get in a car.



Have you ever seen a motorist jump into a bus lane and jump back out at the head of the queue, change lanes suddenly to beat traffic, undertake, turn left without slowing down and checking their mirrors, roll forward at red lights or hop into the pavement to get past a right turning vehicle? I can assure you I have and those things are _extremely_ dangerous for other road users.



Of course overtaking when it's not safe is against the law. But according to you, it's okay as long as a driver does it and if a cyclists tries to keep themselves safe, they're breaking the law? At least try to be consistent in your argument.



Do we really expect drivers to drive safely and treat other road users with respect? No, not at all. That's precisely why you see cyclists in the middle of the lane, to prevent the downright dangerous manoeuvres you just admitted drivers do.

Again, this stems from your lack of experience as a cyclist (not that I'm blaming you). It's a well known fact that staying on the left of the lane is the most dangerous place to be. If you're in the middle of the lane, you're visible and in control. If you're on the left, you're practically invisible, not in control and people will overtake in the most ridiculous of situations.



I fully agree with you about the poor standard of signalling but there are two reasons (apart from rudeness and laziness) that this happens. The first is that when I indicate that I'm moving right (either to turn right or move around a parked car) exactly nothing happens. No-one slows down to let me out, no-one moves right to let me continue straight on. I'm completely and utterly ignored, often for several minutes. Why should I show any courtesy to drivers when they fail to return it?

The second, and only a cyclist will realise this, is that you can't brake and signal at the same time. I can't approach a parked car, signal right and slow down so I have to do one or the other. Since no-one is going to let me out, I have to slow down to prepare to stop.

I get the impression you're primarily a motorist and like most motorists, you have no understanding of other road users point of view. You have no idea what it's like to cycle round and city, you freely admit motorists will race past, overtake dangerously and generally expect other road users to stay out of their way. Sharing a road is all about compromise and drivers, in my experience, have no consideration for each other or for others. Until they do, pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to frustrate them and they won't have a clue why.

Sir,

Speaking as a long term motorcyclist, you are an idiot.
There are many things that you are not legally required to do on a motorcycle, but they tend to make it less likely that you will be killed.

The same rules apply to a cyclist, not legally, but for their own safety !!! assuming a car will get out of your way is suicide !

Driving a motorcycle there's one thing you always have to keep on your mind

"The guy driving the car.... CANNOT SEE YOU"

markpb

craichoe wrote:

Driving a motorcycle there's one thing you always have to keep on your mind

"The guy driving the car.... CANNOT SEE YOU"

I'm glad you agree with me. You'll notice (or you would if you actually read my post) that I said that cyclists should be in the middle of the lane so they can be seen, that they should signal more often and that they should prepare to stop instead of racing out past a parked car.

In fact, apart from pointing out a flaw in the road design around Stephens Green, you'll never see me advocating a lot of the things cyclists do. As a long term cyclist, I'm still here, still walking around and in almost eight years of cycle-commuting around Dublin have never once been in an accident involving another vehicle.

layke

30km/h Fecking hell. I wish I could go that fast.

biko

When I walk I hate drivers, they can't wait 10 seconds to let someone over the road. When I drive I'm like "get the fcuk outta my way, pedestrian idiots" You can't win.

iblis

markpb wrote:

You can cycle from the south-west corner of the Green, past RCSI using the cycle lane but when you get to the north-west corner, suddenly there are no road markings and no traffic lights to allow you to continue to the two-lane road on the north side of the park.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Basically it means that you can get from a to b and c to d but you have to teleport from b to c because they forgot to implement the design. Of course, drivers won't know this, all they'll see are stupid cyclists not following the rules and bitching about them without knowing what they're talking about.

So that make's it ok to put pedestrians at risk to save dismounting and walking for, what, 30 secs? 1 minute? As I said, the fact is you are going the wrong way down a one way street through a green pedestrian light as people are trying to cross - that puts them AND you in danger. A 30-sec to 1 minute inconvenience does not justify that. Or are you unable to walk?

markpb wrote:

Drivers do silly little things but they don't realise how dangerous they are. No indicators could be lethal to a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist and I don't need to tell you how poor the use of indicators is. Weaving while you check your phone, change the radio station, brush your hair, do your makeup and a whole host of other things are also potentially to cyclists but drivers don't even realise. What's a few centimetres when you're in a car? I could wager you weave unintentionally every time you get in a car.

Have you ever seen a motorist jump into a bus lane and jump back out at the head of the queue, change lanes suddenly to beat traffic, undertake, turn left without slowing down and checking their mirrors, roll forward at red lights or hop into the pavement to get past a right turning vehicle? I can assure you I have and those things are _extremely_ dangerous for other road users.

Slating motorists doesn't change anything. I am a frequent driver and pedestrian, and while less frequently I do cycle a lot. And it is all in the city. When you are travelling one way, stupid things people do in another form of transport are more apparent. I try and take this on board and change my habits appropriately.

For example I will never EVER block a marked pedestrian crossing just to get a few feet closer to the yellow box while waiting to cross a busy junction as a motorist. That forces pedestrians dangerously close or even into active traffic lanes in order to cross on a green crossing light. Likewise I will never EVER cycle the wrong way down a one way street through a crowd of crossing pedestrians who are obviously not expecting traffic from that direction and are on a green crossing light.

markpb wrote:

Of course overtaking when it's not safe is against the law. But according to you, it's okay as long as a driver does it and if a cyclists tries to keep themselves safe, they're breaking the law? At least try to be consistent in your argument.

Do we really expect drivers to drive safely and treat other road users with respect? No, not at all. That's precisely why you see cyclists in the middle of the lane, to prevent the downright dangerous manoeuvres you just admitted drivers do.

That is not what I said. Why is it always the same on here? I never said it's okay for a motorist to overtake dangerously. That IS against the law for one thing. My point here has been safety the whole way. How does that translate to condoning dangerous driving? You seem to have a beef with motorists. That's not what I'm talking about. When I make points from a motorists point of view it's as much my concern for the safety of the cyclists I see on the road every day. I drive very carefully and as I said I take what I experience as a pedestrian and as a cyclist and vice versa and use it to try and make myself safer as a motorist/cyclist/pedestrian. Other people do not.

The things in my original post were to hilight dangers to cyclists from motorists (who may not necessarily be at fault) and to pedestrians from cyclists.

Cycling in the middle of a road lane is just as pigheaded as a motorist driving in a cycle lane to squeeze past another car at a junction. Then cyclists can't get through. My point was cyclists seem to think it's safer and I strongly disagree. You are a perfect example.

Do you really think it's wise to try and force a car to follow you at your cycling speed? It's very difficult to keep safe distance from a cyclist if you are forced to follow them. Car's are not geared to drive continuously at 10kph. If the cyclist is in the middle of the lane, there is nowhere for a motorist to go but into the back of you if they, for example get shunted from behind.

markpb wrote:

Again, this stems from your lack of experience as a cyclist (not that I'm blaming you). It's a well known fact that staying on the left of the lane is the most dangerous place to be. If you're in the middle of the lane, you're visible and in control. If you're on the left, you're practically invisible, not in control and people will overtake in the most ridiculous of situations.

I think this is more an issue with your inexperience as a driver. If you drive in the city you would see that this is putting yourself in more danger. But you don't want to hear that? The opinion I am posting is balanced in my opinion. I have nothing against cyclists. It's the best way to travel round the city. Yours is clearly pro-cyclist only and you are not considering what I am saying even when it is to hilight danger to cyclists and to pedestrians from cyclists. You are even justifying endangering pedestrians because you can't dismount. It's cycle or "teleport" apparently!

Do you really think you can "control" vehicular traffic by cycling in the middle of the traffic lane? You clearly are not really interested in my opinion, which I would consider relevant as a motorist/pedestrian/cyclist, so why not ask a traffic Garda if that is a smart thing to do? I'm not looking to win an argument here. If one thing I says makes you think twice next time your cycling before doing something you never before considered dangerous, be it to yourself or to a pedestrian, then it was worth every letter typed.

markpb wrote:

I fully agree with you about the poor standard of signalling but there are two reasons (apart from rudeness and laziness) that this happens. The first is that when I indicate that I'm moving right (either to turn right or move around a parked car) exactly nothing happens. No-one slows down to let me out, no-one moves right to let me continue straight on. I'm completely and utterly ignored, often for several minutes. Why should I show any courtesy to drivers when they fail to return it?

That is the worst argument I've ever heard. I said it above and I'll say it again. I'm not promoting signalling as a convenience to drivers. It's for the safety of the cyclist by showing your intention to other road users. No, it does not mean cars will get out of your way. Indicators on a car, similarly, do not convey right of way. That's no excuse for not using them. And I DO use them.

markpb wrote:

The second, and only a cyclist will realise this, is that you can't brake and signal at the same time. I can't approach a parked car, signal right and slow down so I have to do one or the other. Since no-one is going to let me out, I have to slow down to prepare to stop.

I'm sorry but that is rubbish. It is people who take attitudes like that that get killed on the roads. Unless of course you have one arm, in which case I apologise sincerely. However in that situation you should really have a bicycle modified for your disability.

markpb wrote:

I get the impression you're primarily a motorist and like most motorists, you have no understanding of other road users point of view. You have no idea what it's like to cycle round and city, you freely admit motorists will race past, overtake dangerously and generally expect other road users to stay out of their way. Sharing a road is all about compromise and drivers, in my experience, have no consideration for each other or for others. Until they do, pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to frustrate them and they won't have a clue why.

That is also rubbish. As above I do cycle in the city and I never said those things. I also drive and choose to use both viewpoints positively. From your post it is clear that compromise is not on your mind. You are focused on cycling and everyone else is a hinderance to the extent that when it is explained in simple english you choose to slate drivers rather than acknowledge that you can have a positive affect on your own road safety and that of the people around you.