More Speed Limits for Bikes

Wishbone Ash

Today's Indo reporting that there are proposals to introduce a cycle speed limit on the Clontarf track. :eek:

Not sure how it could be enforced though.

Lusk_Doyle

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Today's Indo reporting that there are proposals to introduce a cycle speed limit on the Clontarf track. :eek:

Not sure how it could be enforced though.

Can it belower than the 60kph limit on the road beside it? Unless it's something ridiculous like 20kph then there's no real issue is there?

rollingscone

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Can it belower than the 60kph limit on the road beside it? Unless it's something ridiculous like 20kph then there's no real issue is there?

Given the implicit assumption among non roadies that cyclists move at a walking or jogging pace (as demonstrated by cries of use the footpad) I think you can expect something ridiculous.

Beasty

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Can it belower than the 60kph limit on the road beside it?

Of course it can and indeed will be. The article is here and the proposal is clearly aimed at curbing speed. I would not at all be surprised if it's set at 20kph if this proposal does proceed

Wishbone Ash

The sooner this bloody marathon is over, the better - all those runners out in force lately using the cycle track in Clontarf when there's plenty of pedestrian space beside it. The muppets using earphones while running in the same direction as the cyclists are the worst - no way of warning them! I wonder is they who have lobbied for it?

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Can it belower than the 60kph limit on the road beside it?

That wouldn't be an issue as different speed limits apply to different vehicles regardless of posted limits. (e.g. trucks, double deck buses, mopeds, vehicles towing 2 trailers etc.).

Raam

Pretty soon no cycling on the cycle track either.

wirelessdude01

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclists-to-face-speed-limits-on-popular-promenade-29673126.html

Wishbone Ash

Under discussion in the off topic thread!

seamus

Talk of requiring funding, etc, leads me to believe that these won't be legal speed restrictions, but instead will be a form of "traffic calming" measures aimed at reducing the speed of bikes. Maybe some kind of gate which is just about wide enough to get through, but not so wide that you'd fly through it, or chicanes or speeds bumps or something.

Sounds daft though. The problem is not the speed of the cyclists, it's the fact that pedestrians wander haplessly onto the cycle lane.

I don't think actual speed limits could be introduced for cyclists, even through bye-laws.

rollingscone

Raam wrote: »

Pretty soon no cycling on the cycle track either.

Be reasonable, it will be no cycling on the road of footpad. Cycling on the cycle lane is allowed at speeds of up to 10kph with hi vis helmet and adult supervision from an accompanying safety car.

Squidgy Black

A better idea would be making it so any gobshíte joggers or speed walkers are liable for any injuries that could be caused by them being in the cycle path.

tunney

And when this moves all the cyclists on to the road what's the plan then.

07Lapierre

A Stupid idea.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

And when this moves all the cyclists on to the road what's the plan then.

They'll widen the road, install bike-friendly drainage grates and non-slip access covers and put down a fresh super-smooth OGFC surface.

Raam

Totally stupid idea. Is there a lot of deaths and serious accidents along that stretch that we don't hear about? Or are some walkers just annoyed cos someone shouted at them to move out of the cycling part?

ford2600

Raam wrote: »

Totally stupid idea. Is there a lot of deaths and serious accidents along that stretch that we don't hear about? Or are some walkers just annoyed cos someone shouted at them to move out of the cycling part?

We'll have more rules than the Germans soon.
Actually cycled on a path on northern shore of Rhine with a speed limit for bikes.

Chips Lovell

I think it's fair enough in a shared space environment like that.

Raam

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think it's fair enough in a shared space environment like that.

There is a section for cycling and a section for walking. Plenty of space available so as not to impact on each other. Safety, is of course, something which should always be exercised if people are walking close to the track or at exit points.

Lusk_Doyle

Raam wrote: »

Totally stupid idea. Is there a lot of deaths and serious accidents along that stretch that we don't hear about? Or are some walkers just annoyed cos someone shouted at them to move out of the cycling part?

Probably your man who wrote the letter in the paper a short time ago about thuggish cyclists in the phoenix park shouting at his missus and ma cos they were on the cycle path. Damn cyclists thinking a cycle path is a cycle track.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

There is a section for cycling and a section for walking. Plenty of space available so as not to impact on each other. Safety, is of course, something which should always be exercised if people are walking close to the track or at exit points.

From what I recall the cycling section is about two handlebars wide across both lanes.

Do you ever break 20kph on that stretch? I guess there is a tailwind sometimes.

Brian?

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think it's fair enough in a shared space environment like that.

It's not really supposed to be a shared space though. There's the cycle lane, a decent gap and then the footpath.

Very few pedestrians respect the separation though, I cycled out there once and never again. Next time I want to cycle up the coast to Howth I'll use the road.

Brian?

Lumen wrote: »

From what I recall the cycling section is about two handlebars wide across both lanes.

Do you ever break 20kph on that stretch? I guess there is a tailwind sometimes.

It's wide enough for about 4-5 bikes I reckon. I cycled up there 2 abreast with a mate and there was plenty of room for people to pass going the opposite direction.

Why wouldn't you break 20kph on that stretch?

micar

Brian? wrote: »

It's not really supposed to be a shared space though. There's the cycle lane, a decent gap and then the footpath.

Very few pedestrians respect the separation though, I cycled out there once and never again. Next time I want to cycle up the coast to Howth I'll use the road.

I've cycled on that lane plenty of times. totally agree with the pedestrians. They don;t realise how dangerous it is particularly around the car park across the road from the Dublin Bus terminus.

I despise having to cycle on the road between the bridges going to over to dollymount. The cycle lanes heading northwards is a disgrace. I had my worse accident there when the tires when into a groove and i have jump the bike out. Had no time to clip out and the bike went in against the curb and flipped me over.

Jawgap

I think the "problem" might be wiyh one or two people hammering along the track on TT bikes in full TT mode.

That aside, it's difficult to see how such a law could be enforced.

Lusk_Doyle

Brian? wrote: »

It's wide enough for about 4-5 bikes I reckon. I cycled up there 2 abreast with a mate and there was plenty of room for people to pass going the opposite direction.

Why wouldn't you break 20kph on that stretch?

I'm not an expert, but I'd say he was being sarcastic!

Chips Lovell

Brian? wrote: »

It's not really supposed to be a shared space though. There's the cycle lane, a decent gap and then the footpath.

For about half of it, i.e. between Howth and Bull Island, there's only a white line between cyclists and pedestrians. But even in the bit where there's a separate footpath, it's a de facto shared space. Kind of like the Phoenix Park. You can complain all you want, but nothing is going to change the fact that walkers use it.

So in situations like that, I wouldn't really have a problem at limiting the speeds of cyclists, because you do see some people pushing it in close proximity to kids, dogs, walkers etc. If you want to go faster, there's a perfectly good road next to it.

kumate_champ07

my bike doesnt work at speeds lower than 20km/h

monument

Raam wrote: »

There is a section for cycling and a section for walking. Plenty of space available so as not to impact on each other. Safety, is of course, something which should always be exercised if people are walking close to the track or at exit points.

I agree with VK -- I'd at least call the section above Bull Island shared space. Line marking don't mean much and are easily dismissed by many people.

Lots of the route, including the section south of Bull Island, is rather poor (narrow share space in spots, dips at exits along northern section, blind spots, some poor junctions, poorer connections back onto the road, cars in car park out over the cycle path etc) -- it's just attractive because the sea front limits the amount of junctions and because mostly we have little else to compare it to.

RacoonQueen

How are people supposed to know what speed they're doing? Nah mate, my garmin edge doesn't measure speed.

monument

RacoonQueen wrote: »

How are people supposed to know what speed they're doing? Nah mate, my garmin edge doesn't measure speed.

The won't expect people to know.

What's likely to be suggested is something like rubble strips, or worst still tiles, or speed bumps etc.

Zyzz

Aw..there goes my chance of getting the KOMs along that stretch

Seweryn

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Today's Indo reporting that there are proposals to introduce a cycle speed limit on the Clontarf track. :eek:

Not sure how it could be enforced though.

There are no speed limits for bicycles, as they are not equipped with speedometers. How am I going to know if I break the limit? Surely, this would be against the law.

P_1

I'd presume that they'd put up those annoying kissing gates similar to the ones on the Grand Canal cycle lane

Spook_ie

Seweryn wrote: »

There are no speed limits for bicycles, as they are not equipped with speedometers. How am I going to know if I break the limit? Surely, this would be against the law.

What law are they breaking by imposing a safety standard?

Wishbone Ash

Spook_ie wrote: »

What law are they breaking by imposing a safety standard?

As current prosecutions for exceeding a speed limit can only be applied to drivers of vehicles constructed with a speedometer, I presume he means that cyclists could not be legally prosecuted.

monument

Does everybody know the wooden bridge at Bull Island?

Maybe the city council could hire a troll to hide under it and have him or her jump out any wrong doing cyclists?

Stollaire

Please, oh please let this come into law. I love a good laugh.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

What law are they breaking by imposing a safety standard?

OK, I'll bite - what safety standard?

Like a car - a slow moving negligently ridden bike will cause more injury than a fast moving competently handled one.

......and who is going to enforce this?



I think all that would happen is a proportion of the cyclists who use the track would shift to the road.

Diarmuid

Jawgap wrote: »

I think all that would happen is a proportion of the cyclists who use the track would shift to the road.

That's not necessarily a bad thing

Raam

I just don't see the need for a limit on the track.

I can ride on the road where sometimes there is just a white line (like the one on the track) separating me from cars which can pass me at high speeds. Some times there isn't even a line :O The potential for carnage on the road is much greater, yet the council won't impose a reduced speed limit of 30kph on it to keep me safer.

BTW, I am fine with that.

I've no problem riding on the road anyway.

Cookie_Monster

Diarmuid wrote: »

That's not necessarily a bad thing

it is given the terrible state of the road surface along there. One of the few places where the cycle lane is preferable to cycle on despite the breaks in it.

Lusk_Doyle

Diarmuid wrote: »

That's not necessarily a bad thing

Here's a purpose built cycle track for all you cyclists. Due to the fact that pedestrians, joggers, dogs, etc can't read signs we now have to take it away from you. Sorry, but you know it is easier for us to punish rather than educate.

Jawgap

Diarmuid wrote: »

That's not necessarily a bad thing

generally, I'd agree with you, but this is one of the few stretches of decent track around.

I don't mind if they introduce speed limits because - let's be honest - there's cock all chance they'll be enforced, but I hope they don't push on from their inevitable failure to put physical obstructions on the path to deter 'speeding.'

Wishbone Ash

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Here's a purpose built cycle track for all you cyclists. Due to the fact that pedestrians, joggers, dogs, etc can't read signs we now have to take it away from you. Sorry, but you know it is easier for us to punish rather than educate.

It's a pity they can't place a fine on stupid people - it could be a nice little earner for DCC.

Pigeon Reaper

Any argument they use to impose a low speed limit can be equally applied to the road beside the cycle path which is currently 60kmph in parts and has had multiple fatalities. I'd love to see the council try to justify not putting a reduced speed limit on the road when brought to court and sued after a crash if they apply speed reductions to a cycle path where the vehicles are slower and have much less momentum.

Dermot Illogical

Problem: Pedestrians, dog-walkers, skateboarders, picnickers and people wheeling bicycles are straying onto the cycle track despite having two footpaths and a large green area set aside for their purposes.
Solution: Impose restrictions on the rightful users of the cycle track so that the situation may continue.

Wonderful logic indeed. That local fookwit Finian McGrump is behind it I'll wager!

DirkVoodoo

I've never seen someone have to "dart across the path" to get from one side to the other. Any time I've cycled there I've tried to be very aware and courteous of other people, speed has never been an issue (even with a mighty tailwind).

Seriously, if we are taking tips from Sydney on how to manage cyclists, we are truly f**ked! That place is the most anti-bike city I've ever been in. I've never felt as unsafe here as I did there. Near misses were a daily occurrence.

Let's ban flexi-leads for dogs instead. In fact, I ditched that lead because they are just stupid: attaching a extendable trip wire to the collar of my unpredictable dog? Sure, why not.

Lusk_Doyle

+1. Dogs should stay beside the owner. Off the cycle track.

circular flexing

I was recently in Vancouver where they have a long shared path that runs a long the seafront. I used it extensively when I was over there and it was great to use as both a cyclist and a pedestrian.

I think the reason it works is that there's frequent signage reminding cyclists and pedestrians which side is which and also signage reminding cyclists to look out for stray pedestrians and vice versa.

Having said that, you wouldn't be doing race training on it either. Most serious cyclists I saw there stuck to the road.

Maybe, if DCC put up more prominent signage that might alleviate whatever issues are there at the moment.

Jawgap

circular flexing wrote: »

I was recently in Vancouver where they have a long shared path that runs a long the seafront. I used it extensively when I was over there and it was great to use as both a cyclist and a pedestrian.

I think the reason it works is that the place is full of Canadians, not Irish, who can read and understand signsthere's frequent signage reminding cyclists and pedestrians which side is which and also signage reminding cyclists to look out for stray pedestrians and vice versa.

Having said that, you wouldn't be doing race training on it either. Most serious cyclists I saw there stuck to the road.

Maybe, if DCC put up more prominent signage that might alleviate whatever issues are there at the moment.

FYP

Beasty

Jawgap wrote: »

......and who is going to enforce this?

Simples - they will have someone scrutinising your Strava records. Anyone found breaking the limit will be duly prosecuted ...:)

Presumably "traffic laws" do not apply to the track at present? If they did I would guess they would not need to impose a speed limit but could rely on "dangerous/reckless driving" laws to deal with anyone considered to be going faster than is considered safe in whatever circumstances prevail at the time