New proposed 30km/h speed limits-"Consultation"?

Long Time Lurker

There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

Fully supportive of 30k limit by the way. Protects all idiots but more importantly small children and the like. There will come a time in the future where automotive transport and pedestrians will simply not be tolerated together. Long way off sadly.

schemingbohemia

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

Fully supportive of 30k limit by the way. Protects all idiots but more importantly small children and the like. There will come a time in the future where automotive transport and pedestrians will simply not be tolerated together. Long way off sadly.

Ah yes, was wondering when the victim blaming would come in and bang on time......

Have a look here
http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

And see how many deaths were the "fault" of the cyclist due to behaviour like that you've mentioned.

magicbastarder

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

transport for london commissioned a survey which found that in the majority of cases (i think 60%), the motorist was at fault in cyclist fatalities in london. i'm not aware of a similar study in an irish context.
one caveat is that there is now a HGV ban in dublin city centre, which does not not exist in london, to my knowledge.

NiallBoo

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

You've got absolutely nothing to back that up.

The figures I've seen have put deaths of cyclists ranging from 75-92% of cyclist fatalities (in ireland) down to motorist error.

Though presumably it will be less than that for the 2015 figures.

Long Time Lurker

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

Fully supportive of 30k limit by the way. Protects all idiots but more importantly small children and the like. There will come a time in the future where automotive transport and pedestrians will simply not be tolerated together. Long way off sadly.

Ah yes, was wondering when the victim blaming would come in and bang on time......

Have a look here
http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

And see how many deaths were the "fault" of the cyclist due to behaviour like that you've mentioned.

Nah I wasn't trying to implie blame in any quantity to any specific road users. Just stating the fact that the statistic was a little simple. It does suggest that it was 100% motorists fault which we agree it isn't.

No axe to grind and I'm sure you're not suggesting that cyclists are of a higher intelligence level that a motorist. I was simply pointing out that all road users can be morons.

Long Time Lurker

NiallBoo wrote: »

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

You've got absolutely nothing to back that up.

The figures I've seen have put deaths of cyclists ranging from 75-92% of cyclist fatalities (in ireland) down to motorist error.

Though presumably it will be less than that for the 2015 figures.

Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?

NiallBoo

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?

You go from saying that the gross fatality figures don't tell the whole story (fair enough, they don't) to assuming that the bulk of those are caused by cycling error, the figures that are available on this say otherwise.

Many cyclists do break the law. yes It's annoying and no they shouldn't do it...but it's realistically it's nowhere near the same ball-park of danger caused to cyclist (or anyone else) as when people in cars break the law.

Roadhawk

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Ah yes, was wondering when the victim blaming would come in and bang on time......

Have a look here
http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

And see how many deaths were the "fault" of the cyclist due to behaviour like that you've mentioned.

And not one of these incidents were caused in the newly proposed 30km zone? Why is that ???

shootermacg

Almost every day there's a car crash related death. The fact is people in motorised vehicles cause injury and death on a regular basis, to pedestrians, cyclists and each other.

How some posters can come on here with a straight face and complain about "jay-walking" or "rogue cyclists".

The insanity and the irony of it all is not lost on the sane. The 30km/h limit is actually to save you motorists from yourselves, because left to your own devices, you'd continue killing people.

ted1

NiallBoo wrote: »

You've got absolutely nothing to back that up.

The figures I've seen have put deaths of cyclists ranging from 75-92% of cyclist fatalities (in ireland) down to motorist error.

Though presumably it will be less than that for the 2015 figures.

And the other could be as a result of natural causes such as heart attacks

2RockMountain

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?

Here's what you need to back up?

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

And just to add one more to the strong international trend of where the fault lies;

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html

Long Time Lurker

NiallBoo wrote: »

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?

You go from saying that the gross fatality figures don't tell the whole story (fair enough, they don't) to assuming that the bulk of those are caused by cycling error, the figures that are available on this say otherwise.

Many cyclists do break the law. yes It's annoying and no they shouldn't do it...but it's realistically it's nowhere near the same ball-park of danger caused to cyclist (or anyone else) as when people in cars break the law.

But I never said the bulk of them are caused by cyclists. Where did I say that. I suggested that some of the deaths by cyclists coming into contact with motorists were possibly the cyclists fault where as the data be used suggests that all deaths were caused by the motorists. You imagined in your head that I said the bulk of them.

Geez you're an angry crowd today. Calm down, read what others are saying before drawing conclusions and stop having a pre disposition based only on what your assumptions of what other people are inferring buy not actually what they've said at all.

Long Time Lurker

2RockMountain wrote: »

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?

Here's what you need to back up?

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

And just to add one more to the strong international trend of where the fault lies;

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html

2RockMountain wrote: »

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?

Here's what you need to back up?

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

And just to add one more to the strong international trend of where the fault lies;

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html

So just to be sure what you're saying now, and to be sure you understand what I'm saying too. I never said the majority, I said many. Now using your preferred survey it gives you 7% of cyclists at blame. Not a majority and just a reminder, I never said majority, I said many. 7% it is so. We'll call that 'some'

Now lets use someone's else's earlier survey from London which puts cyclists at fault around 40% of the time. Again not a majority but just to be extra sure you know what I said earlier , I never said majority, you did. I said many. 40% in my mind is many. You can (likely) draw a completely different interpretation from that given your ability to do so thus far :-)

Read what people are saying before jumping to conclusions, hopping on a high horse and ignoring reality while hollering your own opinion. I agree with a 30kmh limit. I feel too many people are killed by motor vehicles. I would fully support a lower speed limit in all urban and residential areas. I was simply trying to be slightly more objective with the facts that the inference been given by the term deaths involving cyclists and motorists. Some as we both agree were in fact cyclists fault. Doesn't actually matter, none of them should have happened.

2RockMountain

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

So just to be sure what you're saying now, and to be sure you understand what I'm saying too. I never said the majority, I said many. Now using your preferred survey it gives you 7% of cyclists at blame. Not a majority and just a reminder, I never said majority, I said many. 7% it is so. We'll call that 'some'

Now lets use someone's else's earlier survey from London which puts cyclists at fault around 40% of the time. Again not a majority but just to be extra sure you know what I said earlier , I never said majority, you did. I said many. 40% in my mind is many. You can (likely) draw a completely different interpretation from that given your ability to do so thus far :-)

Read what people are saying before jumping to conclusions, hopping on a high horse and ignoring reality while hollering your own opinion. I agree with a 30kmh limit. I feel too many people are killed by motor vehicles. I would fully support a lower speed limit in all urban and residential areas. I was simply trying to be slightly more objective with the facts that the inference been given by the term deaths involving cyclists and motorists. Some as we both agree were in fact cyclists fault. Doesn't actually matter, none of them should have happened.

WHat you said was 'as many' - not 'many'. So you said that it is at least a 50:50 scenario. Do you have any backup for this?

Long Time Lurker

2RockMountain wrote: »

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

So just to be sure what you're saying now, and to be sure you understand what I'm saying too. I never said the majority, I said many. Now using your preferred survey it gives you 7% of cyclists at blame. Not a majority and just a reminder, I never said majority, I said many. 7% it is so. We'll call that 'some'

Now lets use someone's else's earlier survey from London which puts cyclists at fault around 40% of the time. Again not a majority but just to be extra sure you know what I said earlier , I never said majority, you did. I said many. 40% in my mind is many. You can (likely) draw a completely different interpretation from that given your ability to do so thus far :-)

Read what people are saying before jumping to conclusions, hopping on a high horse and ignoring reality while hollering your own opinion. I agree with a 30kmh limit. I feel too many people are killed by motor vehicles. I would fully support a lower speed limit in all urban and residential areas. I was simply trying to be slightly more objective with the facts that the inference been given by the term deaths involving cyclists and motorists. Some as we both agree were in fact cyclists fault. Doesn't actually matter, none of them should have happened.

WHat you said was 'as many' - not 'many'. So you said that it is at least a 50:50 scenario. Do you have any backup for this?

No. Next. Christ.

magicbastarder

i don't think you understand how your sentence was phrased. in the context you used, the most logical reading was that you used 'as many' in the sense of 'an equal number'.
anyway, it's clear you did not mean to use that formulation.

2RockMountain

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

No. Next. Christ.

So this would be a good time to withdraw it then.

bpb101

Im not going to reply to everybody directly ,

However the point im making is we cant have a law that discriminates against certain road.

firstly to the person who said bikes havent got speedometers so you can prosecute somebody for know knowing what their doing is stupid. That is not the law.

bikes should have to follow the rules laid out. If we bring speed down to this and 20k in college green you cant allow some breaking the law.

Carawaystick

bpb101 wrote: »

However the point im making is we cant have a law that discriminates against certain road

So we should get rid of motorways and allow Hgvs drive on footpaths?

Thee is no law restricting the speed anyone can cycle at, nor run at not ride a horse at
So these road users are complying with the law that applies to them

2RockMountain

bpb101 wrote: »

However the point im making is we cant have a law that discriminates against certain road.

So the lower speed limit for HGVs on motorways, should that limit apply to everybody now? And the tachograph that restricts the driving time for HGV drivers - we should have tachos now, to avoid any discrimination?

Or perhaps, the penny might be dropping for you, and you're starting to see that it makes absolute perfect sense to have different laws for different levels of risk?

galwaycyclist

Carawaystick wrote: »

So we should get rid of motorways and allow Hgvs drive on footpaths?

Thee is no law restricting the speed anyone can cycle at, nor run at not ride a horse at
So these road users are complying with the law that applies to them

Not correct for cyclists.

The numerical speed limits may not apply to them yes. However article 7? or the general duty regarding speed does apply to them.

The general duty on drivers regarding speed specifies that you cannot travel at a speed at which you would not be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

So even if they are not bound by a limit or are breaking the limit that applies to others they could still be guilty of speeding.

magicbastarder

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The numerical speed limits may not apply to them yes. However article 7? or the general duty regarding speed does apply to them.

that said, many years ago, i came down knockmaroon hill on the bike (posted speed limit at the time was 30mph) and there was a garda with a mobile speed camera at the bottom. i passed him doing 38mph and he pumped the air with his fist in encouragement as i did so.

monument

Warning to ALL posters:

Thankfully the thread is a bit more back on topic now. But you must restrict posts as much as possible to relate to 30km/h and not unrelated comments about cyclists (which there's other threads for).

-- moderator

gctest50

2RockMountain wrote: »

So the lower speed limit for HGVs on motorways, should that limit apply to everybody now? And the tachograph that restricts the driving time for HGV drivers - we should have tachos now, to avoid any discrimination?

Or perhaps, the penny might be dropping for you, and you're starting to see that it makes absolute perfect sense to have different laws for different levels of risk?

Digital tachos in everything would be a great idea

magicbastarder

i wonder is there anything that can be done to tackle the 'i pay money for may car, therefore i'm entitled to use it as i see fit' attitude (which is admittedly unfair on the attitude of most reasonable motorists), which is one of the reasons many motorists balk at the 30km/h suggestion?
without any doubt, the provision of facilities in DCC (comparing motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) is heavily weighted in favour of the motorist, yet any erosion of the motorist's 'rights' - to right the balance somewhat - are seen as unfair.
how did other cities achieve a more reasoned - and accepted - balance?

magicbastarder

gctest50 wrote: »

Digital tachos in everything would be a great idea

but that would look out of place on my vintage colnago*!

*(i don't have a vintage colnago)

gctest50

magicbastarder wrote: »

but that would look out of place on my vintage colnago*!

*(i don't have a vintage colnago)

sit still while we graft one on :P

magicbastarder

a vintage colnago? bring it on.

Roadhawk

Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

If this limit was to be implemented correctly there should be an analysis of traffic on particular roads to establish which ones would warrant a 30km limit within certain times. I would agree with a blanket 30km limit in all residential areas but not across the majority of the city?

plodder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

Even during the day, it's the same. At George's quay there is a bottleneck just before it, and when cars get through they take off trying to make up lost time.

It's all the more crazy, because 30km is actually justified there. The paths are narrow and there are tons of pedestrians going all directions. If they can't enforce it there, then the likely pattern is fairly clear - poor overall compliance, and the occasional "campaign" to pull in some revenue.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

following that line of logic, all traffic rules should be modified for the best case scenario. the road outside my house could take traffic at 100km/h at the dead of night, but the speed limits have to allow for the fact that it's a busy route through dublin suburbs with lots of pedestrian traffic during the day.

Pinch Flat

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

No, but I've cycled and walked in the current 30kph zone and been passed by cars doing well over the 30kph limit. It's not pleasant. I was in a taxi one morning heading towards heuston - the driver seemed to think 70 - 80 kph on Aston / Wellington Quay was ok, I asked him to slow down.

If motorists don't obey these limits, how can you expect cyclists to respect red lights, particularly when there's no traffic about. Same thing, no?

Roadhawk wrote: »

If this limit was to be implemented correctly there should be an analysis of traffic on particular roads to establish which ones would warrant a 30km limit within certain times. I would agree with a blanket 30km limit in all residential areas but not across the majority of the city?

I agree, it's not a blanket limit currently - it extends to residential areas only, and most of these have been on request of the local residents. The quays have turned into a fast moving dual carriageway (when they're not clogged with traffic). I would like to see the limits maintained here - the existing limits are largely ignored anyway, with on 10% of motorists observed obeying them.

galwaycyclist

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No, but I've cycled and walked in the current 30kph zone and been passed by cars doing well over the 30kph limit. It's not pleasant. I was in a taxi one morning heading towards heuston - the driver seemed to think 70 - 80 kph on Aston / Wellington Quay was ok, I asked him to slow down.

Ideally there should be something in the Taxi regulations to say that the driver forfeits the fare if they break the speed limit.

magicbastarder

how would you enforce that though?

galwaycyclist

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you enforce that though?

I would start by advertising it widely to the public that the journey is free if the driver breaks the speed limit.

I would require a prominent speedometer on both sides of the dash I am sure that nowadays could be arranged when fitting the meter.

If needs be the passengers could take picture on their phones.

It would then be the drivers word against the passengers.

Thinking about it - if Taxi drivers felt vulnerable to false allegations of speeding they could fit certified tachometers to the cars.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you enforce that though?

Perhaps the meter can reset to zero if they break the limit?

galwaycyclist

Roadhawk wrote: »

Perhaps the meter can reset to zero if they break the limit?

Much more elegant - like it

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you enforce that though?

In fairness, it was my only point of reference, I've never driven down the quays at that speed and someone was bound to come on here questioning how I knew cars travelled so fast in the current 30 kph zone.

Given my experience of the speed he was doing (and other cars too), it's pretty representative of the speeds achieved within the current 30 kph zone.

NiallBoo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ideally there should be something in the Taxi regulations to say that the driver forfeits the fare if they break the speed limit.

This is all a tad off-topic but I'd love to see things like CPDs and regular retesting for taxis.

There's CPDs for HGV drivers, and while taxis don't have the increased risk you get from a truck, their risk is still high because of the sheer amount of time spent on the road. They also have financial inventive to break the rules and it would help too curb this.

In general I think it's reasonable to expect higher standards from professional drivers.

gctest50

Deedsie wrote: »

Well the driving standards of an unacceptably large number of taxi drivers in Dublin and the rest of Ireland leave a lot to be desired. Professional drivers and they never indicate when changing lanes. Never practice anything close to a 1.5 metre overtaking distance when passing cyclists. General assholery seems the best word to describe their attitude to road safety and other road users.

soon ....


http://www.wired.co.uk/article/driverless-autonomous-cars-london

monument

On topic please -- veering towards enforcement of speed limits and a mode of transport is ok, but genral about types of road user behaviour is off-topic.

This applies to taxis as much as bicycles.

-- moderator

bpb101

Carawaystick wrote: »

So we should get rid of motorways and allow Hgvs drive on footpaths?

Thee is no law restricting the speed anyone can cycle at, nor run at not ride a horse at
So these road users are complying with the law that applies to them

2RockMountain wrote: »

So the lower speed limit for HGVs on motorways, should that limit apply to everybody now? And the tachograph that restricts the driving time for HGV drivers - we should have tachos now, to avoid any discrimination?

Or perhaps, the penny might be dropping for you, and you're starting to see that it makes absolute perfect sense to have different laws for different levels of risk?

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit. Lets start applying speed limits to them.

Motorways are designed so that you have several lanes. with no turning.
If a car is turning left on the quays at 30km , and a bike is running down the left hand side at 40km, Your going to have problems here. Bikes will be undertaking cars, which is dangerous

2RockMountain

bpb101 wrote: »

If a car is turning left on the quays at 30km , and a bike is running down the left hand side at 40km, Your going to have problems here. Bikes will be undertaking cars, which is dangerous

Bikes undertake cars all the time in heavy traffic. It doesn't seem to be a major problem.

magicbastarder

bpb101 wrote: »

Lets start applying speed limits to them.

why?

Carawaystick

bpb101 wrote: »

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit. Lets start applying speed limits to them. [\quote]
Cyclists can't break a speed limit, as no limit applies to them
What problem would it solve if I could only go at 80 kmh down a road instead of 83? The speed limit for mechanically propelled vehicles is 80 on the road.

bpb101 wrote: »

If a car is turning left on the quays at 30km , and a bike is running down the left hand side at 40km, Your going to have problems here. Bikes will be undertaking cars, which is dangerous

How much danger is there when you have heavy busses undertaking cars?

None of the new limits apply on the quays anyway

endagibson

bpb101 wrote: »

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit.

No they don't. I suggest you study the applicable regulations further.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

why?

just to explain my reasoning a bit.
if, on my bicycle, i increase my speed from 30km/h to 50km/h, my kinetic energy goes from approx. 3,500 joules to approx. 9,600 joules.
if, in my car, i increase my speed from 30km/h to 50km/h, my kinetic energy goes from approx. 52,000 joules to approx. 145,000 joules.
that's based on the assumption that the combined weight of me and my bike is 100KG, and the combined weight of me and my car is 1,500KG. and the assumption that i can reach 50km/h on my bike (i can, but only going down a good long hill).

you can see that a cyclist 'speeding' carries a small fraction of the kinetic energy of a car, which would clearly result in a much lesser capacity to cause damage.
we apply speed limits to cars precisely because they're big and heavy and capable of travelling at high speed.

magicbastarder

and because i know you're dying to know - if i wanted to match the kinetic energy of my car, when it's doing 30km/h, while on my bike, i'd have to hit 116km/h.

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

and because i know you're dying to know - if i wanted to match the kinetic energy of my car, when it's doing 30km/h, while on my bike, i'd have to hit 116km/h.

Seán Kelly did that. What's your excuse?

Pinch Flat

bpb101 wrote: »

My point is that now the speed limit is so low that Cyclists have the ability to break the speed limit. Lets start applying speed limits to them.

When bikes start killing close to 200 and maiming hundreds annually, I guess they'll review speed limits for bikes. At the moment though, it's not an issue so much more pressing things regarding road safety to be considered.