A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

magicbastarder

punisher5112 wrote: »

Dublin has some of the safest roads in Europe, death rates much lower too....

let's try a thought experiment.
2% of irish secondary school students cycle to school.
something like 17% of dutch *primary* school students cycle to school, and 70%+ of secondary school students.

if as you say, dublin's roads are among the safest in europe, are you saying it would be safe for that number of schoolchildren to start cycling to school?

or else to you agree that what you're saying is that dublin has some of the safest roads in europe *for motorists*?

magicbastarder

PeadarCo wrote: »

I get your point. But one of the things that should be looked at is road design and the type of road behaviour it encourages.

no argument from me on that point.

regarding the point about 80km/h limits on country roads, my understanding is that this is a question of manpower. because the task of assessing a road for a speed limit evaluation is not undertaken lightly, they simply don't assess many, many roads so they're left at the default of 80km/h.

Damien360

magicbastarder wrote: »

let's try a thought experiment.
2% of irish secondary school students cycle to school.
something like 17% of dutch *primary* school students cycle to school, and 70%+ of secondary school students.

if as you say, dublin's roads are among the safest in europe, are you saying it would be safe for that number of schoolchildren to start cycling to school?

or else to you agree that what you're saying is that dublin has some of the safest roads in europe *for motorists*?

Have you been to Holland ? Cyclists and motorists are almost (not always) completely separated from each other. Where they do meet at junctions, what I saw is routes made under the junction for the cyclist to continue without stopping. God forbid as we did by mistake that you use the wrong side of the cycle lane to travel. You get eaten alive. Where they do meet is in the city and that’s where cars and trucks are very limited. Buses do use those roads. The infrastructure has been built in Holland to allow all this to happen.

magicbastarder

Yeah, that's kinda my point.
Their infrastructure is far safer so they can have vulnerable users using it at a couple of orders of magnitude more than we do.

Cilldara_2000

Regarding natural speed, there is evidence that wider lanes result in drivers going faster. If authorities don't want people going fast on a particular road, then they should just repaint the lanes narrower. Use the extra space for cycle lanes perhaps. But just slapping a 50 or 60 kmh limit on a dual carriageway quality road won't work - it will lead to people ignoring the speed limit.

You see this sort of thing on some new road improvements, EG Moyglare Road out of Maynooth, the lanes are definitely narrower and the large kerbs make them seem even narrower. This definitely slows people down.

I think it's also apparent on some of the newer motorways, EG M9 around Castledermot. Some rather sharp bends for a motorway and steep inclines make 120 kmh feel a bit too fast.

magicbastarder wrote: »

no argument from me on that point.

regarding the point about 80km/h limits on country roads, my understanding is that this is a question of manpower. because the task of assessing a road for a speed limit evaluation is not undertaken lightly, they simply don't assess many, many roads so they're left at the default of 80km/h.

I live on a rural road that has a 60kmh speed limit for the entire ~4.5 mile length. The road is approximately 4m wide. Hardly anyone respects the speed limit.

AndrewJRenko

punisher5112 wrote: »

Dublin has some of the safest roads in Europe,

It's the drivers we need to worry about.

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1388910291849678849?s=19

Hurrache

There's no coincidence that this thread, and any "road" tax thread, attracts the same type of dumb ****s arguing for moar speed and tax the stupid fast sexy lycra cyclists.

Vestiapx

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's the drivers we need to worry about.

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1388910291849678849?s=19

Let's play guess what speed this collision occured at !!
I guess much higher than the limit in that area and so it's enforcement not lower speeds we need

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

There's no coincidence that this thread, and any "road" tax thread, attracts the same type of dumb ****s arguing for moar speed and tax the stupid fast sexy lycra cyclists.

And the same condescending smug **** cyclists who demonise all motorists as law breaking lunatics

AndrewJRenko

Batrachotox wrote: »

And the same condescending smug **** cyclists who demonise all motorists as law breaking lunatics

True enough. Given that we have 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits, we really should be fair to the 2% of law abiding motorists.

cnocbui

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

True enough. Given that we have 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits, we really should be fair to the 2% of law abiding motorists.

Does that go for the Cyclists who break red lights and other road laws like signalling in the interests of 'safety' and expedience?

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Does that go for the Cyclists who break red lights and other road laws like signalling in the interests of 'safety' and expedience?

No of course it doesn’t. How dare you question your moral and intellectual superiors.

You’re just a dumb motorist you won’t understand

Hurrache

Batrachotox wrote: »

No of course it doesn’t. How dare you question your moral and intellectual superiors.

You’re just a dumb motorist you won’t understand

Phew, it's eventually starting to get through to people.
Now go forth and assimilate.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Phew, it's eventually starting to get through to people.
Now go forth and assimilate.

You’re being facetious but tbh it’s not far off the general attitude on display - and then cyclists wonder why motorists don’t want to engage with them.

It’s not the media whipping up anti cyclist sentiment with propaganda, it’s cyclists smugly condescending to people (and refusing to accept cyclists are ever in the wrong) entrenching their views

Hurrache

Why do you still refuse to acknowledge that probably most of the cyclists here also own a car or two?

CramCycle

It's muppets in the media and on the likes of boards referring to motorists and cyclists as some sort of homogenous group, it is f*cking ridiculous. It is why my eyes roll in these threads when someone says, well maybe cyclists should stop breaking red light or motorists stop speeding. Yes some people do these things, and yes they should stop, a lot more than I'd like but not one of these people have anything in common with me other than I ride a bike and drive a car. I have nothing in common with the muppet on the N11 straddling lanes trying to decide which lane is faster in the morning as they type on their phone and I have nothing in common with the lad who roles past me and through the red as I sit and wait for it. We can argue about who is more dangerous but it is missing the f*cking point and just driving a wedge between two groups who have more in common than they think. Both of whom benefit from others following the rules more than they think, both of whom benefit by more road space been given over to public transport. Speeding up to 80 between lights on the N11 does not get you there faster, running reds slows everyone down, and while people think they are faster amber gambling or just following through on a few seconds after, if everyone stopped, they probably would have cleared that junction while it was still green. Using your mobile, forgetting the safety aspect, slows your reactions, you don't accelerate away from lights as promptly, you don't react to others correctly and so on, this applies to both motorists and cyclists. So while I have nothing in common with others on the road, I benefit just as much from everyone following the rules and not acting like a shower of pr*ts.

Also it is not an either or in regards enforcement, the gardai don't need to go after cyclists to enforce rules with motorists, and vice versa, they can do both, although preferably if resources are limited the identify in their area which causes the most harm/danger.

AndrewJRenko

Batrachotox wrote: »

You’re being facetious but tbh it’s not far off the general attitude on display - and then cyclists wonder why motorists don’t want to engage with them.

It’s not the media whipping up anti cyclist sentiment with propaganda, it’s cyclists smugly condescending to people (and refusing to accept cyclists are ever in the wrong) entrenching their views

Just to speed things up, I accept that cyclists are often in the wrong. The evidence on the impact of the damaging resulting from cyclists in the wrong shows that it is a trivial issue. More people are killed by wasps that by cyclists.

If you've any interest in reducing death and injury on the roads, start with motorists.

cnocbui wrote: »

Does that go for the Cyclists who break red lights and other road laws like signalling in the interests of 'safety' and expedience?

88% of red light jumping at the Luas red light camera was done by motorists, not cyclists.

cnocbui

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

88% of red light jumping at the Luas red light camera was done by motorists, not cyclists.

And the proportion of motorists to cyclists is?

AndrewJRenko

cnocbui wrote: »

And the proportion of motorists to cyclists is?

Why would that matter? Is this a competition to see who gets a gold star or is it about reducing the danger on the road?

cnocbui

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would that matter? Is this a competition to see who gets a gold star or is it about reducing the danger on the road?

Based on the 2016 census, looking at just cars and cyclists: the latter comprised 4.6% of Dublin commuters vs 95.4% car riders, ignoring all other commuters who are of course irrelevant to the light jumping argument.

Therfore, in terms of red light jumping - cyclists did so at a rate 4.8 times as often as motorists.

AndrewJRenko

cnocbui wrote: »

Based on the 2016 census, looking at just cars and cyclists: the latter comprised 4.6% of Dublin commuters vs 95.4% car riders, ignoring all other commuters who are of course irrelevant to the light jumping argument.

Therfore, in terms of red light jumping - cyclists did so at a rate 4.8 times as often as motorists.

As I asked above, why would that matter? Or perhaps more directly, so what?

Is this about who wins the gold star as the best boys and girls in the class? If so, you might want to factor in the 98% of motorists that break urban speed limits and the majority of motorists that use their phones while driving, and we'll see who's getting the gold star now?

Or else, perhaps more constructively, we might focus on risk and danger - to pedestrians in this case. We might see that the risk and danger of a 1-4 tonne vehicle doing maybe 20-50 kmph through red lights is just a bit more significant, as well as a good bit more prevalent than a cyclist on a 10-20 kg bike doing 5-20 kmph through the red lights.

Amirani

cnocbui wrote: »

Based on the 2016 census, looking at just cars and cyclists: the latter comprised 4.6% of Dublin commuters vs 95.4% car riders, ignoring all other commuters who are of course irrelevant to the light jumping argument.

Therfore, in terms of red light jumping - cyclists did so at a rate 4.8 times as often as motorists.

Not really keen to get into this debate that will obviously go nowhere, but just wanted to point out the fundamentally flawed statistical logic you're trying to use there.

You've no idea whether the usage of the red light junction in question is any way representative of the general commuting population. You can't just try make an inference based on the population level breakdown of motorists/cyclists without taking that into account.

If it's a city centre street, you can't just assume the ratio of users is motorists:cyclists is 95:5. Same way you can assume that users of a stretch of the M50 are a ratio of 95:5, or that Grafton Street is 95:5. That'd be dumb, so your "therefore" seems a bit misplaced...

CramCycle

Amirani wrote: »

Not really keen to get into this debate that will obviously go nowhere, but just wanted to point out the fundamentally flawed statistical logic you're trying to use there.

You've no idea whether the usage of the red light junction in question is any way representative of the general commuting population. You can't just try make an inference based on the population level breakdown of motorists/cyclists without taking that into account.

If it's a city centre street, you can't just assume the ratio of users is motorists:cyclists is 95:5. Same way you can assume that users of a stretch of the M50 are a ratio of 95:5, or that Grafton Street is 95:5. That'd be dumb, so your "therefore" seems a bit misplaced...

It also misses a key point, one no one likes about this stupid us vs them argument. When I am on a bike and I stop at a red light, I am not impeding the cyclist behind me. The only thing impeding them is themselves. Therefore the % of cyclists you see running a red light is pretty indicative of the percentage of cyclists who can or would run a red light. Anecdotally, I remember counting this up on my commute as I was discussing it in work with someone. On the N11 over a few days, the % of cyclists who ran red lights that I observed varied between 0 and 66% at any junction from Donnybrook to Loughlinstown. Interestingly, motorists are harder to define as once one stops in a line of traffic, with the rare exception of those who dart into the bus lane and gun it (which also happens far too frequently but we will ignore those), you can only measure the amount with the opportunity, as once one stops, they all stop. This also varies, anywhere from 0 to 80%, as those first 4 cars were the only ones with an opportunity, as once car 5 stopped, no motorist behind has a choice. So is that 80% max, or is that skewed for or against. To be honest, I imagine the reality is that due to poor enforcement, the real truth is, and low and behold, no one on the cars or cyclists only brigade likes to hear this, there is sweet FA difference. If you run a red in a car, you would probably do it in a bike, if you don't run it on a bike, you probably wouldn't run it in a car.

It is almost as if, and hold my beer here it is point making time, it isn't the mode of transport that is the problem but the person using that mode of transport.

Until proper enforcement is brought in, and even then, it takes a few years, like drink driving to be culturally unacceptable, none of this us vs them BS means anything except provide BS merchants like Newstalk and that muppet in Cork something to rant about on the radio and rile people up.

magicbastarder

cnocbui wrote: »

Based on the 2016 census, looking at just cars and cyclists: the latter comprised 4.6% of Dublin commuters vs 95.4% car riders, ignoring all other commuters who are of course irrelevant to the light jumping argument.

Therfore, in terms of red light jumping - cyclists did so at a rate 4.8 times as often as motorists.

you're looking at the census for all of dublin; as per the post immediately above mine, there are several ways of skinning a cat.
the canal cordon count for 2016 recorded 12k cyclists crossing the canal cordons, and 65k private cars (or 70k for private cars+taxis+motorbikes+goods vehicles)
so this is probably a closer number to actual city centre traffic, as it's specifically counting vehicles crossing into and out of the city centre.

so based on that, it's easy to argue that the numbers cycling in the city centre are three times your figure.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

Until proper enforcement is brought in

also worth mentioning, based on AJR's point above about 88% of RLJing at the luas junction being motorists - this was the proportion *before* they started issuing fines.
when they started issuing fines to motorists, their proportion fell from 88% to 68%.

magicbastarder

cnocbui wrote: »

Based on the 2016 census, looking at just cars and cyclists: the latter comprised 4.6% of Dublin commuters vs 95.4% car riders, ignoring all other commuters who are of course irrelevant to the light jumping argument.

where did you get these figures?
from the 2016 census results; very last bar chart.
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp6ci/p6cii/p6mtw/

cyclists comprise 7.6% of commuters, and 47.3% is made up with motorists and car passengers.
so just taking (cyclists + motorists), cyclists are 14% of that cohort. again, three times your claimed figure.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

also worth mentioning, based on AJR's point above about 88% of RLJing at the luas junction being motorists - this was the proportion *before* they started issuing fines.
when they started issuing fines to motorists, their proportion fell from 88% to 68%.

I could be wrong but this was also a short term scheme and it no longer runs, am I correct? It certainly wasn't being run in town based on the number of vehicles obstructing the LUAS by blocking yellow boxes pre covid.

magicbastarder

correct.

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

I could be wrong but this was also a short term scheme and it no longer runs, am I correct? It certainly wasn't being run in town based on the number of vehicles obstructing the LUAS by blocking yellow boxes pre covid.

They had so many vehicles to ticket that Gardai couldn't keep up and asked them to stop reporting, which they did.

Beta Ray Bill

CramCycle wrote: »

It also misses a key point, one no one likes about this stupid us vs them argument. When I am on a bike and I stop at a red light, I am not impeding the cyclist behind me. The only thing impeding them is themselves. Therefore the % of cyclists you see running a red light is pretty indicative of the percentage of cyclists who can or would run a red light. Anecdotally, I remember counting this up on my commute as I was discussing it in work with someone. On the N11 over a few days, the % of cyclists who ran red lights that I observed varied between 0 and 66% at any junction from Donnybrook to Loughlinstown. Interestingly, motorists are harder to define as once one stops in a line of traffic, with the rare exception of those who dart into the bus lane and gun it (which also happens far too frequently but we will ignore those), you can only measure the amount with the opportunity, as once one stops, they all stop. This also varies, anywhere from 0 to 80%, as those first 4 cars were the only ones with an opportunity, as once car 5 stopped, no motorist behind has a choice. So is that 80% max, or is that skewed for or against. To be honest, I imagine the reality is that due to poor enforcement, the real truth is, and low and behold, no one on the cars or cyclists only brigade likes to hear this, there is sweet FA difference. If you run a red in a car, you would probably do it in a bike, if you don't run it on a bike, you probably wouldn't run it in a car.

It is almost as if, and hold my beer here it is point making time, it isn't the mode of transport that is the problem but the person using that mode of transport.

Until proper enforcement is brought in, and even then, it takes a few years, like drink driving to be culturally unacceptable, none of this us vs them BS means anything except provide BS merchants like Newstalk and that muppet in Cork something to rant about on the radio and rile people up.

I understand the argument you are making. You're assuming that the same proportion of motorists (in comparison with cyclists) will break a red light, but cannot because most of the time, that person (red light breaker) is not at the front of the line of traffic stopped at the lights.

I can put a big hole in your argument though, motorcyclists can filter to the front of the line of traffic, and as such have ample opportunity to run a red. Motorcyclists very rarely do this. I cannot remember the last time I rode up to the front of a line of traffic only to have another motorcyclists ride up behind me and break the red light. It doesn't happen.
Also you check the entry/exit to housing estates where only on or 2 cars is queuing at the lights, I think you'd find most cyclists will break the red.
Running red is a "cyclist thing"

I get why cyclists do it, there is nothing coming and it looks safe to to so, and stopping/starting on a bicycle is an absolute pain in the ass (I used to be a commuting cyclist). For me the 30kph speed isn't the issue. It's random maneuvers and people pulling out of side roads that's the danger for cyclists.

In relation to the running the red light thing though, I actually think cyclists are better off running the red if it's safe to do so
As you mentioned when you stop at a red you do no impede other cyclists. However if enough cyclists filter up to the top (which they inevitably do) and stop, when the light goes green, they now impede motorists as there is a glut of them at the front and the cars cannot safely get passed. it takes time for that glut to thin out while the faster cyclists move to the front.
Then it happens again at the next set of lights.
Result: Everyone is going slower and there are more CO2 emissions from cars idling at lights.

There needs to be an impartial study done traffic in our cities, that favors neither, bus, cycling, rail, tram, car, motorbike, walking, etc
And actually work out what ratio is optimal, and where we can improve things easily