Last day: 30km speed limit within canals

average_runner

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I know, that and its true but it still doesn't deal with personal responsibility.

The road in a housing estate is the same as a road anywhere else, it was built for the sole purpose of traffic to use it so it really shouldn't be a surprise when traffic does use it. Many people seem to be astonished when they step onto a road only to find a vehicle is approaching them.

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

This, I think, needs to change. Whilst of course it would have the biggest impact in the city centres, it would, hopefully, also lead to increased appreciation across society that roads, by nature of traffic, can be a dangerous place and should be treated as such

Yes i agree, but all vehicles including bikes should yield if pedestrians already crossing at a junction.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I know, that and its true but it still doesn't deal with personal responsibility.

The road in a housing estate is the same as a road anywhere else, it was built for the sole purpose of traffic to use it so it really shouldn't be a surprise when traffic does use it. Many people seem to be astonished when they step onto a road only to find a vehicle is approaching them.

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

This, I think, needs to change. Whilst of course it would have the biggest impact in the city centres, it would, hopefully, also lead to increased appreciation across society that roads, by nature of traffic, can be a dangerous place and should be treated as such

In a housing estate you're going to have kids, everywhere. Personal responsibility also applies to drivers and how they should expect kids, everywhere. Since the horse and cart came along kids were out playing with traffic.

But that sense of entitlement to the road by some motorists (the Motors forum can be disturbingly eye opening for this) leads them to think that they can drive around oblivious to anyone else that may be on it, because they shouldn't be there, am'i'right?

So the stick needs to be battered over the head of some of those people.

Most, if not all, of us here are pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. All on the same day even.

I lived in LA for a good while, a city with a massive car culture. And they didn't have the bad attitude to pedestrians that you get here.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

In Ireland limits don't change with the weather, but one does adjust to the conditions so on a wet morning cyclist do/should adjust their speed downwards

"Should" is a massive word for the general public!

Chips Lovell

I'm all for living in nicer places. I just don't think this will make a blind bit of difference.

Chuchote

Just for curiosity, how's about the club cyclists here do some testing on the weekend, set up a track of say 500 metres on the flat, and see how long the stopping distance is at different speeds, and with different brakes, weight of rider, etc?

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

Just for curiosity, how's about the club cyclists here do some testing on the weekend, set up a track of say 500 metres on the flat, and see how long the stopping distance is at different speeds, and with different brakes, weight of rider, etc?

But make it an unexpected stop, ie throw a teddy bear in front of it

buffalo

Leroy42 wrote: »

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

What?! Pedestrians think they have first rights? Is that an extrapolation from 'people sometimes cross the road at random points' ?

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

Just for curiosity, how's about the club cyclists here do some testing on the weekend, set up a track of say 500 metres on the flat, and see how long the stopping distance is at different speeds, and with different brakes, weight of rider, etc?

I think you've ignored the fact that there's no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers. Most don't have one. Therefore there's no way they can tell if they're breaking the speed limit. They can still be done for dangerous driving/cycling if they cycle dangerously.

magicbastarder

turbodiesel wrote: »

We need to place blame on whoever breaks the rule of common sense. The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title. The pedestrian crossing. Blame has always been focused on the road user when in the majority of cases that a pedestrian has been injured outside of a pedestrian crossing on the road the pedestrian has taken a gamble not the road user.

i live on a road with a pedestrian crossing about 150m up the road from me, and one about 150m down the road. if i want to cross the road to get to the other side, i'm not going to walk nearly a third of a kilometre to do so.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

i live on a road with a pedestrian crossing about 150m up the road from me, and one about 150m down the road. if i want to cross the road to get to the other side, i'm not going to walk nearly a third of a kilometre to do so.

The problem isn't really those cases, is it? It's the cases where you've a crossing 10m down the road, and you don't use it imo.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not that I disagree with the idea, as I said the councillor made a few good points, but it seems that it is always only looking in one direction that we try to solve a problem.

No doubt slowing traffic down will make things safer, but I also think we should start a campaign to change the attitude to jaywalking we have in this country (and by extension breaking red light although that should be a separate campaign.)

We have, IMO, far too many pedestrians crossing in certain places (that is based on nothing more than being annoyed at having to continually stop at them btw) and yet, culturally we have total disregard to traffic laws as pedestrians.

At some point that needs to be addressed.

I really don't think it's just pedestrians. Jaywalking is a problem; Red light jumping is a problem (both motorised vehicles and bicycles); speed limits are ignored (all motorised vehicles); mandatory cycle lanes are ignored and actually used by motorbikes and scooters to filter, it's accepted practice for motorbikes and scooters to use bus lanes etc etc.

There's a general lack of enforcement, and no will political will to address it. Even the RSA don't appear to be pushing enforcement. Why don't we have loads of Junction cameras for Red Light Jumping? Why don't we have fixed speed cameras for motorised vehicles?

magicbastarder

Macy0161 wrote: »

The problem isn't really those cases, is it? It's the cases where you've a crossing 10m down the road, and you don't use it imo.

well, i took turbodiesel's comment - "The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title" - at face value.

Trojan

I'm not convinced about speed limits.

I think one of the biggest measures we could take for cyclist safety is to make it mandatory for drive-time radio presenters to spend a month cycle commuting. These dangerous idiots are encouraging and allowing drivers to self-justify anti-cyclist behaviour.

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

i live on a road with a pedestrian crossing about 150m up the road from me, and one about 150m down the road. if i want to cross the road to get to the other side, i'm not going to walk nearly a third of a kilometre to do so.

What's across the road ? Once you cross the road how far do you go?

magicbastarder

maybe i just cross it because i want to get to the other side.

Leroy42

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe i just cross it because i want to get to the other side.

Or to meet up with the Chicken

Chuchote

PeadarCo wrote: »

I think you've ignored the fact that there's no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers. Most don't have one.

Increasing numbers do, though – Lidl sell them regularly for little money; they're so normal now that people leave them on their handlebars and they don't get stolen. And there are increasingly those screens on the streets every now and then that tell you what speed you're travelling.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I really don't think it's just pedestrians. Jaywalking is a problem; Red light jumping is a problem (both motorised vehicles and bicycles); speed limits are ignored (all motorised vehicles); mandatory cycle lanes are ignored and actually used by motorbikes and scooters to filter, it's accepted practice for motorbikes and scooters to use bus lanes etc etc.

There's a general lack of enforcement, and no will political will to address it. Even the RSA don't appear to be pushing enforcement. Why don't we have loads of Junction cameras for Red Light Jumping? Why don't we have fixed speed cameras for motorised vehicles?

Yup. Why don't we have those gadgets in cars that insurance companies offer to give cut-price cover to those who drive safely.

One of the problems is that jaywalking isn't woven into the culture; as I've said here before, drivers can go through against pedestrian lights in Paris, but they do so slowly and cautiously, and always stop for pedestrians who are crossing with the lights with the pedestrian.

One of the reasons that the 30km/h speed limit would be a good thing is that it would change driver attitudes (if, as you say, it's enforced), and drivers would no longer think they should race through the city; they would think of themselves as part of the traffic flow, not as the only part.

Trojan wrote: »

I'm not convinced about speed limits.

I think one of the biggest measures we could take for cyclist safety is to make it mandatory for drive-time radio presenters to spend a month cycle commuting. These dangerous idiots are encouraging and allowing drivers to self-justify anti-cyclist behaviour.

Not to mention forbidding journalists who write about cars from describing the car in terms of its speed from zero, its top speed, etc.

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

Increasing numbers do, though – Lidl sell them regularly for little money; they're so normal now that people leave them on their handlebars and they don't get stolen. And there are increasingly those screens on the streets every now and then that tell you what speed you're travelling.

There's no legal requirement. Theres also no good reason based on accident statistics either and that's before you start taking about the impact on casual cyclists by making it mandatory. Heck even I have a speedometer most of the time but there are days when its nice to be rid of technology and just cycle by feel. Signs can read other road users namely cars which may happen to be in close proximity to bikes particularly in urban areas.

As others have pointed out there's a vast different between a driver and cyclist having to stop suddenly at 30km/hr plus. A cyclist is going to be very reluctant to go at that speed unless its safe as a result. I notice you haven't come back with any accident statistics to indicate the dangers or tried to refute the points along those lines made by other posters.

Chuchote

PeadarCo wrote: »

I notice you haven't come back with any accident statistics to indicate the dangers or tried to refute the points along those lines made by other posters.

No, I haven't indeed. But perhaps it would be instructive to take a look at stopping speeds for yourself.

I have no objection to people going as fast as they like when they're out in the wild; in city streets it seems silly.

Used to work with a guy who'd had his skull fractured by a cyclist crashing into him as he stepped off the pavement.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

Used to work with a guy who'd had his skull fractured by a cyclist crashing into him as he stepped off the pavement.

If you want to legislate against that then ban cycle lanes.

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

No, I haven't indeed. But perhaps it would be instructive to take a look at stopping speeds for yourself.

So essentially your proposing laws should be made on the basis of anecdotal evidence. There are enough threads on this forum to show how ridiculous that is between helmet, high vis, bike lanes threads etc.

I'm not arguing and no one else is arguing that there are consequences if you stop.suddenly at 10km/hr or 100km/hr but those consequences vary depending on what is doing the stopping. As others have put quite eloquently there's a monumental difference between a car and bike. That includes the momentum involved and the consequences for the driver/cyclist. if they don't stop in time.

Chuchote

PeadarCo wrote: »

So essentially your proposing laws should be made on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

No. I didn't say that, you did.

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

No. I didn't say that, you did.

Grand so I assume you'll be able to supply reputable statistical information that shows cycling in excess of 30km/hr in urban environment is dangerous. How many lives would the law potentially save and how many serious injuries could it prevent?

I would class relying on your own untested assumptions or relying on old stories as anecdotal evidence.

Carawaystick

turbodiesel wrote: »

We need to place blame on whoever breaks the rule of common sense. The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title. The pedestrian crossing. Blame has always been focused on the road user when in the majority of cases that a pedestrian has been injured outside of a pedestrian crossing on the road the pedestrian has taken a gamble not the road user.

So a person walking should never cross a road if there is no pedestrian crossing?
What about say using a pelican crossing?
Or say a person parks their car on the left side of the road. Should the driver only exit from the passenger side of the car, because the driver would be a pedestrian walking around the car to a path...
Or maybe you're the type of considerate driver who parks on pedestrian crossings, so it's fine to walk around the car


:rolleyes:

flatface

How many lives would the law potentially save and how many serious injuries could it prevent?

In fairness I don't think the 30kmph limit is there to stop the carnage in our city centre, rather its a shift down in priority for traffic.
Many cars break the existing speed limits but overall sense of entitlement and average speed comes down.
If a bike is tearing through the city centre in a dangerous manner - under the old and new rules they could be stopped by the guards. So not much change really.

I think if the traffic is slower I will end up cycling slower as I mostly cycle at the speed of the surrounding traffic.

Leroy42

Carawaystick wrote: »

So a person walking should never cross a road if there is no pedestrian crossing?
What about say using a pelican crossing?
Or say a person parks their car on the left side of the road. Should the driver only exit from the passenger side of the car, because the driver would be a pedestrian walking around the car to a path...
Or maybe you're the type of considerate driver who parks on pedestrian crossings, so it's fine to walk around the car


:rolleyes:

No one has argued for any of that, but the person in each case needs to take appropriate care to ensure that the risks are adequately known and dealt with.

In the case of a person crossing the road, checking both ways, using your hearing and your eyes. Not simply walking out, whilst immersed in music/phone/conversation.
Person getting out of a car should check the mirrors, look around them before alighting onto a road with sufficient time to ensure they can make it to the path without causing a potential accident.
Its called personal responsibility and the very essence of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. It seems that responsibility is only being attached to one side, it is never on the side of the pedestrian.
We are making laws to protect the pedestrian from their own foolishness. Whilst laws should be made to reduce the chances of accidents taking it to the extreme we should not allow any vehicles on the road as it could potentially lead to accidents to pedestrians who won't follow the normal laws.

Carawaystick

Leroy42 wrote: »

No one has argued for any of that

Yes they have, turbo diesel in the post I quoted stated exactly that.