Have the Dublin 30KPH Zone removed! E-mail this councillor

neutron

Lowering speed limits is an easy but ill-conceived and ultimately ineffective solution to tackling casualties. The wrong thinking also has no end. Why 30kph? Why not 20kph, or even 10kph?

Dublin City Council knows that most accidents occur below the posted speed limit on a given road. Trying to reduce accidnets with speed limits alone, need them to be set and rigidly enforced at levels that interfere with traffic flow and as can be seen with the amount of accidents in the last week on the quays, one with a pedestrian and one with a cyclist (both bus impacts in bus lanes) have little to do with the safety of cars.

Official figures also show that ‘exceeding the speed limit’ is reported by the Gardai as a contributing factor in only 7% of accidents for drivers aged 17-19, and less than 2% for drivers aged over 25 who form the majority of road-users in Dublin.

Making safe driving illegal is a weak and unthinking step for genuine road safety.

Emphasising speed limits that by just keeping to the speed limit will prevent accidents. This is a dangerous form of ‘zombie’ driving, meaning people focus much more on their speedometer as an indicator for safety, rather than the real hazards going on around them. Especially with the heavy handed Garda enforcement at the Traffic Departments councillors request drivers are checking their speedometers too frequently.
Setting speed limits too low works against safety. It causes frustration in the average, responsible driver and focuses the driver’s mind on an arbitrary number e.g. a too slow 30kph rather than encouraging good judgement of the speed which is safe for the conditions.

The result is the real reason for accidents is not being addressed by anyone nor is it making the roads safer for pedestrians or cyclists.
Urge your councillors now to have this 30kph zone removed!

call them and email them now!!!!!!!!!!

monument

neutron wrote: »

Lowering speed limits is an easy but ill-conceived and ultimately ineffective solution to tackling casualties. The wrong thinking also has no end. Why 30kph? Why not 20kph, or even 10kph?

This has been answered over and over again on this thread already.

Official figures also show that ‘exceeding the speed limit’ is reported by the Gardai as a contributing factor in only 7% of accidents for drivers aged 17-19, and less than 2% for drivers aged over 25 who form the majority of road-users in Dublin.

The idea the accidents were under the old limit has little meaning in the context of reducing the speed limit. If the speed limit was 100km/h, it's likely in the city centre that all accidents would not ‘exceeding the speed limit’.

Emphasising speed limits that by just keeping to the speed limit will prevent accidents. This is a dangerous form of ‘zombie’ driving, meaning people focus much more on their speedometer as an indicator for safety, rather than the real hazards going on around them. Especially with the heavy handed Garda enforcement at the Traffic Departments councillors request drivers are checking their speedometers too frequently.

Nobody here has said that just keeping to the speed limit will prevent accidents. Or have they?

And has been said over and over again: Drivers will adjust to the new limit.

BostonB

I notice Waterloo lane has been resigned from a 50kph to a 30kph in the last week. Anyone else noticed similar changes around them? I only noticed because I was thinking of taking a photo of it, what a daft limit it is then the sign was changed.

kevo1

I live in Dublin city. I love driving. I love cars and I love been able to drive through Dublin. However there are loads of roads in the Dublin region to drive above 30kph. What we don’t have is a central core in our capital city where the car is not allowed to dominate -a city centre which is not primarily set out to facilitate the movement of vehicles at the expense of pedestrians and bicycles. That makes sense on most of the road network but not all of the network.

If the council decided tomorrow to allow cars to drive through temple bar at 50kph we would all be appalled. We all love to meander along streets like Eustace street and seldom feel threatened by the cars we share the road with. It feels liberating. And the cars still get to where they need to. So why is it so hard to believe the same atmosphere can’t apply to big wide roads such as Dame Street or Eden Quay?

As it is, the city centre is a great place to be and return tourist numbers confirm this. But think just how much more fantastic a place it could be – a collection of calm, slower moving quieter wide and narrow streets and spaces and riverside walks to enjoy and relax and meander through - An experience more like walking down Grafton street only having to share the experience with cars and bicycles.

What this 30kph is trying to achieve is fundamental and visionary and shows a high level of understanding and care about what actually improves the quality of an urban CORE environment. And remember there were many detractors when it was proposed that Grafton street would become car free. And what a success that has turned out to be. I do wonder could the 30kph have been introduced with better communication and explanation. Also could the physical upgrade of this zone (eg paving, kerbs marking) have been upgraded before 30kph became the rule. But then again when Grafton street was first pedestrianised it was just blocked off at first and still had it’s tarmac surface.

Because of the new 30kph rule, I’m going to go out of my way to do as much of my socialising and shopping in Dublin city centre as possible.

DirkVoodoo

monument wrote: »

This has been answered over and over again on this thread already.

Maybe I should have made that graph bigger and more colourful :rolleyes:

I understand people's concerns and have questions myself about a 30 km/hr zone when surely what was needed was maybe just better enforcement of the current limit. I have yet to drive/cycle through the areas myself, or walk along the quays and see what the difference is in terms of "being more pleasant".

I do think though that the 6 month trial should at least be allowed to run it's full course and then be judged on a "before and after" case in terms of everything: safety, public opinion, economic impact, etc.

LibraMan

BluePlanet wrote: »

I can understand why the Safety angle gets all the attention here, but what about the Making-the-City-Centre-a-more-Pleasant-Place ?

Is this not a valid reason to dissuade motorists from choosing to drive a route that takes them through our city centre?

What about the commuters for whom the city centre is their destination? Perhaps you could lobby all the employers in the city centre to relocate outside the M50?

BostonB

blorg wrote: »

I was just thinking isn't that a band/singer?

BluePlanet

LibraMan wrote: »

What about the commuters for whom the city centre is their destination? Perhaps you could lobby all the employers in the city centre to relocate outside the M50?

As a matter of fact, our City Centre is very well serviced by public transport.
So i would advocate that some of those users availed of it, such as parking up at RedCow, or Tallaght and taking the LUAS in, to cite one example.
If they have choosen to live in commuter-hell Kildare, they might avail of the train.

zynaps

LibraMan wrote: »

What about the commuters for whom the city centre is their destination? Perhaps you could lobby all the employers in the city centre to relocate outside the M50?

But they're not prevented from getting to the city centre. 30kph isn't exactly walking pace, and many have commented that traffic, certainly during rush-hour, travels at a much lower speed than this.

If anything, it might make the drive into town more enjoyable and relaxing for those who have more need to do it.

BostonB

I doubt that most of those stuck in traffic find it more enjoyable when it moves slower.

Is it really making that much of a different to peoples journey. On my route, either traffic is stuck in the limit by other factors, or people are just ignoring it because theres no enforcement anyway. Its a non event tbh.

SleepDoc

brooker wrote: »

Doctor, as you should be aware that anyone presenting with an acute myocardial infarction or an acute cerebrovascular attack, time is of the esscence.

That's a heart attack or stroke.

A surprising amount of very ill people with varying levels of nosocomephobia, rather than dial the emergency services, prefer or usually their relatives, use on call practitioners as first call.

That's a fear of hospitals. Which is exactly where they will be going anyway if they have had a heart attack or stroke.

In light of the 30 Kilometre zone and your comments, it is obvious which doctor I would rather see paying a house call in the middle of the night.
Seconds lost due to the zone may result in patient mortality.

Fair enough! You know better.

LibraMan

zynaps wrote: »

But they're not prevented from getting to the city centre. 30kph isn't exactly walking pace, and many have commented that traffic, certainly during rush-hour, travels at a much lower speed than this.

If anything, it might make the drive into town more enjoyable and relaxing for those who have more need to do it.

The point is that the 30km/h limit is irrelevant during the day because a chance to do 30 woud be a fine thing. It's a petty nuisance to drivers during off peak hours because it forces them to practically kerb crawl through empty streets at night when there is absolutely no need for it.

Let's call a spade a spade here: all the recent blather about 'safety' is a red herring. This limit is solely an idealogically motivated scheme designed to frustrate motorists and force them out of the city centre. At least be honest about it.

zynaps

LibraMan wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade here: all the recent blather about 'safety' is a red herring. This limit is solely an idealogically motivated scheme designed to frustrate motorists and force them out of the city centre. At least be honest about it.

That's what I've been arguing for most of this thread. :pac: That there's very little justification for it safety-wise, given the other places where it would be more beneficial (dangerous junctions, residential areas etc) and other measures that would be more useful. But the argument that it might be more pleasant in town with lesser, quieter traffic is more compelling IMO.

DirkVoodoo

I think keeping the 30 km/hr limit from say 7am till 7pm might be a fair compromise?

Midnight_EG

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I think keeping the 30 km/hr limit from say 7am till 7pm might be a fair compromise?

But guardddddd, my clock says it's 7:01, not 6:59 :pac:

DirkVoodoo

Midnight_EG wrote: »

But guardddddd, my clock says it's 7:01, not 6:59 :pac:

Does anyone seem to mind about 5 or 10 minutes when it comes to bus lanes? Any more than that and you could probably argue you prefer driving on pacific standard time

ArphaRima

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0208/dublin.html
Tide turning

I think keeping the 30 km/hr limit from say 7am till 7pm might be a fair compromise?

Why? To allow the counsellors an easier backpedal? No feckin way. This was always a political manoeuvre to make a mark by those involved.

Hopefully their high water mark will be in infamy and that their careers will follow the demise of this bill.

diegowhite

No matter what a pedestrian should not be on the road where they are not meant to be ie. if they crossed only at lights or pedestrian crossings they are not likely to be hit as the traffic is not moving = 0kph traffic.

So no matter what figures are being thrown up showing where increased speed means it is more likely for a fatal injury to a pedestrian, if they are not on a road with moving traffic they cannot be hit (unless a car or cyclist breaks a light, which is already illegal).

If more time was spent enforcing or encouraging pedestrians to only cross roads at the point where they are meant to or cyclists penalised for breaking the many lights they do on a daily basis, I would see this as a more worthwhile effort than a 30kph speed limit.

Especially in a city where there is no underground rail or mode of transport that is not restricted by this limit when moving east to west through the city centre.

itsonlywords

neutron wrote: »

Thank you for your genuine questions

Yes I do want law breaking, pedal and cranking cyclists removed from Grafton St and Temple Bar pedestrian areas.

Er, no, I am not Mr Faughan nor am I a politically appointed civil servant in the inept "Traffic Department" in DCC either!

Hopefully those same civil servants do not post here during working hours when they are paid from our public purse. Using the internet for personal purposes during working hours is tantamount to stealing my tax money. Thats a crime in my books and should be dealt with.

itsonlywords

Why have this speed limit at all? Pedestrians break the law , all cyclists break the law and they are the main victims. Cars do not jump on the foot paths to get them or indeed search cylists out to attack. It is the 99% stupid pedestrians and cyclists. Maybe if the police targetted those law breakers and stop harassing the people who pay for the roads. My road tax pays for the roads and I dont mind cyclists and pedestrians using them as long as they are mindful of the dangers of jaywalking and careless lane changes and inside overtaking and many other dangerous practices of cyclists.

DirkVoodoo

itsonlywords wrote: »

Why have this speed limit at all? Pedestrians break the law , all cyclists break the law and they are the main victims. Cars do not jump on the foot paths to get them or indeed search cylists out to attack. It is the 99% stupid pedestrians and cyclists. Maybe if the police targetted those law breakers and stop harassing the people whop pay for the roads. My road tax pays for the raods and I dont mind cyclists and pedestrians using them as long as they are mindful of the dangers of jaywalking and careless lane changes and inside overtaking and many other dangerous practices of cyclists.

Wow, bravo, well said! Truly enlightened stuff. Has anyone actually read the bible? "Let he who is without...." ah never mind, it's pointless at this stage.

Rovi

Pat Kenny (RTE Radio 1) just announced that he will be talking today to "the councillor responsible for the 30kph limit" who has "done a u-turn"; whatever that means.

itsonlywords

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Wow, bravo, well said! Truly enlightened stuff. Has anyone actually read the bible? "Let he who is without...." ah never mind, it's pointless at this stage.

Ok put on your helmet and elbow pads and goggles etc and now go out dressed safely but dont forget to give heart attacks to poor innocent motorists who have enough trouble looking out for idiotic pedestrians besides having to watch for STUPID cyclists who obey no rules. We actually need the police to monitor pedestrians and cyclists and fine them accordingly. That would be a great revenue earner and much greater than extracting from the already harrassed motorist.. Motorists are in the main , law abiding but jaywalkers and 99% of cyclists are not.

DirkVoodoo

itsonlywords wrote: »

Ok put on your helmet and elbow pads and goggles etc and now go out dressed safely but dont forget to give heart attacks to poor innocent motorists who have enough trouble looking out for idiotic pedestrians besides having to watch for STUPID cyclists who obey no rules. We actually need the police to monitor pedestrians and cyclists and fine them accordingly. That would be a great revenue earner and much greater than extracting from the already harrassed motorist.. Motorists are in the main , law abiding but jaywalkers and 99% of cyclists are not.

I would suggest you go back through this thread and read some of the interesting debate from all sides, but that is probably a little too much to ask of you. Congratulations, you are resorting to stereotype and ridiculous statements (what is road tax, again?). Don't worry, I'll leave you with the last word, something about not arguing with you and being dragged down to your level springs to mind.

Eoin

Jip and itsonlywords - take a week off (posts deleted)

LostinBlanch

Rovi wrote: »

Pat Kenny (RTE Radio 1) just announced that he will be talking today to "the councillor responsible for the 30kph limit" who has "done a u-turn"; whatever that means.

Didn't hear that, but I heard a little of Bill Tormey ripping into the bould Andrew :rolleyes:

Looks like he's backtracking as Dr Tormey has delivered a new motion on the speed limit to the city manager.

Poor ickle Andrew is swinging in the wind, his support is dwindling. But at least he's consistent in refusing to accept realpolitik. Once his leader disowned him, it's open season on his harebrained plans for world domination pinky & the brain style.

I hope his political career ends soon.

Guy:Incognito

Heard the labour and FG councillors (for and against respectivly) on Newstalk a little while ago. Have to say the FG guy against the limit came across as egotistical and sneaky imo.

He constantly referred to limits in mph to make them sound slower (condescending in thinking that people are too stupid too know the difference?) resorted to mild name calling and lead with repeated use of "I" when referrign to figting to have it changed. He went on like he was the sole voice in the fight to save the people or something, then threw in numbers for others, but referred to it as his.

LostinBlanch

Stekelly wrote: »

Heard the labour and FG councillors (for and against respectivly) on Newstalk a little while ago. Have to say the FG guy against the limit came across as egotistical and sneaky imo.

He constantly referred to limits in mph to make them sound slower (condescending in thinking that people are too stupid too know the difference?) resorted to mild name calling and lead with repeated use of "I" when referrign to figting to have it changed. He went on like he was the sole voice in the fight to save the people or something, then threw in numbers for others, but referred to it as his.

Ste,

I suppose that shows that different people hear things differently. All I heard was the bould Andrew :rolleyes: spouting out the same stuff he's been spouting on about since this whole things started. He's been disowned by his own leader who has thrown cold water on his arguments for the 30kph speed limit. Yet he still insists on repeating his same mantra again and again and again in the hope that people will just get bored and let him have his way.

The FG councillor originally voted against this from the start and has put a motion into the city councilllor to have this reversed. That's what I think the "his" he is referring to. One thing is for sure, all the councilllors know that they can't sneak in the limit through like they did the last time. People will be watching them.

One thing just struck me, if the bould Andrew :rolleyes: is so concerned about safety. Why does he not put forward a motion making cycling helmets compulsory for all cyclists?

concussion

Maybe because cycle helmets are not the great saviours you believe them to be? They are rated to protect the wearer if they hit the road at less than 12 mph, not for collisions with motor vehicles. Furthermore, studies in countries with mandatory helmet laws show a decrease in numbers cycling (without a correlated lowering of accidents) which leads to the conclusion that mandatory helmets = less cyclists and a correspondingly higher risk per cyclist.

Do you wear a helmet while driving?

I always wear a helmet while cycling but I do so in the knowledge that it will only protect me if I'm cycling slower than my average speed. I am also aware that it could lead to more severe neck and spinal injuries if it catches on the ground and twists my head.

malcolmtucker

Did it ever occur to you that he might be "spouting the same arguments" because they are in fact true.

Bill Tormley is one of only three Cllrs who voted against this measure the first time round. The rest of them clearly thought it was not such a mad idea at the time. The evidence for the measure is overwhelming. In every other city that introduced it business increased, pediestrian footfall increased and accidents decreased. I think most of the other Cllrs felt that this was at least worth a shot. I think we should try to give it a go too.

As for sneaking by the speed limits. O Connell street and the surrounding areas have been 30Kph for years. Remarkably there have been no massive increase in accidents due to everyone looking at their speedo;s and the city has not come to a standstill because of it. The limit made such an impact on everyones day to day lives that no one noticed it!! Why if they were able to sneak this in before was no one crying foul!!

concussion

I find it worrying that some motorists complain that they can't drive at 30 kph, yet they're expected to navigate multistory car parks and housing estates full of children.

malcolmtucker

Its the Quays...the laws of physics are different there to anywhere else! Thats why no one can manage 30kph. Also you will notice that a 20kph dip in speed for 1500 metres adds up to an hour onto journey times........... proof if ever we needed it that the laws of space time are in fact not immutable!

GTE

Rovi wrote: »

Pat Kenny (RTE Radio 1) just announced that he will be talking today to "the councillor responsible for the 30kph limit" who has "done a u-turn"; whatever that means.

I was listening to that same interview.

I had a great laugh about this, (paraphrasing)

Councillor: We put this to public consultation, I was on Spin 103, your own show etc. We only got two responses from the public, and both were in favour.

He mentioned that a couple of times then:

Kenny: So your plan was so daft no one but two people bothered to respond to it?


A good quarter miles worth of laugher that.

zynaps

concussion wrote: »

I always wear a helmet while cycling but I do so in the knowledge that it will only protect me if I'm cycling slower than my average speed. I am also aware that it could lead to more severe neck and spinal injuries if it catches on the ground and twists my head.

Surely falling without a helmet could lead to equally severe neck and spinal injuries if your head catches on the ground and twists itself? :pac:

When I had a bike, I wore a helmet too but I also disagree with making them mandatory. However I strongly feel that those who implemented the new speed limit as a safety measure have neglected many other potentially more fruitful measures - most significantly that there's very little justification of the necessity of the speed limit here when there are so many suburban roads and junctions which are dangerous to cyclists* and pedestrians**.

So I think it's odd that this 30kph limit has been placed where it has, so quickly without apparently much thought. We haven't identified that there is a specific need for this measure in the zone in question, so it seems premature to have imposed it, especially while ignoring other more hazardous areas.

Put a 30kph limit in narrow residential areas instead, fix the potholes, fix the weird junctions and confusing/suicidal cycle lanes, put more pedestrian crossings on roads that need them.


* e.g. kamikaze mandatory-use cycle "lanes" that disappear into kerbs/walls or must be crossed by traffic, MASSIVE POTHOLES, narrow but relatively busy streets/lanes like Mobhi Road going uphill or Drumcondra bridge

** e.g. few or no crossings on busy roads, frustratingly long wait periods, cars/vans parked on pavement at junctions forcing pedestrians onto road, cars driving at 40-50kph down narrow residential streets where children run out behind the cars parked left and right everywhere

zynaps

diegowhite wrote: »

No matter what a pedestrian should not be on the road where they are not meant to be ie. if they crossed only at lights or pedestrian crossings they are not likely to be hit as the traffic is not moving = 0kph traffic.

And what if the nearest crossing is 500m away in the completely wrong direction? What if there's no crossing at all, or they'd have to follow an elaborate route, crossing three or four times to work their way back to the other side of the first road? Someone put up a route pedestrians had to take to make such a crossing near Tara St/Liberty Hall. Remember that it's not illegal to jaywalk unless there is a crossing less than 15 metres away, so people can and will do it - it's simply not realistic to expect every pedestrian to stay off the roads except at crossings (and even wait for a green light at crossings - unfortunately all too common in the city centre, people crossing like sheep because they saw other people doing it, even if a bus is practically on top of them).

Not that any of that justifies the lowered speed limit instead of other solutions, or explains why the 30kph limit applies to the whole zone on a blanket basis and not in other more dangerous suburban areas that would probably benefit more, but I'm repeating myself (repeatedly)

concussion

zynaps wrote: »

Surely falling without a helmet could lead to equally severe neck and spinal injuries if your head catches on the ground and twists itself? :pac:

True, but due to the extra size of the helmet, you increase your chances of contacting the road in the first place.

As for the mandatory use of cycle lanes, that's being repealed soon

MadsL

Apparently with 'speeding' taken care of, Mr Montague now has his sights on the evils of Gambling.

http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=36100&t=0&m=wm&l=en_GB

01:54:28 onwards...

uberwolf

used the search function, and couldn't find reference to this research in thread.

British Medical Journal Research

which concluded:
Results The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.

monument

Bill Tormey says he wants the 30km/h removed, and also M50 toll bridge style speed cameras along the quays. How many motorists against the 30km/h zone want this?

Tormey also told me he wants enforced of j-walking rules, but said "There is an underprovision of pedestrian crossings at the quays." When I pointed out that on the north quays there are 11 pedestrians crossing on the 1.4km long 30km/h zone, he did not respond to this directly. How many motorists against the 30km/h zone want more pedestrian crossings along this section of the quays?

uberwolf wrote: »

used the search function, and couldn't find reference to this research in thread.

British Medical Journal Research

which concluded:
Results The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.

It's mentioned a few times.

uberwolf

monument wrote: »

It's mentioned a few times.

fair enough, I searched 'medical' and none of the 4 relevant returns seemed to contain it from the preview.

Guy:Incognito

bbk wrote: »

I was listening to that same interview.

I had a great laugh about this, (paraphrasing)

Councillor: We put this to public consultation, I was on Spin 103, your own show etc. We only got two responses from the public, and both were in favour.

He mentioned that a couple of times then:

Kenny: So your plan was so daft no one but two people bothered to respond to it?


A good quarter miles worth of laugher that.

So where were all the campaigners on here during public consultation and discussion? Thats what it's for. Yet everyone chose to wait till it came in and start whinging.

BTW my stance on the issue is "meh".

ArphaRima

and also M50 toll bridge style speed cameras along the quays

To what aim? Tolls or speed monitoring?

Because I oppose 30kph, and now he conveniently also opposes it does not mean that I support any of his other proposals.


As for the bicycle helmet thing - off topic I know. I thought for years they were already mandatory. Or is that lighting at night? (honest curiosity, I dont want the thread sidetracked)

Guy:Incognito

fluffer wrote: »

To what aim? Tolls or speed monitoring?

Use of the word speedign would suggest speed cameras.I dont think anyone has ever suggested tolling the quays.

ArphaRima

I dont think anyone has ever suggested tolling the quays.

It really wouldnt surprise me. Not in the slightest.

monument

fluffer wrote: »

To what aim? Tolls or speed monitoring?

Because I oppose 30kph, and now he conveniently also opposes it does not mean that I support any of his other proposals.

Never said everybody would, but a lot of people have been praising the three councillors who voted against it and he has been one of the most vocal and most mentioned of them.

fluffer wrote: »

As for the bicycle helmet thing - off topic I know. I thought for years they were already mandatory. Or is that lighting at night? (honest curiosity, I dont want the thread sidetracked)

They were never mandatory in Ireland.

Very few countries or regions -- most notably a number of US states -- have mandatory cycle helmet laws. And even some of them are only for under 18s.

concussion

fluffer wrote: »

Or is that lighting at night? (honest curiosity, I dont want the thread sidetracked)

One red rear light and one white front light (up to December last year they had to to be constant, now flashing lights are permitted), one red rear reflector and one front white reflector. Bell (exemptions for racing bikes or bikes adapted for racing. Reflectors are recommended for wheels and pedals, as is a hi-vis jacket and helmet.

zynaps

concussion wrote: »

One red rear light and one white front light (up to December last year they had to to be constant, now flashing lights are permitted), one red rear reflector and one front white reflector. Bell (exemptions for racing bikes or bikes adapted for racing. Reflectors are recommended for wheels and pedals, as is a hi-vis jacket and helmet.

Really? Good to know, although I'd expect enforcement of this is very low! I thought there was no law regarding them, however sensible it is to wear the gear.

Yesterday night, I saw a black man wearing a dark coat, riding a black bicycle in a poorly lit area... that's practically a suicide attempt :eek: Although I must admit to doing the same a few times when I started cycling about 8 years ago (not only that, but I often did so while after a few too many pints - not sure how I avoided a Darwin award). :P

neutron

The 30 kph zone is totally laughable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWCLlMzX-dA

DirkVoodoo

fluffer wrote: »

As for the bicycle helmet thing - off topic I know. I thought for years they were already mandatory. Or is that lighting at night? (honest curiosity, I dont want the thread sidetracked)

The research on helmets is conflicting at best. Basically you can only effectively design an expanded foam helmet to absorb the impact energy of hitting a large flat surface (like the road) or a sharp edge (like a kerb). They are at opposite ends of the scale, so helmets occupy an imperfect middle ground. This is not to say they wouldn't help in some collisions, of course they would, but there is also evidence to support they make things worse in other collisions. Then there is the issue of cyclist and driver perception. Some people argue that cyclists take more risks because they think they are safer with the helmet on (think of anytime you might have been snowboarding with/without a helmet if you haven't cycled) and a study in the UK showed that drivers overtake closer to cyclists who wear helmets because subconsciously they perceive them as more competent and safer. The longer the hair, the wider the overtaking gap. The conclusion was to wear a wig.

Lights are the real issue that needs to be tackled, not helmets. "Ninja" cyclists without lights are a real danger to themselves and other road users. After all, a helmet might help in a collision, but if you have lights then (see the image I linked to way back) the majority of cycling accidents occur because the driver doesn't see the cyclist to begin with. Cycling home from football last night, everyone was stopping at red lights, which was nice, but only about half of the people I saw in both directions had any kind of front/rear lights.

Sorry to drag it more off topic, but you did ask!

Ah, those good old downfall memes never get old, it's pretty well done. Is it not "affect" as opposed to "effect" though?

zynaps

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

and a study in the UK showed that drivers overtake closer to cyclists who wear helmets because subconsciously they perceive them as more competent and safer. The longer the hair, the wider the overtaking gap. The conclusion was to wear a wig.

That's hilarious! I wonder why it works though... A little part of our old caveman brains that says "Longer hair = more effeminate = less competent/predictable"?