New 30km/hr city speed limit

Pherekydes

Speed limits in Dublin city centre to be cut to 30km/h

Speed limits in Dublin city centre are reportedly set to be slashed in an effort to prevent the deaths of cyclists and pedestrians.

At present, motorists can travel at up to 50km/h (31mph) in most parts of the city centre.

However, reports this morning say the City Council is planning to cut this to 30km/h (18.6mph) throughout the city centre, including the busy quays.

Other cities including Cork, Galway and Limerick are also expected to follow Dublin's lead.

Well, whaddya think?

The cops are on the quays, nabbing "speeders" at the current limit of 50. What will it be like when it's 30?

_Kaiser_

Short answer: it's a joke! It'll cause more problems than it solves :rolleyes:

Thread in Commuting/Transport:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055129851

daedalus2097

Well, it's already in place on a lot of the side streets off the quays and seems to work ok. I've never seen them nabbing people in these areas, but the quays would be the ideal place, especially when there's nobody around. I wonder though will they have a lot of trouble as I know a lot of older cars whose speedos won't register properly at those kinds of speeds, jumping all over the place and so on.

Edit: Not that I'm agreeing with them or anything - I personally think they won't make much difference at all to safety etc., as Kaiser's thread says.

milltown

:rolleyes:

They should be spending money improving driving standards at our current speed limits. Lowering the speed limit to suit the poor standards on the roads is ridiculous. Cyclists are being knocked off their bikes by cars going around corners at 15Km/h because the dopes behind the wheel aren't paying attention, being too busy texting or adjusting the radio. I'd also wager that most/any deaths of cyclists in town are down to trucks sideswiping them or crushing them while turning. Any fatalities due to pure speed would surely have happened in excess of the current 50Km/h limit.

When's the last time you saw somebody being done for a yellow box offence or making a turn accross a green pedestrian light?

Saruman

Well since traffic cant go faster than this most of the time during the week anyway, it will make little difference.
I wonder though will buses and Taxis bother to obey it and if not, will they be done for speeding?

furtzy

What a joke of an idea. Maybe if cyclists would obey the rules of road such as stop for the red light.

peasant

How about proper cycle lanes ?

craichoe

How about pedestrian start getting tickets for strolling out through the middle of a junction.

Every other frikkin country in europe says:

CROSS AT A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

RobAMerc

this is a fookin joke, pure slogan politics - make a big deal about fook all.

its not cars traveling at 50kms thats killing cyclists - its muppets cutting them up and crushing them at corners - and their failing to stop caused by the same oblivion to them in the first place.

Speed is the fall guy again as instead of costing money to put infrastructure in place it generates revenue.

Robbo

God help anyone who's tight for time to make a ferry out of Dublin port coming from down the quays.

mickoneill30

What are the stats for pedestrian / cyclist deaths in Dublin anyway. AS USUAL our media just says IT'S BAD. How bad?

Am I the only one that gets annoyed listening to how such and such has increased by 70%. Without the numbers a percentage is meaningless and can be twisted by anybody. It's not a hard thing to trip somebody up on but our radio presenters just go along with any percentages given to them.

mickoneill30

Robbo wrote:

God help anyone who's tight for time to make a ferry out of Dublin port coming from down the quays.

How long are the quays? Say 5Km (I'm guessing there).
So if there was no traffic and lights you'ld do it in 6mins at 50Km/h or 10 at 30Km/h. They could just leave 4 mins earlier. I don't think I ever get up to 30Km/h when I go down the quays though

alias no.9

Is this a universal thing in the city centre or to be concentrated in particular areas because it's already in place on the streets enclosed by dame st, cuffe st, grafton st, and georges st, on the north, south, east and west respectively. Maybe they were just the test case, but it's very appropriate on those streets, I'm not so sure about how necessary it would be on the quays except for between o'connell bridge and capel st. bridge.

miju

this is probably the MOST retarded idea I have heard ever. any deaths in town by pedestrians are usually casued by people playing chicken with cars and buses and as for cyclists IIRC (im pretty sure too) then the only deaths of cyclists in town have been caused by trucks side swiping em

Lord Nikon

In the Indo it highlights 4 streets. O' Connell St, Dame St, D'Olier St and WestMoreland St. Correct me if I wrong, but is there any cycle lanes on these streets. Hell, there's not even a buslane on Dame street. Maybe cyclists are falling off there bikes in potholes in Dame street.

Maybe pedestrians should obey green and red lights like the motorists do. People would get killed by a car at 30kph and higher anyway.

Victor

Reducing speed profoundly improves survivability.

mickoneill30 wrote:

What are the stats for pedestrian / cyclist deaths in Dublin anyway. AS USUAL our media just says IT'S BAD. How bad?

80-90% of deaths in the city council area are pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists.

Saruman

While it may actually be the pedestrians or cyclists fault in a lot of cases... you cant police pedestrains and cyclists to the same level as you can motorists, and since the idea is to cut deaths then the best way to do that is reduce the speed limit and then actually enforce it.

Im just waiting for speed bumps to be put in the city centre

eth0_

furtzy wrote:

What a joke of an idea. Maybe if cyclists would obey the rules of road such as stop for the red light.

Agreed! I would put money on most of the cyclist death/injuries in the city centre being a result of dangerous cycling and ignoring the rules of the road.

Take that notorious accident black spot on O'Connell bridge on the corner where the Centra is. Literally every time I am in the vicinity I see people walking out in front of buses coming round the corner, or cyclists speeding round the corner - breaking the red light - into the path of traffic travelling down the quays!

The guards should have a crack-down on jay-walking and cyclists breaking the rules of the road, definitely.

I have to say though, lowering the speed limit - tbh when do you ever get to drive at 50km/h in the city centre anyway?

_Kaiser_

eth0_ wrote:

I have to say though, lowering the speed limit - tbh when do you ever get to drive at 50km/h in the city centre anyway?

Off-peak? At night? etc.. this isn't just a temporary rush hour limit they're suggesting.

BostonB

I've used the quays every weekday for many years. Doesn't really matter what they do, the lane markings themselves are so bad they cause accidents especially on the southside. Theres hardly any cops on them, so people will just ignore the limits as they currently do. Pedestrians and cycles all wander all over the place as if they have a death wish. At peak the traffic crawls, off peak its like a speed track. I could pick 20 spots on the quays and surrounding streets where at minimum every 5 mins someone breaks a traffic law causing a serious danger to someone.

Reducing the limits will do nothing, except make the traffic crawl off peak, and we'll have random speed traps for a while, so people will have their head down looking at the speedo instead of out the window looking for pedestrians and cyclists as they wander between lanes.

Dublinsausage

Don't you guys put something up on You Tube so we know what you are talking about ?

This for example * http://www.dumpvideo.net/2007/06/28/bicycle-drifting/

arybvtcw0eolkf

Let me see, this is intended to protect pedestrians and cyclist's because those same people can't take responsiblity for their own safet, so we're left to do it?.

This is like the dangerous dogs ban the DCC recently proposed, stupid.

Like the dangerous dogs ban, there's already laws in place to protect cyclists and pedestrians but their not enforced.

I rarely see a cyclist being pulled for cycling through lights up against the flow of traffic, or pedestrians J-walking... Why?.

For a laugh this evening I tried driving at 30Kph on St.Stephens Green, and again on O'Connell St and the car couldn't decide on 2nd or 3rd gear, I drive an automatic. So the gear box went wild between the two!.

Ciaran500

Why is everyone blaming cyclists and pedestrians? I've seen more than enough idiot drivers around the city centre to justify this.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Ciaran500 wrote:

Why is everyone blaming cyclists and pedestrians? I've seen more than enough idiot drivers around the city centre to justify this.

Because they're the one's being reported as being killed and injured.

Ashling Quay 12 yrs ago I was knocked down by a cyclist who was travelling against the flow of traffic, I broke both elbow's and left wrist.

Just a few weeks later on the Bridge at Hueston Station a cyclist broke the lights, killing a motorcycle guard.

That's just two significant accidents that I can remember.

But I see it every day, and I drive well over 50 thousend Kilometer's per year, almost all city driving.

There's absolutely no justification for this speed limit.

Instead existing law's should be enforced.

galwaycyclist

Mairt wrote:

There's absolutely no justification for this speed limit.

Time to inject some facts into this thread

20mph As A Standard Speed Limit Why Galway Needs It. © Galway Cycling Campaign, April 1999
http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/20mph.html


Submission on National Speed Limit/Enforcement Policy:
Departmental Speed Limit Review Group Submission - Galway Cycling Campaign August 2003
http://galwaycycling.org/archive/submission/speed_limit_sub_03.html

European Federation for Transport and the Environment Fact sheet on lower urban speed limits - Pages three and four dispel the myths particularly regarding congestion.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Fact-sheets,%20responses,%20etc/2001/11-01-T30.pdf
html version (easier to cut and paste)
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Fact-sheets,%20responses,%20etc/11-00%20Lower%20%20urban%20speed%20limits.htm

Germany
Buxtehude implemented first 30kph zone in Germany in 1983 - Ireland is 24 years behind the times
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo-30-Zone

Examples from Europe
Munich: 330 30kph zones
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/kvr/strverkehr/verksicherheit/allgemein/117646/t30zonen.html

Cologne: 30kph zones cover 7,500 hectares in area
http://www.stadt-koeln.de/verkehr/verkehrsberuhigung/artikel/03065/index.html

Zurich has implemented 30kph zones in 24 districts of the city
http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/tempo30/stadtplan.htm

Vienna: https://www.wien.gv.at/umweltschutz/umweltbericht/rtf/laerm-engl-04.rtf
"As a result, the first Tempo 30 zones covering a distance of 31 kilometres were introduced as early as 1987. At the year end 2005, Tempo 30 applied to a total of 1,353.4 kilometres, which is 48 per cent of the entire municipal road network in Vienna. Each year, new Tempo 30 zones covering between 20 and 100 kilometres are added. In addition, there are 130 designated residential areas and 73 pedestrian precincts. The extent of both designated residential areas and pedestrian precincts in Vienna has increased since 2000. In 17 of Vienna's 23 districts there is already at least one pedestrian precinct!"

Graz (Austria): 30 kph zones cover 75% ofthe city's streets
http://www.eu-portal.net/unitdesign/studyvisitsites.phtml?sprache=en&site_id=6

Slower speeds initiative: 20's Plenty Campaign Rationale
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/content/view/97/46

LostinBlanch

Mairt wrote:

Because they're the one's being reported as being killed and injured.

Ashling Quay 12 yrs ago I was knocked down by a cyclist who was travelling against the flow of traffic, I broke both elbow's and left wrist.

Just a few weeks later on the Bridge at Hueston Station a cyclist broke the lights, killing a motorcycle guard.

I'm sorry that you had an accident, hopefully you recovered. I hadn't heard about the other accident as I was out of the country for a while.

I posted on the similar thread in commuting that cyclists should also be encouraged to obey the law. Of course the main problem is that they are unidentifiable/ I think that all bikes should be registered and taxed. I'm thinking a non punitive amount something like €20 or so (enough to cover the administration of the programme and if there is any extra income that should be put into road safety education programmes). Tax disc to put in the spokes of the front wheel, like I've seen in Bruges in Belgium. Again for safety reasons I'd also like all cyclists to have to wear helmets and reflective gear.

But they should also have some kind of numberplate so if any cyclist does any actions like the two mentioned above then they could be identified and prosecuted. I'm sure that anyone who is really interested in road safety and reducing accidents and fatalities would agree that the rules of the road should apply to all users. Maybe someone should start a campaign about this as well, seeing as we're all so concerned about safety.

BostonB

Nah. The cops should enforce the law with all road users, (pedestrians, cyclists included). Not turning a blind eye so people develop bad habits which has got us where we are.

craichoe

Speaking of which, on my way to work this morning lights were LONG green approaching a junction coming onto the Western Road next to UCC (Where theres the turn off for the Mardyke). I always slow down coming up to have a look, low and behold, two dipsticks on bicycles sauntered through a red light in front of me.

Had i went as the lights indicated the girl cycling in the front would have been over the bonnet.

If you act irresponsibly like this you should get a fine - period. If you can't obey the rules then you have no place on a public road.

markpb

BostonB wrote:

Nah. The cops should enforce the law with all road users, (pedestrians, cyclists included). Not turning a blind eye so people develop bad habits which has got us where we are.

I'd have no problem (as a pedestrian, cyclists, bus passenger but not a driver) with the Gardai enforcing the laws more vigorously but (in Dublin anyway) the environment isn't reasonable.

Pedestrian traffic lights in Dublin are (and DCC ITS will tell you this) timed to inconvenience motorists as little as possible. Their priority right now is keeping cars moving and any pedestrian knows you could be standing for several minutes for the lights to change. And that is when lights are provided on all four corners (as others have said). If you have to cross three times round a junction, it takes a (relatively) long amount of time compared to walking across a red light.

The entire road system is designed to keep control of cars. You'd be laughed out of it if you asked a pedestrian to walk an extra 500m+ around a one way system but cyclists are asked to do that all the time. There are plenty of places where it would be simple and safe to provide a contra flow cycle lane but DCC don't do that.

There are countless other small changes DCC could make but they don't so pedestrians will continue to jaywalk and cyclists will continue to go the wrong way down one way streets and cycle on footpaths. The reason most Gardai don't stop pedestrians jaywalking, or cyclists cycling on Grafton St or various footpath is because the environment is badly designed.

PixelTrawler

There would be no need for this at all, if there were proper cycling infrastructure. This is just a knee-jerk response to band aid the problem. Whats needed is a programme of cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings (or flyover bridges), especially at fast exits on roundabouts - can be lethal for anyone not capable of running.

Go to any city in Germany and they have fantastic cycle lanes everywhere. Its their little patch of the world, well understood by everyone.

What we have is a mess.

Sure, the survivability of a cyclist of pedestrian increases at 30 km/h but this measure as it stands is just smoke screen for the fact our cities are so dangerous for pedestrians/cyclists.

I have the feeling it will do little anyway since theres so little enforcement of current limits.

Im not generally a cyclist myself but its not fair or clear to say its cyclists cycling badly or motorists driving badly. We both have to operate with what we have - badly planned cities.

Of course some education would help too

For instance, in Ros Cam where they put in cycle lanes everywhere, idiot drivers park in them all the time at the junction to go into the Spar, forcing cyclists to go out on the road - right at the junction where people are turning. Do people honestly believe putting their hazard lights on makes it ok:rolleyes: It bugs the hell out of me too since it means having to drive around sometimes several cars right at the exit - dangerous.

A blanket 30km/h limit will do nothing to address any of the above. It might just mean people get clobbered at a slightly lower speed.

EDIT: Read in Galway the 30km/h limit could extend from the headford road roundabout out to salthill and knocknacarra. This is not good... Also its due in mid 2008.

iblis

Mairt wrote:

Because they're the one's being reported as being killed and injured.

Ashling Quay 12 yrs ago I was knocked down by a cyclist who was travelling against the flow of traffic, I broke both elbow's and left wrist.

Just a few weeks later on the Bridge at Hueston Station a cyclist broke the lights, killing a motorcycle guard.

That's just two significant accidents that I can remember.

But I see it every day, and I drive well over 50 thousend Kilometer's per year, almost all city driving.

There's absolutely no justification for this speed limit.

Instead existing law's should be enforced.

I have to agree with this.

On a daily basis I have several people almost run me down on bicycles while I'm a pedestrian in the city centre, generally cycling through a red light while I have a green crossing light, and frequently against the traffic flow in a one way system. Many even have the nerve to shout abuse at the pedestrians crossing on a green light!

One particularly bad spot is crossing from the top of Grafton street to Stephen's Green. Stand there for 5 mins during the day time and you will see several cyclists cycling through the traffic lights against the one way traffic flow, while the crossing light is green, and people are trying to cross...

Also look at pedestrian bridges such as the one at the IFSC. It is clearly marked "cyclists dismount". Very clearly. But not a single cyclist does so, and the majority cycle over there at a rate of knots without a care in the world...

This does not get any better when I get into my car to drive to clients/home. Cyclists often cycle in the middle of traffic lanes, or on the right hand side of a traffic lane. The majority don't have lights when it's dark, and I would doubt more than half wear proper reflective gear. The vast majority do not use hand signals. Again many cycle against the traffic flow on narrow one way systems without a care in the world. Expecting buses and cars to move over.

I used to live in an apartment (until a few weeks ago) overlooking Talbot street, this is commonplace, and gets really interesting when you have double decker buses trying to negotiate the narrow road (that way to reduce speed) while there are cyclists on both sides of the one traffic lane, travelling in opposite directions!!!!

Do not even get me started on people cycling drunk (generally with no lights or reflective gear).

And now we are to accept an almost halved speed limit to protect these helpless citizens?

LMAO

Victor

iblis wrote:

One particularly bad spot is crossing from the top of Grafton street to Stephen's Green. Stand there for 5 mins during the day time and you will see several cyclists cycling through the traffic lights against the one way traffic flow, while the crossing light is green, and people are trying to cross...

The design included a contra-flow cycle lane, the site works didn't

It is clearly marked "cyclists dismount".

No legal basis for such signs.

Cyclists often cycle in the middle of traffic lanes,

This is to stop you running over them.

or on the right hand side of a traffic lane.

This is so they can turn right.

I would doubt more than half wear proper reflective gear.

No obligation to wear reflective gear.

The vast majority do not use hand signals. Again many cycle against the traffic flow on narrow one way systems without a care in the world. Expecting buses and cars to move over.

Mostly hyperbole, but some road engineers encourage such behaviour. Of course one-way streets are there solely for the convenience of motorists.

And now we are to accept an almost halved speed limit to protect these helpless citizens?

So what of the people run over on Wellington Quay? Or Henry Street?

iblis

First up, I'm not mounting a challenge to the cycling community, pedestrians and motorists do stupid things too. Please read through this before you reject what I'm saying. My concern is as much for the lives of cyclists I might come across as a motorist as it is for my life when I come across a cyclist as a pedestrian.

iblis wrote:

One particularly bad spot is crossing from the top of Grafton street to Stephen's Green. Stand there for 5 mins during the day time and you will see several cyclists cycling through the traffic lights against the one way traffic flow, while the crossing light is green, and people are trying to cross...

Victor wrote:

The design included a contra-flow cycle lane, the site works didn't

I fail to see how this makes it safe for them to do this? The fact that there was a contra-flow cycle lane that didn't get implemented does not change the fact that the pedestrians are crossing on a green light and the cyclists are travelling the wrong way down a one way street through their path. Why are they cycling down a one way street? To get somewhere faster? If someone in a car broke the law to get somewhere faster, thus endangering pedestrians they'd be chastised on here.

iblis wrote:

It is clearly marked "cyclists dismount".

Victor wrote:

No legal basis for such signs.

Again, lol, that does not make it safe. What's the issue? You want to get there faster? Then what does someone elses safety matter... Again, if a motorist took the same attitude...

iblis wrote:

Cyclists often cycle in the middle of traffic lanes,

Victor wrote:

This is to stop you running over them.

They are going to be overtaken regardless, they are forcing the overtaking car into another traffic lane which increases the likelyness of something unexpected happening which could cause the driver to swerve. This is putting their own lives at risk. Do they really expect people to drive at, say uphill going over the bridge on the Ballybough Road towards Parnell Street, as I see most mornings, approximately 10kph when the road ahead is clear? If they move to the left hand side of the road they are safer IMO. No, I do not mean cycle in the gutter.

iblis wrote:

or on the right hand side of a traffic lane.

Victor wrote:

This is so they can turn right.

In that case of course it's fine. Again I don't think cyclists realise the danger they put themselves and others in some times. What I was referring to in particular here was again, the Ballybough road, where I frequently see cyclists cycling on the right hand side of the left hand lane on a 2+2 road. That means a car has to try and squeeze by in the inside, or when it comes to an uphill stretch, drive at mabe 10kph.

iblis wrote:

I would doubt more than half wear proper reflective gear.

Victor wrote:

No obligation to wear reflective gear.

No there is no obligation. But I don't think cyclists realise just how invisible they can be, even in city lighting. I have above average eyesight, before any smart comments. But it's astounding how cyclists with no lights or reflective gear can just appear from behind a parked car when you are trying to pull out of a junction, or cross a road on foot.

It's dangerous for cyclists if it's a car (pulling out means < 30kph, clearly) and it's dangerous for the pedestrians if they are crossing.

iblis wrote:

The vast majority do not use hand signals. Again many cycle against the traffic flow on narrow one way systems without a care in the world. Expecting buses and cars to move over.

Victor wrote:

Mostly hyperbole, but some road engineers encourage such behaviour. Of course one-way streets are there solely for the convenience of motorists.

Again, I'm astonished at your attitude. It's the danger to cyclists I'm trying to hilight here, when I talk about hand signals. Motorists cannot read your mind. If they decide to speed up and overtake you at the same time you decide to go right without signalling, you're going to end up in hospital! Surely you can see that?

I'm not sure what your point is regarding one way streets... Mine is they are one way. And they are intended to be one way for all traffic. Going the other way (to save time again I'm guessing) is dangerous. Dangerous to cyclists, dangerous to pedestrians, and frustrating to motorists. Motorists may or may not pay adequate attention to the opposite direction when pulling on to a one way street. I am not saying this is correct behavior on the part of the motorist, but it happens. Pedestrians crossing the street do likewise. It's not right, but neither's cycling down a one way street against the traffic flow.

iblis wrote:

And now we are to accept an almost halved speed limit to protect these helpless citizens?

Victor wrote:

So what of the people run over on Wellington Quay? Or Henry Street?

Again, I don't see your point. You'll have to enlighten me as to what's different here.

From your points I get the impression you are primarily a cyclist. But I also get the impression you do not perceive half the danger around you. That is truly frightening. And it's no wonder they have to reduce the speed limit if that is the attitude of the majority of cyclists. However, I don't believe for one second it will make it safe for cyclists to act in the manner you seem to think is completely reasonable. I truly hope you take in something of what I have said before you ruin your life and that of whoever hits you.

markpb

iblis wrote:

I fail to see how this makes it safe for them to do this? The fact that there was a contra-flow cycle lane that didn't get implemented does not change the fact that the pedestrians are crossing on a green light and the cyclists are travelling the wrong way down a one way street through their path. Why are they cycling down a one way street? To get somewhere faster?

You can cycle from the south-west corner of the Green, past RCSI using the cycle lane but when you get to the north-west corner, suddenly there are no road markings and no traffic lights to allow you to continue to the two-lane road on the north side of the park.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Basically it means that you can get from a to b and c to d but you have to teleport from b to c because they forgot to implement the design. Of course, drivers won't know this, all they'll see are stupid cyclists not following the rules and bitching about them without knowing what they're talking about.

If someone in a car broke the law to get somewhere faster, thus endangering pedestrians they'd be chastised on here.

Drivers do silly little things but they don't realise how dangerous they are. No indicators could be lethal to a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist and I don't need to tell you how poor the use of indicators is. Weaving while you check your phone, change the radio station, brush your hair, do your makeup and a whole host of other things are also potentially to cyclists but drivers don't even realise. What's a few centimetres when you're in a car? I could wager you weave unintentionally every time you get in a car.

Again, lol, that does not make it safe. What's the issue? You want to get there faster? Then what does someone elses safety matter... Again, if a motorist took the same attitude...

Have you ever seen a motorist jump into a bus lane and jump back out at the head of the queue, change lanes suddenly to beat traffic, undertake, turn left without slowing down and checking their mirrors, roll forward at red lights or hop into the pavement to get past a right turning vehicle? I can assure you I have and those things are _extremely_ dangerous for other road users.

They are going to be overtaken regardless

Of course overtaking when it's not safe is against the law. But according to you, it's okay as long as a driver does it and if a cyclists tries to keep themselves safe, they're breaking the law? At least try to be consistent in your argument.

they are forcing the overtaking car into another traffic lane which increases the likelyness of something unexpected happening which could cause the driver to swerve. This is putting their own lives at risk. Do they really expect people to drive at, say uphill going over the bridge on the Ballybough Road towards Parnell Street, as I see most mornings, approximately 10kph when the road ahead is clear? If they move to the left hand side of the road they are safer IMO. No, I do not mean cycle in the gutter.

Do we really expect drivers to drive safely and treat other road users with respect? No, not at all. That's precisely why you see cyclists in the middle of the lane, to prevent the downright dangerous manoeuvres you just admitted drivers do.

Again, this stems from your lack of experience as a cyclist (not that I'm blaming you). It's a well known fact that staying on the left of the lane is the most dangerous place to be. If you're in the middle of the lane, you're visible and in control. If you're on the left, you're practically invisible, not in control and people will overtake in the most ridiculous of situations.

Again, I'm astonished at your attitude. It's the danger to cyclists I'm trying to hilight here, when I talk about hand signals. Motorists cannot read your mind. If they decide to speed up and overtake you at the same time you decide to go right without signalling, you're going to end up in hospital! Surely you can see that?

I fully agree with you about the poor standard of signalling but there are two reasons (apart from rudeness and laziness) that this happens. The first is that when I indicate that I'm moving right (either to turn right or move around a parked car) exactly nothing happens. No-one slows down to let me out, no-one moves right to let me continue straight on. I'm completely and utterly ignored, often for several minutes. Why should I show any courtesy to drivers when they fail to return it?

The second, and only a cyclist will realise this, is that you can't brake and signal at the same time. I can't approach a parked car, signal right and slow down so I have to do one or the other. Since no-one is going to let me out, I have to slow down to prepare to stop.

I get the impression you're primarily a motorist and like most motorists, you have no understanding of other road users point of view. You have no idea what it's like to cycle round and city, you freely admit motorists will race past, overtake dangerously and generally expect other road users to stay out of their way. Sharing a road is all about compromise and drivers, in my experience, have no consideration for each other or for others. Until they do, pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to frustrate them and they won't have a clue why.

biko

I support it because of
(1) Reducing fatalities
A pedestrian hit by a car at 40mph has only a 15% chance of surviving. At 30mph this chance increases to 55%. But at 20mph the chance of survival increases to 95%. [1] In Galway city 28% of accidents involve pedestrians, but these account for 43% of fatalities. [2] 128 people were injured, and 6 killed in traffic accidents in Galway City in 1997. [3]

(2) Reducing casualties
Lowering the speed limit to 20mph reduces total road traffic casualty levels by around 60% and child casualties by around 70%, according to studies in both Britain and Denmark. [4] This would mean at least 80 fewer road traffic casualties in Galway City each year.

Seth Brundle

Thats all true biko but I think many people feel they are effectively being blamed for the stupidity of others.
However, this is the easier option to manage as people will always be stupid!

craichoe

markpb wrote:

You can cycle from the south-west corner of the Green, past RCSI using the cycle lane but when you get to the north-west corner, suddenly there are no road markings and no traffic lights to allow you to continue to the two-lane road on the north side of the park.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Basically it means that you can get from a to b and c to d but you have to teleport from b to c because they forgot to implement the design. Of course, drivers won't know this, all they'll see are stupid cyclists not following the rules and bitching about them without knowing what they're talking about.



Drivers do silly little things but they don't realise how dangerous they are. No indicators could be lethal to a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist and I don't need to tell you how poor the use of indicators is. Weaving while you check your phone, change the radio station, brush your hair, do your makeup and a whole host of other things are also potentially to cyclists but drivers don't even realise. What's a few centimetres when you're in a car? I could wager you weave unintentionally every time you get in a car.



Have you ever seen a motorist jump into a bus lane and jump back out at the head of the queue, change lanes suddenly to beat traffic, undertake, turn left without slowing down and checking their mirrors, roll forward at red lights or hop into the pavement to get past a right turning vehicle? I can assure you I have and those things are _extremely_ dangerous for other road users.



Of course overtaking when it's not safe is against the law. But according to you, it's okay as long as a driver does it and if a cyclists tries to keep themselves safe, they're breaking the law? At least try to be consistent in your argument.



Do we really expect drivers to drive safely and treat other road users with respect? No, not at all. That's precisely why you see cyclists in the middle of the lane, to prevent the downright dangerous manoeuvres you just admitted drivers do.

Again, this stems from your lack of experience as a cyclist (not that I'm blaming you). It's a well known fact that staying on the left of the lane is the most dangerous place to be. If you're in the middle of the lane, you're visible and in control. If you're on the left, you're practically invisible, not in control and people will overtake in the most ridiculous of situations.



I fully agree with you about the poor standard of signalling but there are two reasons (apart from rudeness and laziness) that this happens. The first is that when I indicate that I'm moving right (either to turn right or move around a parked car) exactly nothing happens. No-one slows down to let me out, no-one moves right to let me continue straight on. I'm completely and utterly ignored, often for several minutes. Why should I show any courtesy to drivers when they fail to return it?

The second, and only a cyclist will realise this, is that you can't brake and signal at the same time. I can't approach a parked car, signal right and slow down so I have to do one or the other. Since no-one is going to let me out, I have to slow down to prepare to stop.

I get the impression you're primarily a motorist and like most motorists, you have no understanding of other road users point of view. You have no idea what it's like to cycle round and city, you freely admit motorists will race past, overtake dangerously and generally expect other road users to stay out of their way. Sharing a road is all about compromise and drivers, in my experience, have no consideration for each other or for others. Until they do, pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to frustrate them and they won't have a clue why.

Sir,

Speaking as a long term motorcyclist, you are an idiot.
There are many things that you are not legally required to do on a motorcycle, but they tend to make it less likely that you will be killed.

The same rules apply to a cyclist, not legally, but for their own safety !!! assuming a car will get out of your way is suicide !

Driving a motorcycle there's one thing you always have to keep on your mind

"The guy driving the car.... CANNOT SEE YOU"

markpb

craichoe wrote:

Driving a motorcycle there's one thing you always have to keep on your mind

"The guy driving the car.... CANNOT SEE YOU"

I'm glad you agree with me. You'll notice (or you would if you actually read my post) that I said that cyclists should be in the middle of the lane so they can be seen, that they should signal more often and that they should prepare to stop instead of racing out past a parked car.

In fact, apart from pointing out a flaw in the road design around Stephens Green, you'll never see me advocating a lot of the things cyclists do. As a long term cyclist, I'm still here, still walking around and in almost eight years of cycle-commuting around Dublin have never once been in an accident involving another vehicle.

layke

30km/h Fecking hell. I wish I could go that fast.

biko

When I walk I hate drivers, they can't wait 10 seconds to let someone over the road. When I drive I'm like "get the fcuk outta my way, pedestrian idiots" You can't win.

iblis

markpb wrote:

You can cycle from the south-west corner of the Green, past RCSI using the cycle lane but when you get to the north-west corner, suddenly there are no road markings and no traffic lights to allow you to continue to the two-lane road on the north side of the park.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Basically it means that you can get from a to b and c to d but you have to teleport from b to c because they forgot to implement the design. Of course, drivers won't know this, all they'll see are stupid cyclists not following the rules and bitching about them without knowing what they're talking about.

So that make's it ok to put pedestrians at risk to save dismounting and walking for, what, 30 secs? 1 minute? As I said, the fact is you are going the wrong way down a one way street through a green pedestrian light as people are trying to cross - that puts them AND you in danger. A 30-sec to 1 minute inconvenience does not justify that. Or are you unable to walk?

markpb wrote:

Drivers do silly little things but they don't realise how dangerous they are. No indicators could be lethal to a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist and I don't need to tell you how poor the use of indicators is. Weaving while you check your phone, change the radio station, brush your hair, do your makeup and a whole host of other things are also potentially to cyclists but drivers don't even realise. What's a few centimetres when you're in a car? I could wager you weave unintentionally every time you get in a car.

Have you ever seen a motorist jump into a bus lane and jump back out at the head of the queue, change lanes suddenly to beat traffic, undertake, turn left without slowing down and checking their mirrors, roll forward at red lights or hop into the pavement to get past a right turning vehicle? I can assure you I have and those things are _extremely_ dangerous for other road users.

Slating motorists doesn't change anything. I am a frequent driver and pedestrian, and while less frequently I do cycle a lot. And it is all in the city. When you are travelling one way, stupid things people do in another form of transport are more apparent. I try and take this on board and change my habits appropriately.

For example I will never EVER block a marked pedestrian crossing just to get a few feet closer to the yellow box while waiting to cross a busy junction as a motorist. That forces pedestrians dangerously close or even into active traffic lanes in order to cross on a green crossing light. Likewise I will never EVER cycle the wrong way down a one way street through a crowd of crossing pedestrians who are obviously not expecting traffic from that direction and are on a green crossing light.

markpb wrote:

Of course overtaking when it's not safe is against the law. But according to you, it's okay as long as a driver does it and if a cyclists tries to keep themselves safe, they're breaking the law? At least try to be consistent in your argument.

Do we really expect drivers to drive safely and treat other road users with respect? No, not at all. That's precisely why you see cyclists in the middle of the lane, to prevent the downright dangerous manoeuvres you just admitted drivers do.

That is not what I said. Why is it always the same on here? I never said it's okay for a motorist to overtake dangerously. That IS against the law for one thing. My point here has been safety the whole way. How does that translate to condoning dangerous driving? You seem to have a beef with motorists. That's not what I'm talking about. When I make points from a motorists point of view it's as much my concern for the safety of the cyclists I see on the road every day. I drive very carefully and as I said I take what I experience as a pedestrian and as a cyclist and vice versa and use it to try and make myself safer as a motorist/cyclist/pedestrian. Other people do not.

The things in my original post were to hilight dangers to cyclists from motorists (who may not necessarily be at fault) and to pedestrians from cyclists.

Cycling in the middle of a road lane is just as pigheaded as a motorist driving in a cycle lane to squeeze past another car at a junction. Then cyclists can't get through. My point was cyclists seem to think it's safer and I strongly disagree. You are a perfect example.

Do you really think it's wise to try and force a car to follow you at your cycling speed? It's very difficult to keep safe distance from a cyclist if you are forced to follow them. Car's are not geared to drive continuously at 10kph. If the cyclist is in the middle of the lane, there is nowhere for a motorist to go but into the back of you if they, for example get shunted from behind.

markpb wrote:

Again, this stems from your lack of experience as a cyclist (not that I'm blaming you). It's a well known fact that staying on the left of the lane is the most dangerous place to be. If you're in the middle of the lane, you're visible and in control. If you're on the left, you're practically invisible, not in control and people will overtake in the most ridiculous of situations.

I think this is more an issue with your inexperience as a driver. If you drive in the city you would see that this is putting yourself in more danger. But you don't want to hear that? The opinion I am posting is balanced in my opinion. I have nothing against cyclists. It's the best way to travel round the city. Yours is clearly pro-cyclist only and you are not considering what I am saying even when it is to hilight danger to cyclists and to pedestrians from cyclists. You are even justifying endangering pedestrians because you can't dismount. It's cycle or "teleport" apparently!

Do you really think you can "control" vehicular traffic by cycling in the middle of the traffic lane? You clearly are not really interested in my opinion, which I would consider relevant as a motorist/pedestrian/cyclist, so why not ask a traffic Garda if that is a smart thing to do? I'm not looking to win an argument here. If one thing I says makes you think twice next time your cycling before doing something you never before considered dangerous, be it to yourself or to a pedestrian, then it was worth every letter typed.

markpb wrote:

I fully agree with you about the poor standard of signalling but there are two reasons (apart from rudeness and laziness) that this happens. The first is that when I indicate that I'm moving right (either to turn right or move around a parked car) exactly nothing happens. No-one slows down to let me out, no-one moves right to let me continue straight on. I'm completely and utterly ignored, often for several minutes. Why should I show any courtesy to drivers when they fail to return it?

That is the worst argument I've ever heard. I said it above and I'll say it again. I'm not promoting signalling as a convenience to drivers. It's for the safety of the cyclist by showing your intention to other road users. No, it does not mean cars will get out of your way. Indicators on a car, similarly, do not convey right of way. That's no excuse for not using them. And I DO use them.

markpb wrote:

The second, and only a cyclist will realise this, is that you can't brake and signal at the same time. I can't approach a parked car, signal right and slow down so I have to do one or the other. Since no-one is going to let me out, I have to slow down to prepare to stop.

I'm sorry but that is rubbish. It is people who take attitudes like that that get killed on the roads. Unless of course you have one arm, in which case I apologise sincerely. However in that situation you should really have a bicycle modified for your disability.

markpb wrote:

I get the impression you're primarily a motorist and like most motorists, you have no understanding of other road users point of view. You have no idea what it's like to cycle round and city, you freely admit motorists will race past, overtake dangerously and generally expect other road users to stay out of their way. Sharing a road is all about compromise and drivers, in my experience, have no consideration for each other or for others. Until they do, pedestrians are going to jaywalk, cyclists are going to frustrate them and they won't have a clue why.

That is also rubbish. As above I do cycle in the city and I never said those things. I also drive and choose to use both viewpoints positively. From your post it is clear that compromise is not on your mind. You are focused on cycling and everyone else is a hinderance to the extent that when it is explained in simple english you choose to slate drivers rather than acknowledge that you can have a positive affect on your own road safety and that of the people around you.