A 30 KPH limit for Dublin

Thelonious Monk

Phil.x wrote: »

Given 100% of cyclists smash through every red light, I'd say completely ban or tax them to obliteration.

And yet it doesn't cause any problems. It makes you think if the rules should be looked at again.

VinLieger

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And yet it doesn't cause any problems. It makes you think if the rules should be looked at again.

It absolutely causes problems, personally i know 3 colleagues who when crossing on a green man at the junction of aungier street and stephens st upper/lower have been hit by cyclists racing down aungier street towards dame street. I luckily haven't been hit myself but ive had to avoid being hit at that same spot multiple times.

Thelonious Monk

VinLieger wrote: »

It absolutely causes problems, personally i know 3 colleagues who when crossing on a green man at the junction of aungier street and stephens st upper/lower have been hit by cyclists racing down aungier street towards dame street. I luckily haven't been hit myself but ive had to avoid being hit at that same spot multiple times.

So you've never been harmed, and I don't believe the 3 colleagues thing, people are very fond of making these stories up for some reason.

cnocbui

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And yet it doesn't cause any problems. It makes you think if the rules should be looked at again.

A cyclist who broke a red light and seriously injured himself when he smashed into a car has been banned from driving a car for a year, in a ruling described as "highly unusual" by the author of the acknowledged bible on road-traffic law in Ireland.

The ruling has also been described as "unprecedented" by an organisation representing cyclists.

"It will serve as a warning. I don't think that most cyclists around the country realise they could lose their driving licence if they break the law when on a bike. Cyclists must realise that a bicycle is a vehicle under the terms of the Road Traffic Act," said Mike McKillen, chairman of cyclists.ie -- the umbrella group of biking organisations around the country.

John Cully, 38, of Pleasant Street, Dublin, was convicted after he cycled through a red light on New Street in Dublin 8, moments before crashing into a Volkswagen Jetta car driven by a Dublin woman, Paula McCormack.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html


You reckon? I could say the same about the difference betwenn cars doing 50 and 30 - doesn't cause problems.

VinLieger

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you've never been harmed, and I don't believe the 3 colleagues thing, people are very fond of making these stories up for some reason.

First of all your response of simply throwing away valid concerns because ive never been harmed is just disgusting and pretty pathetic hand waving. Ive had to jump out of the way of cyclists racing at speed breaking a red light when crossing on a green man and you can believe me or not i don't care im just telling you what happens at this specific junction.

Thelonious Monk

VinLieger wrote: »

First of all your response of simply throwing away valid concerns because ive never been harmed is just disgusting and pretty pathetic hand waving. Ive had to jump out of the way of cyclists racing at speed breaking a red light when crossing on a green man and you can believe me or not i don't care im just telling you what happens at this specific junction.

Big deal! I have to jump out of the way of cars and trucks all the time, sometimes on the bloody pavement. You're trying to make bikes out as a menace and they cause no harm, if they did the statistics would be there for accidents.

VinLieger

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Big deal! I have to jump out of the way of cars and trucks all the time, sometimes on the bloody pavement. You're trying to make bikes out as a menace and they cause no harm, if they did the statistics would be there for accidents.

Wow love the whataboutery there.

They can be a menace though, your refusal to even acknowledge that is just incredibly obtuse.

Thelonious Monk

cnocbui wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html


You reckon? I could say the same about the difference betwenn cars doing 50 and 30 - doesn't cause problems.

That's one case you can find in years and years, and he only hurt himself, that tends to be what happens. I'm pretty sure being hit at 50 rather than 30 by a car causes much more damage, but I'm not even sure of my opinion on the speed limit thing I'm just sick of people going on as if bicycles are a danger to people, they just aren't.

Thelonious Monk

VinLieger wrote: »

Wow love the whataboutery there.

They can be a menace though, your refusal to even acknowledge that is just incredibly obtuse.

They can be kind of annoying having to wait a second or two for a deliveroo guy or a teenager to cycle past you when they shouldn't be, that's about it.
Annoying maybe, I'll give you that.

cnocbui

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

That's one case you can find in years and years, and he only hurt himself, that tends to be what happens. I'm pretty sure being hit at 50 rather than 30 by a car causes much more damage, but I'm not even sure of my opinion on the speed limit thing I'm just sick of people going on as if bicycles are a danger to people, they just aren't.

Vehicles shouldn't be restricted at all times of the day/night in a city because of death-wish pedestrians hurling themselves suddenly in front of vehicles - which is about the only way you will get a no attempt to brake collision, given the RSA reports that pedestrians are at fault most of the time.

VinLieger

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They can be kind of annoying having to wait a second or two for a deliveroo guy or a teenager to cycle past you when they shouldn't be, that's about it.
Annoying maybe, I'll give you that.

Is the aggressively dismissive posting style really necessary?

Ive been in the middle of this junction and had to doge a bike traveling at a fair click well after the light turned red, you and the other cycling zealots refusal to admit that cyclists are anywhere near as bad as car drivers when it comes to breaking the rules is the real problem with this thread.

Beta Ray Bill

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Given that we have 98% of drivers breaking speed limits, I'd say most cars are driven by criminals.

But regardless, so what? Why do we allow these vehicles on our streets without appropriate controls, including speed limiters?

Nah

People doing 120kph on a "Motorway" that's 100kph are not REALLY criminals
There are different levels of of criminality, going over the speed limit slightly, is low
Cyclist breaking red light if it's safe to do so, is low

Also if you brought in legislation that limited vehicles to 120kph you'd have a heap of work to do:
Retrofit all the old vehicles as well as fit them to new ones
You'd need manufacturer buy in (which they wont do, Not gonna sell many Luxury cars that can only go 120kph)
You'd also absolutely decimate the motor market, people would buy the cheapest car they could IE the one that can just about make it to 150kph without rattling around. You'd probably knock a few billion out of the economy over the few years (Motor Vehicle sales accounted for €1.6 Billion to the Exchequer in 2019 AND The motor industry generates a fifth of all indirect taxes for the State.)

Phil.x wrote: »

Given 100% of cyclists smash through every red light, I'd say completely ban or tax them to obliteration.

Nah

If its safe to do so, I've no problem with cyclists breaking red lights.
If a large group of them stop together it means you cannot get by when the light goes green, I'd rather they just continue on (if it is safe to do so). If they make a mistake and are seriously hurt or killed having just broke a red light however, that's on them.

cnocbui wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html


You reckon? I could say the same about the difference betwenn cars doing 50 and 30 - doesn't cause problems.

Perhaps you should have a little "google" about John Cully
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20261654.html

crooked cockney villain

CramCycle wrote: »

Ys, cyclists are between 0% and 50%, cars are between 0% and on one occasion 87.5%, although typically closer to 50% as well. Maybe it is just a case of a percentage of people run red lights and their mode of transport is irrelevant.

50%? I'm not sure I've seen a driver run a red light more than three times this year, and one of them was yesterday.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Big deal! I have to jump out of the way of cars and trucks all the time, sometimes on the bloody pavement. .

Do you live somewhere with a large population of Islamists?

AndrewJRenko

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Also if you brought in legislation that limited vehicles to 120kph you'd have a heap of work to do:
Retrofit all the old vehicles as well as fit them to new ones
You'd need manufacturer buy in (which they wont do, Not gonna sell many Luxury cars that can only go 120kph)
You'd also absolutely decimate the motor market, people would buy the cheapest car they could IE the one that can just about make it to 150kph without rattling around. You'd probably knock a few billion out of the economy over the few years (Motor Vehicle sales accounted for €1.6 Billion to the Exchequer in 2019 AND The motor industry generates a fifth of all indirect taxes for the State.)

You'd better warn the authorities quick of this imminent disaster;

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/27/tech/europe-speed-limits-scli/index.html

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

50%? I'm not sure I've seen a driver run a red light more than three times this year, and one of them was yesterday.

Seriously, you should go see an optician and get whatever corrective lenses they recommend before you get behind the wheel again. because clearly your observation is way below the standard required.

http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights

AndrewJRenko

VinLieger wrote: »

Is the aggressively dismissive posting style really necessary?

Ive been in the middle of this junction and had to doge a bike traveling at a fair click well after the light turned red, you and the other cycling zealots refusal to admit that cyclists are anywhere near as bad as car drivers when it comes to breaking the rules is the real problem with this thread.

Your own posting style isn't kilometres away from aggressive, including this post.

I'm very happy to admit that cyclists are nearly as bad as car drivers when it comes to breaking the rules. What you seem to have missed is that the impact of breaking rules in a 2-tonne vehicle travelling at 20-150 kmph is in a slightly different ballpark to breaking the rules on a 10-20kg bike doing 10-20 kmph.

AndrewJRenko

cnocbui wrote: »

Vehicles shouldn't be restricted at all times of the day/night in a city because of death-wish pedestrians hurling themselves suddenly in front of vehicles - which is about the only way you will get a no attempt to brake collision, given the RSA reports that pedestrians are at fault most of the time.

Can you justify your despicable victim-blaming approach by sharing details of any recent pedestrian death(s) that involved pedestrians hurling themselves suddenly in front of vehicles please?

crooked cockney villain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Seriously, you should go see an optician and get whatever corrective lenses they recommend before you get behind the wheel again. because clearly your observation is way below the standard required.

http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights

Are Kerry Cycling Campaign related to Galway Cycling Campaign?

The lads who stole a few stories about dead kids for the 30km campaign, one of who was killed by a slow moving reversing bus?

You'd see more balanced views in Pravda.

AndrewJRenko

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

Are Kerry Cycling Campaign related to Galway Cycling Campaign?

The lads who stole a few stories about dead kids for the 30km campaign, one of who was killed by a slow moving reversing bus?

You'd see more balanced views in Pravda.

Are you trying to divert attention away from your ludicrous claim that drivers don't break red lights on a regular basis?

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1237546126321922050?s=20

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1287712181115588608?s=20

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1079446662144319488?s=20

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1232016647092887552?s=20

magicbastarder

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

50%? I'm not sure I've seen a driver run a red light more than three times this year, and one of them was yesterday.

this is the most outstandingly bizarre claim i've heard in this thread. if i'm out and about in the car, i see motorists running reds at the rate of three a *minute* at times. three on a single red light is not uncommon.

Hamsterchops

Who would have guessed that a thread about a 30km/h speed limit could generate such heat

.... shall we get back to the main topic?

I think 40 is better (more realistic) than 30 km/h.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coroners don’t attribute blame and death certificates don’t attribute blame. So we’re left with one option – Gardai. If that’s what is going on here, I’d expect to see clear Garda guidelines on the decision to attribute blame, not just the ticking of one box by the one Garda who happens to be dealing with the paperwork. Given the car-centric principles and active hostility to active travel clearly demonstrated by Garda, as recently as last week, I’d be highly dubious about the reliability of opinions on culpability of individual Gardai, which seems to be what’s going on here.
Could you give any examples of cases where the motorist was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time please?

The number of incidents clearly visible on Twitter and YouTube, and the number of additional anecdotes on Twitter would lead me to believe that the number of culpable drivers more clearly matches factual data, like the 98% of drivers we see breaching speed limits.

Expenses like insurance and tolls aren’t contributions for the greater good. They are simply costs of motoring. If you’re going to choose a vehicle that is capable of doing tens or hundreds of thousands of euro of damage to a person or a property with relative ease, then you’re going to have accept some degree of insurance to ensure that damage caused is paid for.
As for the broader issue, see
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117365540&postcount=1303

Actually, it really is by choice. Motorists choose to drive, frequently for short journeys that are easily walked or cycled. They then manage through extreme cognitive dissonance to disassociate that decision with heavy traffic levels, as if traffic is caused by other people, not by their own decision to drive around with four empty seats for that 1km school run or 2km run to the shops.

Seriously?
Poor air quality cases more premature deaths that drivers.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/public-consultation-on-new-air-quality-regime-ends-friday-1.4464703#:~:text=Air%20pollution%20was%20linked%20to,toll%20on%20the%20Republic's%20roads.

We’re well on our way to having the highest obesity rates in Europe. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ireland-set-to-be-most-obese-country-in-europe-who-says-1.2201731
We have the fifth highest cancer rates in Europe.
https://www.ncri.ie/news/article/cancer-incidence-ireland-and-recent-eu-survey
We have among the highest rates of Type 1 diabetes in Europe
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/health-news/ireland-one-highest-rates-type-13664438
We have some of the highest rates of hypertension in the world;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/irish-blood-pressure-problem-revealed-in-international-study-1.4013974
We’ve tripled the number of cars on our roads over a generation, so we’re not walking, and we’re not cycling. We’re setting up our kids for a lifetime of obesity, probably the first generation to have worse health than their parents.
And each and every one of your hostile posts about ‘menacing cyclists’ make it just a little bit harder for people to choose active travel.

Zero air pollution from EVs? If only.
https://www.me.ucr.edu/news/2020/10/05/brake-and-tire-wear-particles-emerging-source-air-pollution

There is no contradiction. There is no claim of collective responsibility – just another strawman. There is no claim of murderous intent. That doesn’t change the facts that 2 or 3 people are killed here just about every week as a result of car crashes.


Pop Quiz: How many times last week did Irish Rail announce delays to services because some idiot driver hit one of their bridges or level crossings?

So much nonsense, false accusations, exaggerations and just straight up falsehoods I don't know where to start. One thing, there is too much BS to multi-quote everything.

Firstly, it's not my job or anyone elses' to be encyclopediae of recent accidents. If you're claiming that not only are pedestrian-culpable collisions not only aren't the majority, but don't occur at all, then it's up to you to prove that. I didn't make up the 70% figure, but your claim that your 98% figure relates to anything other than itself is entirely fictitious. One thing you haven't explained is how come there is all this lawbreaking by motorists yet we are globally near best practice for road safety and fatalities are incredibly rare (more than 300,000,000 kilometres between fatalities and more than 99.5% of drivers never involved). Your nonsense about how "Expenses like insurance and tolls aren’t contributions for the greater good." is both a strawman and false. It's a strawman, as I hadn't made specific claims that motorists were subsidising society (only disputing the claim that motorists were subsidised by society), but in the case of road tolls, some of them do go straight to either local or central government. Like the West Link M50 (tolls collected by the government) and the East Link (toll now collected by DCC). I ignored your horsecrap where you tried to insinuate that the Indepedent was lying about the taxes paid by motorists with your "heavily supported by motoring advertisers" nonsense. Either the claims they make are correct, or they are not. Everything else is irrelevant. As to motorists "choosing" to sit in traffic, no, it's not by choice. Nobody likes crawling in stop-start traffic.

Your bizarre claims about pollution are disproven by your own link!

The main threat to air quality comes in the form of minute particles in air which are known as PM2.5. These arise mainly from solid fuel burning, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Type 1 Diabetes is not caused by lifestyle issues, it's mostly inherited through genetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1_diabetes#Cause
None of the horsecrap you posted negates the fact that Ireland has among the highest life expectancies in the world. Your claim that "We’ve tripled the number of cars on our roads over a generation" you're missing the rather large point that Ireland until the early 1990s was an agricultural backwater, we started from a really low base.

All of my near misses on the streets and footpaths of Irelands urban areas have been with lawbreaking menaces on two wheels. Hence I find all the nonsense from cyclists about how laws need to be crammed down on others is a bit rich, to say the least. For my part, I only want cyclists to either:
1) Get the hell off the footpaths and obey traffic controls
OR
2) If that's too much to ask, don't be a hypocrite.

As to EVs, they not only create zero air pollution from fuel combustion (which is caused by burning litres of refined oils) but they also have regenerative braking, so there will be little brake dust except for emergency braking. That just leaves tyre dust, and I'm sure you have evidence that tyre dust is killing lots of people? As to this nonsense, "There is no contradiction. There is no claim of collective responsibility – just another strawman." You must think people are really stupid to believe this. Your entire posting history has been one of tarring "motorists" with a broad brush, and there is zero evidence that you were using the term "motorists" in the individual sense "killing 2 or 3 people every week." And I never said anything about murderous intent, I simply pointed out that "kill" = "cause the death of" (and it should be obvious that this can include accidentally causing the death of) and that in many cases, the person supposedly "killed by motorists" died due to their own actions, whether they were driving or not, and in many cases not.

VinLieger

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the most outstandingly bizarre claim i've heard in this thread. if i'm out and about in the car, i see motorists running reds at the rate of three a *minute* at times. three on a single red light is not uncommon.

But a dash cam and show this happening because I simple don't believe you

magicbastarder

what's your definition of a motorist running a red? are you excluding people who go through a couple of seconds after the light has changed red?

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's your definition of a motorist running a red? are you excluding people who go through a couple of seconds after the light has changed red?

From previous experiences in these discussions, motorists don't count this as breaking a red. But yeah pretty much every light sequence has one or two breaking the red. I don't even care that much, I just hate that the first thing motorists say when cycling comes up is that cyclists break red lights, when motorists are just as bad for doing this while also endangering other people's lives by doing it.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's your definition of a motorist running a red? are you excluding people who go through a couple of seconds after the light has changed red?

I presume you meant Amber right? I am not including them.

magicbastarder

i wasn't including them either. just very curious that several people on the thread don't seem to see other motorists running reds. it's endemic, in dublin anyway.

VinLieger

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wasn't including them either. just very curious that several people on the thread don't seem to see other motorists running reds. it's endemic, in dublin anyway.

Yes it happens but in my experience it is nowhere near to the numbers you are claiming.

Id regularly see those who run on amber and the very odd time someone who follows their bumper on a red.

mr potato head

SeanW wrote: »

One thing you haven't explained is how come there is all this lawbreaking by motorists yet we are globally near best practice for road safety and fatalities are incredibly rare

We have certainly improved significantly in the past decade. This assumes that road safety is only counting vehicular users of the roads. In the past few years, there have been large increases in fatalities for vulnerable road users and overall deaths went up in 2020.

Some of the reduction in overall deaths could be attributed to rising vehicle safety standards, and not to driving standards, laws or enforcement.
The rise in vulnerable road user deaths will need to be addressed through more than one single intervention if we are to reach "Vision Zero".

SeanW wrote: »

All of my near misses on the streets and footpaths of Irelands urban areas have been with lawbreaking menaces on two wheels. Hence I find all the nonsense from cyclists about how laws need to be crammed down on others is a bit rich, to say the least. For my part, I only want cyclists to either:
1) Get the hell off the footpaths and obey traffic controls
OR
2) If that's too much to ask, don't be a hypocrite.

There are idiots and lawbreakers in all modes of transport, the question in relation to safety and effective transportation of citizens are:

• Why are unlawful/harmful behaviours happening
• What are their consequences of them for society
• What are the consequences of antisocial/unlawful behaviour for the actor
• How do we order the interventions to have the largest net benefit to society

Vehicles breaking the law have a far higher potential harm due to their size and velocity. Therefore, one intervention is to reduce the speed in areas of high potential risk... i.e. 30km/h speed limit.

Secondly, breaking lights is rampant across all modes, again it comes down to potential harm. I very nearly got T-Boned recently by a truck breaking lights (well after I had the green light driving out of my estate). if I wasn't observing properly and stopped, I very likely might not be here. A cyclist doing the same would have done more harm to themselves than to me.

This isn't to say cyclists should get off without having to obey laws, it frustrates me when cyclists blast through lights. I think steeper fines and German-style points on licences should be brought in. When I cycle to work, there are plenty of law-abiding cyclists stopping at lights with me.
90% of those cyclists breaking lights sneak through rather than blast through, this sneaking through is now allowed in some areas of the world as it poses a low risk.

So why do some cyclists break lights or cycle on paths?
In short, because it reduces the risk to them from vehicles and there is no provision of a safer alternative. Paths are safer than sharing the roads with cars, cycling infrastructure along with enforcement of existing laws will reduce this. Cyclists who "sneak" through junctions are usually doing so to avoid having to share the rush to get away on a green light.

To bring it back to the point of the tread, for the city to function in the future, use of private cars will need to be reduced.
The 30km/h limit inside the city is one part of an overall change in how we use the space in the city, the societal benefit from reduced volume and speed of traffic far outweighs the individual need to use a car. The only exceptions are those with a disability that require a car to retain their independence.

Pinch Flat

Was driving to a job site Tuesday. First time in 14 months. The amount of red light jumping by motorists is hilarious. Ever junction bar none. Two car seems pretty normal on a red now.

The latest near me - four way pedestrian crossing with orange flashing lights- seems to be to wave apologetically as you ignore the people that have already stepped onto the zebra crossing. Happens about 50% of the time.