Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout
Deflection


More strawman nonsense. Unless, now of course, you're going to shows posts from the many of "us" that said we couldn't cycle that fast, as opposed to the many posts arguing the bigger picture that a statistically very small percentage of people cycling in Dublin City would achieve over 30kph, and a tiny percentage of people would achieve over 40kph.

BTW, it's not for anyone to justify why they would object to a 30kph bike limit - it's your argument, so own it. The onus is on you to put your case as to why what problem it would solve, bearing in mind you've not said anything about restricting the speed of 1.5t vehicles would be travelling around at the same speed, yielding 20x the impact in the event of a collision.

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

kenmm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

I cycle between 25 and 35 when not slowing down for and accelerating after lights/ traffic etc.
I probably drive between 40 and 60 if I'm honest. If not then of course it's at the limit officer.


A blanket speed limit: the argument against is easy: there is no way for a non MVP to regulate, unless you also what to fit speedometers to every bicycle, runner, horse, whatever else is out there using our roads.

(And that would be after a study to show there would be any value in it, where value is some predefined meaning that we can measure)


Here's a thought, why is the limit on the motorway 120 for cars? Goods vehicles are 100, based on your logic we should have a blanket 100?

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

So if it's only a minority of cyclists capable of exceeding the posted 30kph motorised vehicle speed limit then there would be no harm in introducing a 30 kph blanket limit, would there.

It's a cool idea. Introduce an unenforceable law to achieve zero benefit so motorists can feel better about themselves.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

My (known) record on the flat was just a shade over 60km/h, but that was with a 40km/h tailwind. Obviously I've gone faster on long downhills.

micar

micar wrote: »

Go off and ask the RSA why they aren't tackling any of these in relation to cycling.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd far more like to get the cyclists responses so I can include them in any correspondence with the RSA and Transport Minister

Why should cyclists put in this effort?

Do it yourself!!

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Or maybe driving within the posted speed limit!

Very unlikely.

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

They were put in "No particular order" ....I'll caveat it the next time......JHC

Podge_irl

Spook_ie wrote: »

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

Cyclists have no standard way of having the slightest clue what speed they are cycling at? Even GPS devices are somewhat unreliable on this front. Its fairly obvious why speed limits don't apply to pedal cycles - it is fairly rare to even be able to break them and there is no way to know if you are.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

So if it's only a minority of cyclists capable of exceeding the posted 30kph motorised vehicle speed limit then there would be no harm in introducing a 30 kph blanket limit, would there. So that when a Garda picks up one of these 30kph+ cyclists they can charge them with something other than "Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration."

Yet again, the key question that you've avoided answering is: What problem are you trying to solve here?

You want to divert the attention of the limited resources that we have available in the Dept Transport and the RSA to come up with new legislation. You want to divert the attention of the limited resources that we have in the Gardai to enforce this law.

What benefit will arise, in the context of 2-3 people being killed on the roads each week by motorists?

meeeeh

Speed limits will probably be enforced at some time because electric scooters and similar will be using the same space. They will probably solve the same problem as all other similar measures should - to make things work for everyone. Of course if numbers stay as they are then probably no need.

Anyway I'm sure somewhere on twitter there is a group meltdown over this (behind the paywall):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/bad-cyclists-are-holding-back-green-revolution-ks5fv6hqs

magicbastarder

a speed limit won't be necessary if - similar to how e-bikes are regulated - an e-scooter has a top speed limiter, say 25km/h, for it to be legal.

like cars should have too; but i believe there are moves to introduce this.

SPDUB

SeanW wrote: »

Trump is not "head of the government" of the United States. The US has 3 co-equal branches, Legislature (Congress), the Executive branch and the Judiciary. DJT is only head of one branch, the Executive. As for AOC, it looks like she and "the squad" are the future of the US Democratic Party.

I should have said current figurehead of the US then ( how many people can name the head of the other 2 branches ) versus someone who might possibly be important in the future

Charles Babbage

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe that's because cyclists aren't killing 30-40 pedestrians each year?

Here we go again, defining every anti social activity short of killing as acceptable.
If that is your value system then there is no point in arguing with you.

SeanW

I wonder if shoplifters try the "but motorists are KILLING people" defense in court?

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if shoplifters try the "but motorists are KILLING people" defense in court?

Says the guy who defends all bad behaviour with "but we kill fewer people than in other countries!" :rolleyes:

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually I introduced the idea that the 5 crimes listed for motorists should be extended to cyclists, funny how so many of you pick up on number 1 in the list, even though so many of you deny being able to cycle at that speed anyway.

So if so many of you can't cycle that fast why do you object to a maximum speed for cyclists?

https://irishcycle.com/2015/07/19/cycling-fines-what-you-need-to-know-from-august-1/

This article from 2015 gives a full breakdown of all cycling offences.

Have a good read.

No mention of speeding but one could argue it could fall under cycling "without reasonable consideration" depending on the circumstance

I could not care less if there was a speeding limit in certain areas. But, I've nothibg on my bike to so tell me my speed. So, I'd never know if I was over the speed limit.

I'll mention it again, go off the Guards, Dept of Transport, RSA and the legislators telling you want a speed limit on cyclists. See what support you get......very very little I'd imagine.

All cars are able to exceed the speed limit but not all cyclists can.

A speed limit on cyclists would affect only a few.

SeanW

Stark wrote: »

Says the guy who defends all bad behaviour with "but we kill fewer people than in other countries!" :rolleyes:

All bad behaviour?

Really? Because I don't remember saying that everything all motorists do is perfect all the time. I simply put some of the hysteria into context.

Or was this another lie? :rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash

kenmm wrote: »

...Here's a thought, why is the limit on the motorway 120 for cars? Goods vehicles are 100, based on your logic we should have a blanket 100?

It's 90km/h for goods vehicles (was 80km/h until 2012ish).

AndrewJRenko

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Here we go again, defining every anti social activity short of killing as acceptable.
If that is your value system then there is no point in arguing with you.

My value system is that we should treat different risks differently. We treat paracetemol and morphine differently. We treat Swiss Army penknives and AK47 rifles differently. We can and should treat 1-3 tonne vehicles doing 20-150 kmph that kill 2 or 3 people each and 10-20 kg bikes doing 10-20 kmph that kill 1 person each decade differently.

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if shoplifters try the "but motorists are KILLING people" defense in court?

The shoplifters could try the 'I was blinded by the sun' excuse and see if it gets them off scott free, like this driver who killed a cyclist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-found-not-guilty-of-dangerous-driving-causing-death-of-cyclist-in-kerry-908096.html

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My value system is that we should treat different risks differently.

Welcome to literally every country on the planet.

The shoplifters could try the 'I was blinded by the sun' excuse and see if it gets them off scott free, like this driver who killed a cyclist.

RIP to the cyclist. Not sure how this changes the proven fact that Irish roads are among the safest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Nor the conclusion which must inevitably be drawn, that Irish motorists are generally safe.

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

Welcome to literally every country on the planet.

RIP to the cyclist. Not sure how this changes the proven fact that Irish roads are among the safest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Nor the conclusion which must inevitably be drawn, that Irish motorists are generally safe.

By your own safety metric (ie people killed in collision with ____ ), Irish cyclists are extremely safe. Doesn't stop you going on and on with your nonsense generalisations every 5 minutes.

Wishbone Ash

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the only segment strava seems to list for o'connell street, out of a total of 2,890 people who have attempted it, 12 have averaged a (perfectly legal) 40km/h+
or, less than half of one percent; and that is the PR for each cyclist listed, the fastest they have ever gone on it. this information is being used to try to sustain a claim that 'numerous' cyclists go faster than 40.
also worth mentioning that in general, i'd expect a cyclist using strava to be faster than an 'average' cyclist as strava use is skewed towards sports and leisure cyclists.

https://www.strava.com/segments/5967744

There's another segment which someone has created and miss-named 'Upper O'Connell Street Climb'.

https://www.strava.com/segments/3172011

(It appears that I'm in 3rd place! )

TaurenDruid

Podge_irl wrote: »

Cyclists have no standard way of having the slightest clue what speed they are cycling at? Even GPS devices are somewhat unreliable on this front. Its fairly obvious why speed limits don't apply to pedal cycles - it is fairly rare to even be able to break them and there is no way to know if you are.

Any modern GPS will be very reliable on this front, unless you're driving or cycling in a heavily wooded area. More accurate than a car's speedo, in fact.

Wishbone Ash

Podge_irl wrote: »

Cyclists have no standard way of having the slightest clue what speed they are cycling at....

Any regular cyclist would have a pretty good idea of their speed within a couple of km/h and their gearing would also give an indication. If I'm spinning out on a 50x11 I know that I'm doing 60km/h+. If I have to use a 34x28, I know I'm down around 6/7km/h.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Any modern GPS will be very reliable on this front, unless you're driving or cycling in a heavily wooded area. More accurate than a car's speedo, in fact.

cool. free GPS for all cyclists. possibly unreliable in city centre conditions, so probably not legally enforceable.
this is not even a (literal) $50 solution to a $5 problem, it's a $50 solution to a 5c problem.

kenmm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Any regular cyclist would have a pretty good idea of their speed within a couple of km/h and their gearing would also give an indication. If I'm spinning out on a 50x11 I know that I'm doing 60km/h+. If I have to use a 34x28, I know I'm down around 6/7km/h.

No standard way tho - sure you can have a good idea, but that wont get you out of a speeding ticket in this crazy new "Speed limits for non mechanical vehicles world).

You would need a properly calibrated instrument fitted to every bike for such a law to come in. This would also mean it would probably need tested regularly - NCTs for cycles anyone??(although.. looking at some of the sh!theaps people try to cycle, it's probably not a bad idea!)

The whole idea is as farcical as this entire thread tbh

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

cool. free GPS for all cyclists. possibly unreliable in city centre conditions, so probably not legally enforceable.
this is not even a (literal) $50 solution to a $5 problem, it's a $50 solution to a 5c problem.

Dude, you've posted about cycling at very precisely measuered high speeds, so you're not included in the offer. Sorry.

kenmm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Any modern GPS will be very reliable on this front, unless you're driving or cycling in a heavily wooded area. More accurate than a car's speedo, in fact.

Not necessarily, some devices struggle around tall buildings. Not typically a problem in Dublin, but its getting worse with the amount of Glass and steel monstrosities that are being thrown up around the dockland/ ifsc.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Dude, you've posted about cycling at very precisely measuered high speeds, so you're not included in the offer. Sorry.

ah boo.
but not in the city centre though - as above, i've seen my GPS track go screwy when cycling past tall buildings.

kenmm

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah boo.
but not in the city centre though - as above, i've seen my GPS track go screwy when cycling past tall buildings.

Cycling is usually better as you are moving faster and can get away from the areas where the GPS signal is bouncing off os the buildings (the most common cause). Running with my Garmin tho, that can be a nightmare sometimes..

I guess I will need to get a speedometer fitted to my body anyway? What if we have a 10kmph per hour speed limit somewhere and I run faster than that?