Last day: 30km speed limit within canals

Chuchote

Today is the last day to send in a submission – to speedreview@dublincity.ie – on a proposal to extend the 30km/h speed limit to cover the part of Dublin enclosed by the canals.

If you're sending in a submission, you might look at some of the points from the Dublin City Cycling Officer's page here:

http://www.cycledublin.ie/blog/

ThisRegard

I posted in the off topic thread, but Ciaran Cuffe said this morning that the limit will apply to all road users, i.e. cyclists too.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

I posted in the off topic thread, but Ciaran Cuffe said this morning that the limit will apply to all road users, i.e. cyclists too.

Proper order. 31km/h is too fast to cycle on city streets where you can have a child racing suddenly across the road or someone idiotically getting off a bus and walking out in front, screened by it. You don't have the control to stop at that speed.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

Proper order. 31km/h is too fast to cycle on city streets where you can have a child racing suddenly across the road or someone idiotically getting off a bus and walking out in front, screened by it. You don't have the control to stop at that speed.

Speak for yourself!

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

Speak for yourself!

No, Lumen, at that speed I'll speak for physics.

Leroy42

Chuchote wrote: »

Proper order. 31km/h is too fast to cycle on city streets where you can have a child racing suddenly across the road or someone idiotically getting off a bus and walking out in front, screened by it. You don't have the control to stop at that speed.

i heard the Green DCC councillor on the radio this morning talking about this and he made some good points.

Of course they read out the usual txts from people about cyclists etc but I thought one good point made was that part of the thinking behind the plan was that it made it safer for people crossing the road etc and someone suggested that people should cross the road at traffic lights rather than just anywhere/anytime.

His only answer was that DCC could not afford more traffic lights. While that may well be the case, I think everything cannot simply be blamed on motor vehicles. We all have had more than enough time to get used to the idea of traffic being on roads and at what stage are people going to be held accountable for their own lack of responsibility.

It was mentioned about a person getting off the bus. Surely the bus driver should be close enough to the kerb to not allow a cyclist the ability to steam through at 31kph! At even at that, a passenger should take responsibility to look to make sure it is safe to alight rather than just blindly walk off.

average_runner

Sorry but if a car can't make an emergency stop going above 30km, then a bike surely cant

seamus

average_runner wrote: »

Sorry but if a car can't make an emergency stop going above 30km, then a bike surely cant

A bike has more ability to evade - think of a wide paddle -v- a narrow paddle in a game of pong or arkanoid.

Anyway, I thought it had been established that speed limits don't apply to bicycles?

Leroy42

average_runner wrote: »

Sorry but if a car can't make an emergency stop going above 30km, then a bike surely cant

Yes, but the damage a car will do at 30kph compared to a car is not even close to comparable.

In addition, the ability of the cyclist, even with minimal time, to take emergency action and avoid a direct hit is far greater than the car due to the relative size. (Seamus got there 1st)

With a bicycle accident, the cyclist is probably even more at risk that the other party, given momentum and the starting height position, so cyclists are, IMO, more attuded to external risk factors.

ford2600

average_runner wrote: »

Sorry but if a car can't make an emergency stop going above 30km, then a bike surely cant

Depends.

An inexperienced cyclist/motorcyclist will probably lock back wheel and lose control a well experienced cyclist/motorcyclist will out brake most cars.

Experienced cyclist/motorcyclists (by necessity ) tend to have much better awarness/oberservation skills than your average driver.

Chuchote

Leroy42 wrote: »

With a bicycle accident, the cyclist is probably even more at risk that the other party, given momentum and the starting height position, so cyclists are, IMO, more attuded to external risk factors.

All the more reason for cyclists not to cycle at fast speeds in city centres, where they're likely to encounter unexpected obstacles.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

No, Lumen, at that speed I'll speak for physics.

I'd be interested in reading a physics explanation of how it is impossible to do an emergency stop from 30kph on a bicycle. If you have the time...

Bicycles are far safer than cars in urban environments, because:

- Cyclists have perfect forward visibility with no blind spots (obviously they can't see round parked vans) compared with the massively compromised pillbox view of car drivers.
- Riders tend to have a higher sight line than drivers.
- A bicycle is the same widh as a person. Two narrow things have a much better chance of avoiding a collision than a narrow thing and a wide thing.
- Cyclists have "skin in the game" in a pedestrian collision (see recent death of cyclist in Phoenix Park).
- A typical cyclist on a bike weighs less than 100kg compared to a car approx 1500kg.
- Most pedestrian injuries in car accidents occur not from the collision but from landing back on the road surface having been flung into the air (they're run under rather than run over). This doesn't happen with a bicycle collision because bicycles don't have bonnets.

...and so on. So much safer that they cannot be considered in the same category of risk.

If basic reasoning is unconvincing, please provide statistics of pedestrian deaths from cyclists going over 30kph which speed limits for bicycles would prevent.

Macy0161

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was mentioned about a person getting off the bus. Surely the bus driver should be close enough to the kerb to not allow a cyclist the ability to steam through at 31kph! At even at that, a passenger should take responsibility to look to make sure it is safe to alight rather than just blindly walk off.

Same as car driver letting a passenger out, it's the drivers responsibility. Really, assuming there's an indicator and at a bus stop (which Dublin Bus are pretty strict about these days from what I see), I'd be looking at the cyclist going up the inside in those circumstances.

I do agree about pedestrians - the whole crossing within spitting distance of an official crossing is ridiculous (or under pedestrian bridges which I see a lot on the N11).

I'd fancy my chances of emergency stopping with my disc brakes, but then if I don't, going by the pro's whining, I'd probably slice a pedestrian in two with the rotors...

Chuchote

goo.gl/OuiP14

or

https://books.google.ie/books?id=0JJo6DlF9iMC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=bicycle+stopping+distance&source=bl&ots=Tt_AzOfsj0&sig=MbpRc0HTubGxzPcyxAhdaYze9QI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl1Z7v0NnOAhVpLsAKHRg5Dm4Q6AEIRjAJ#v=onepage&q=bicycle%20stopping%20distance&f=false

Or there's a calculator here:

https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

which gives a little over 15 feet as the stopping distance at 20mph (roughly equivalent to 30km/h). So if that child races out and you're going at 30, it's goodnight, Irene.

Oh, and the passenger getting off the bus – I was talking about the people who get out, go in front of the bus and (screened by the bus) then step out to cross to the other side. A constant hazard in Dublin, and it's not really the driver's job to get out and stop these people.

Leroy42

It's not that I disagree with the idea, as I said the councillor made a few good points, but it seems that it is always only looking in one direction that we try to solve a problem.

No doubt slowing traffic down will make things safer, but I also think we should start a campaign to change the attitude to jaywalking we have in this country (and by extension breaking red light although that should be a separate campaign.)

We have, IMO, far too many pedestrians crossing in certain places (that is based on nothing more than being annoyed at having to continually stop at them btw) and yet, culturally we have total disregard to traffic laws as pedestrians.

At some point that needs to be addressed.

ThisRegard

Chuchote wrote: »

Proper order. 31km/h is too fast to cycle on city streets where you can have a child racing suddenly across the road or someone idiotically getting off a bus and walking out in front, screened by it. You don't have the control to stop at that speed.

But 30kph is the magical boundary? There's a massive difference between motor vehicles and bikes, basic physics. Simpler even than the enforcement of a limit on cyclists.

Carawaystick

ThisRegard wrote: »

I posted in the off topic thread, but Ciaran Cuffe said this morning that the limit will apply to all road users, i.e. cyclists too.

It wouldn't be the first time an elected councillor said something stupid and incorrect, and it won't be the last.

There are no speed limits for cyclists.
DCC can't bring in speed limits for cyclists.

Chips Lovell

The whole proposal is wrongheaded. Rather than address the actual problem - idiotic driving, cycling and pedestrianising - it's aimed at minimising the damage caused by idiocy.

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole proposal is wrongheaded. Rather than address the actual problem - idiotic driving, cycling and pedestrianising - it's aimed at minimising the damage caused by idiocy.

Dunno, though, Jeff, this kind of traffic calming is in use in lots of European cities and it hasn't yet caused a zombie meltdown.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not that I disagree with the idea, as I said the councillor made a few good points, but it seems that it is always only looking in one direction that we try to solve a problem.

No doubt slowing traffic down will make things safer, but I also think we should start a campaign to change the attitude to jaywalking we have in this country (and by extension breaking red light although that should be a separate campaign.)

We have, IMO, far too many pedestrians crossing in certain places (that is based on nothing more than being annoyed at having to continually stop at them btw) and yet, culturally we have total disregard to traffic laws as pedestrians.

At some point that needs to be addressed.

The main benefit is not on main roads and the likes, but in housing estates for example. It's uneconomic, and stupid, to have lights and pedestrian crossings all over a housing estate.

Chips Lovell

I dunno, should the criteria for good legislation be "not causing a zombie meltdown"?

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

Or there's a calculator here:

https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

which gives a little over 15 feet as the stopping distance at 20mph (roughly equivalent to 30km/h). So if that child races out and you're going at 30, it's goodnight, Irene.

I'm not really sure why you're using the example of a child except for emotional reasons. In my experience it's adult morons that step out in the city centre, not children. They don't "race out" either, they typically just step out briskly.

This has happened to me a number of times when I've been going around 25-35kph and I've never even come close to hitting one of them.

I usually just apply the brakes and then go round them (this is impossible in a car due to the width).

This is a non-issue. You're simply scaremongering.

magicbastarder

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole proposal is wrongheaded. Rather than address the actual problem - idiotic driving, cycling and pedestrianising - it's aimed at minimising the damage caused by idiocy.

surely that's part and parcel of how you reduce the damage from the idiocy? you cannot eliminate idiotic driving.

ted1

Chuchote wrote: »

No, Lumen, at that speed I'll speak for physics.

Care to expand, because I find stopping at30kmh and controlling the bike not to be an issue.

turbodiesel

We need to place blame on whoever breaks the rule of common sense. The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title. The pedestrian crossing. Blame has always been focused on the road user when in the majority of cases that a pedestrian has been injured outside of a pedestrian crossing on the road the pedestrian has taken a gamble not the road user.

average_runner

ford2600 wrote: »

Depends.

An inexperienced cyclist/motorcyclist will probably lock back wheel and lose control a well experienced cyclist/motorcyclist will out brake most cars.

Experienced cyclist/motorcyclists (by necessity ) tend to have much better awarness/oberservation skills than your average driver.

So we are using probability. Yes a cyclist could take evasive action, but that could mean causing more injuries to the cyclist itself.

A cyclist going at 10k and hitting a person can cause a person to hit the head off the ground and do serious harm, so don't tell me 30k can't.

I got concussion from a cyclist crashing into me. Cyclist was at fault but nice guy etc, accidents happens and he wasn't going hard.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

Care to expand, because I find stopping at30kmh and controlling the bike not to be an issue.

Would you like to share your route and we test you by suprise some wet morning?

average_runner

turbodiesel wrote: »

We need to place blame on whoever breaks the rule of common sense. The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title. The pedestrian crossing. Blame has always been focused on the road user when in the majority of cases that a pedestrian has been injured outside of a pedestrian crossing on the road the pedestrian has taken a gamble not the road user.

Very true, and no car or cyclist should be going thru a red light or taking turn without a hand signal.

PS not all roads have crossings, what do you do then?

Leroy42

ThisRegard wrote: »

The main benefit is not on main roads and the likes, but in housing estates for example. It's uneconomic, and stupid, to have lights and pedestrian crossings all over a housing estate.

Yes I know, that and its true but it still doesn't deal with personal responsibility.

The road in a housing estate is the same as a road anywhere else, it was built for the sole purpose of traffic to use it so it really shouldn't be a surprise when traffic does use it. Many people seem to be astonished when they step onto a road only to find a vehicle is approaching them.

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

This, I think, needs to change. Whilst of course it would have the biggest impact in the city centres, it would, hopefully, also lead to increased appreciation across society that roads, by nature of traffic, can be a dangerous place and should be treated as such

flatface

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole proposal is wrongheaded. Rather than address the actual problem - idiotic driving, cycling and pedestrianising - it's aimed at minimising the damage caused by idiocy.

I don't think its wrongheaded at all. It is trying to create a nicer city environment in which to work, live, and be - not just drive through. The more city centre that is pedestrianised and traffic calmed and reduced the better.
When cycling slower cars will slow me down too but it seems worth it to have a nicer town experience when strolling around.

ted1

average_runner wrote: »

Would you like to share your route and we test you by suprise some wet morning?

In Ireland limits don't change with the weather, but one does adjust to the conditions so on a wet morning cyclist do/should adjust their speed downwards

average_runner

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I know, that and its true but it still doesn't deal with personal responsibility.

The road in a housing estate is the same as a road anywhere else, it was built for the sole purpose of traffic to use it so it really shouldn't be a surprise when traffic does use it. Many people seem to be astonished when they step onto a road only to find a vehicle is approaching them.

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

This, I think, needs to change. Whilst of course it would have the biggest impact in the city centres, it would, hopefully, also lead to increased appreciation across society that roads, by nature of traffic, can be a dangerous place and should be treated as such

Yes i agree, but all vehicles including bikes should yield if pedestrians already crossing at a junction.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I know, that and its true but it still doesn't deal with personal responsibility.

The road in a housing estate is the same as a road anywhere else, it was built for the sole purpose of traffic to use it so it really shouldn't be a surprise when traffic does use it. Many people seem to be astonished when they step onto a road only to find a vehicle is approaching them.

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

This, I think, needs to change. Whilst of course it would have the biggest impact in the city centres, it would, hopefully, also lead to increased appreciation across society that roads, by nature of traffic, can be a dangerous place and should be treated as such

In a housing estate you're going to have kids, everywhere. Personal responsibility also applies to drivers and how they should expect kids, everywhere. Since the horse and cart came along kids were out playing with traffic.

But that sense of entitlement to the road by some motorists (the Motors forum can be disturbingly eye opening for this) leads them to think that they can drive around oblivious to anyone else that may be on it, because they shouldn't be there, am'i'right?

So the stick needs to be battered over the head of some of those people.

Most, if not all, of us here are pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. All on the same day even.

I lived in LA for a good while, a city with a massive car culture. And they didn't have the bad attitude to pedestrians that you get here.

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

In Ireland limits don't change with the weather, but one does adjust to the conditions so on a wet morning cyclist do/should adjust their speed downwards

"Should" is a massive word for the general public!

Chips Lovell

I'm all for living in nicer places. I just don't think this will make a blind bit of difference.

Chuchote

Just for curiosity, how's about the club cyclists here do some testing on the weekend, set up a track of say 500 metres on the flat, and see how long the stopping distance is at different speeds, and with different brakes, weight of rider, etc?

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

Just for curiosity, how's about the club cyclists here do some testing on the weekend, set up a track of say 500 metres on the flat, and see how long the stopping distance is at different speeds, and with different brakes, weight of rider, etc?

But make it an unexpected stop, ie throw a teddy bear in front of it

buffalo

Leroy42 wrote: »

We have allowed a culture whereby pedestrians tend to think they have first rights and everybody should make allowances for them.

What?! Pedestrians think they have first rights? Is that an extrapolation from 'people sometimes cross the road at random points' ?

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

Just for curiosity, how's about the club cyclists here do some testing on the weekend, set up a track of say 500 metres on the flat, and see how long the stopping distance is at different speeds, and with different brakes, weight of rider, etc?

I think you've ignored the fact that there's no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers. Most don't have one. Therefore there's no way they can tell if they're breaking the speed limit. They can still be done for dangerous driving/cycling if they cycle dangerously.

magicbastarder

turbodiesel wrote: »

We need to place blame on whoever breaks the rule of common sense. The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title. The pedestrian crossing. Blame has always been focused on the road user when in the majority of cases that a pedestrian has been injured outside of a pedestrian crossing on the road the pedestrian has taken a gamble not the road user.

i live on a road with a pedestrian crossing about 150m up the road from me, and one about 150m down the road. if i want to cross the road to get to the other side, i'm not going to walk nearly a third of a kilometre to do so.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

i live on a road with a pedestrian crossing about 150m up the road from me, and one about 150m down the road. if i want to cross the road to get to the other side, i'm not going to walk nearly a third of a kilometre to do so.

The problem isn't really those cases, is it? It's the cases where you've a crossing 10m down the road, and you don't use it imo.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not that I disagree with the idea, as I said the councillor made a few good points, but it seems that it is always only looking in one direction that we try to solve a problem.

No doubt slowing traffic down will make things safer, but I also think we should start a campaign to change the attitude to jaywalking we have in this country (and by extension breaking red light although that should be a separate campaign.)

We have, IMO, far too many pedestrians crossing in certain places (that is based on nothing more than being annoyed at having to continually stop at them btw) and yet, culturally we have total disregard to traffic laws as pedestrians.

At some point that needs to be addressed.

I really don't think it's just pedestrians. Jaywalking is a problem; Red light jumping is a problem (both motorised vehicles and bicycles); speed limits are ignored (all motorised vehicles); mandatory cycle lanes are ignored and actually used by motorbikes and scooters to filter, it's accepted practice for motorbikes and scooters to use bus lanes etc etc.

There's a general lack of enforcement, and no will political will to address it. Even the RSA don't appear to be pushing enforcement. Why don't we have loads of Junction cameras for Red Light Jumping? Why don't we have fixed speed cameras for motorised vehicles?

magicbastarder

Macy0161 wrote: »

The problem isn't really those cases, is it? It's the cases where you've a crossing 10m down the road, and you don't use it imo.

well, i took turbodiesel's comment - "The only part of the road a pedestrian should be using is given in its title" - at face value.

Trojan

I'm not convinced about speed limits.

I think one of the biggest measures we could take for cyclist safety is to make it mandatory for drive-time radio presenters to spend a month cycle commuting. These dangerous idiots are encouraging and allowing drivers to self-justify anti-cyclist behaviour.

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

i live on a road with a pedestrian crossing about 150m up the road from me, and one about 150m down the road. if i want to cross the road to get to the other side, i'm not going to walk nearly a third of a kilometre to do so.

What's across the road ? Once you cross the road how far do you go?

magicbastarder

maybe i just cross it because i want to get to the other side.

Leroy42

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe i just cross it because i want to get to the other side.

Or to meet up with the Chicken

Chuchote

PeadarCo wrote: »

I think you've ignored the fact that there's no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers. Most don't have one.

Increasing numbers do, though – Lidl sell them regularly for little money; they're so normal now that people leave them on their handlebars and they don't get stolen. And there are increasingly those screens on the streets every now and then that tell you what speed you're travelling.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I really don't think it's just pedestrians. Jaywalking is a problem; Red light jumping is a problem (both motorised vehicles and bicycles); speed limits are ignored (all motorised vehicles); mandatory cycle lanes are ignored and actually used by motorbikes and scooters to filter, it's accepted practice for motorbikes and scooters to use bus lanes etc etc.

There's a general lack of enforcement, and no will political will to address it. Even the RSA don't appear to be pushing enforcement. Why don't we have loads of Junction cameras for Red Light Jumping? Why don't we have fixed speed cameras for motorised vehicles?

Yup. Why don't we have those gadgets in cars that insurance companies offer to give cut-price cover to those who drive safely.

One of the problems is that jaywalking isn't woven into the culture; as I've said here before, drivers can go through against pedestrian lights in Paris, but they do so slowly and cautiously, and always stop for pedestrians who are crossing with the lights with the pedestrian.

One of the reasons that the 30km/h speed limit would be a good thing is that it would change driver attitudes (if, as you say, it's enforced), and drivers would no longer think they should race through the city; they would think of themselves as part of the traffic flow, not as the only part.

Trojan wrote: »

I'm not convinced about speed limits.

I think one of the biggest measures we could take for cyclist safety is to make it mandatory for drive-time radio presenters to spend a month cycle commuting. These dangerous idiots are encouraging and allowing drivers to self-justify anti-cyclist behaviour.

Not to mention forbidding journalists who write about cars from describing the car in terms of its speed from zero, its top speed, etc.

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

Increasing numbers do, though – Lidl sell them regularly for little money; they're so normal now that people leave them on their handlebars and they don't get stolen. And there are increasingly those screens on the streets every now and then that tell you what speed you're travelling.

There's no legal requirement. Theres also no good reason based on accident statistics either and that's before you start taking about the impact on casual cyclists by making it mandatory. Heck even I have a speedometer most of the time but there are days when its nice to be rid of technology and just cycle by feel. Signs can read other road users namely cars which may happen to be in close proximity to bikes particularly in urban areas.

As others have pointed out there's a vast different between a driver and cyclist having to stop suddenly at 30km/hr plus. A cyclist is going to be very reluctant to go at that speed unless its safe as a result. I notice you haven't come back with any accident statistics to indicate the dangers or tried to refute the points along those lines made by other posters.

Chuchote

PeadarCo wrote: »

I notice you haven't come back with any accident statistics to indicate the dangers or tried to refute the points along those lines made by other posters.

No, I haven't indeed. But perhaps it would be instructive to take a look at stopping speeds for yourself.

I have no objection to people going as fast as they like when they're out in the wild; in city streets it seems silly.

Used to work with a guy who'd had his skull fractured by a cyclist crashing into him as he stepped off the pavement.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

Used to work with a guy who'd had his skull fractured by a cyclist crashing into him as he stepped off the pavement.

If you want to legislate against that then ban cycle lanes.

PeadarCo

Chuchote wrote:

No, I haven't indeed. But perhaps it would be instructive to take a look at stopping speeds for yourself.

So essentially your proposing laws should be made on the basis of anecdotal evidence. There are enough threads on this forum to show how ridiculous that is between helmet, high vis, bike lanes threads etc.

I'm not arguing and no one else is arguing that there are consequences if you stop.suddenly at 10km/hr or 100km/hr but those consequences vary depending on what is doing the stopping. As others have put quite eloquently there's a monumental difference between a car and bike. That includes the momentum involved and the consequences for the driver/cyclist. if they don't stop in time.