Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think it's a very general 'if motoring specific laws are not applied to cyclists too, then i am being oppressed' reaction.

So are you advocating that items 1-5 shouldn't be applicable to cyclists in any form what so ever?

1) speeding
2) drink driving
3) drug driving
4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space
5) texting or on the phone

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

So are you advocating

no, i'm not. my point is that not all laws which apply to motorists should necessarily also apply to cyclists, and only spoke specifically about the speeding one.

btw, i'll ask again, which segment in strava are you looking at with reference to the o'connell street and cyclist speed claim?

kenmm

Why is 30kmph for cyclists an issue? We often have different limits for diffierent modes of transport anyway? Got a trailer on a motorway? Vans are different to cars, lorries are different in other places - so why is it the 30km/h is winding people up?

Also - I could well believe there are a number of cyclists easily doing 40 - while over 30 isn't particularly easy, but equally it's not like some pro tour feat of fitness either.

magicbastarder

kenmm wrote: »

Also - I could well believe there are a number of cyclists easily doing 40 - while over 30 isn't particularly easy, but equally it's not like some pro tour feat of fitness either.

on the only segment strava seems to list for o'connell street, out of a total of 2,890 people who have attempted it, 12 have averaged a (perfectly legal) 40km/h+
or, less than half of one percent; and that is the PR for each cyclist listed, the fastest they have ever gone on it. this information is being used to try to sustain a claim that 'numerous' cyclists go faster than 40.
also worth mentioning that in general, i'd expect a cyclist using strava to be faster than an 'average' cyclist as strava use is skewed towards sports and leisure cyclists.

https://www.strava.com/segments/5967744

kenmm

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the only segment strava seems to list for o'connell street, out of a total of 2,890 people who have attempted it, 12 have averaged a (perfectly legal) 40km/h+
or, less than half of one percent; and that is the PR for each cyclist listed, the fastest they have ever gone on it. this information is being used to try to sustain a claim that 'numerous' cyclists go faster than 40.
also worth mentioning that in general, i'd expect a cyclist using strava to be faster than an 'average' cyclist as strava use is skewed towards sports and leisure cyclists.

https://www.strava.com/segments/5967744

Sure, but o'connel st is a bad example - look at custom house or any of the other more free flowing routes - but even then - whats the point? What does that mean -some people who ride bikes can go quite fast?

I am lost as to what the problem is?

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, i'm not. my point is that not all laws which apply to motorists should necessarily also apply to cyclists, and only spoke specifically about the speeding one.

btw, i'll ask again, which segment in strava are you looking at with reference to the o'connell street and cyclist speed claim?

Just says O'Connell St

https://www.strava.com/segments/5967744

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

I would have thought you'd know by now I never run away from arguments, and as to the argument on the 30kph thread it was nothing to do with the speed limits, it was to do with the usual cyclists missing out vital pieces of information, such as being in collisions with a 10-20kg cycle rather than a 60-100kg cycle and rider.

Which would you prefer to be hit by the magical 10-20kg cycle or the (reality of ) 60-100 kg cycle and rider

I'd rather be hit by a 50g frisbee is thats ok? Irrelevant of course, but no more so than comparing a bike with or without rider is to the discussion of whether people on bikes should be subject to 30kph limit.

How that sub-topic came up on the other thread is also irrelevant. The point is on that thread it was demonstated to you with hard data used from the calculator you brought into it, that the impact of a cyclist travelling at 30kph is just over 5% that of a vehicle doing the same.

Your turn now, tell me how limiting 30kph has anything to do with safety if you're allowing cars drive around at speeds yielding nearly 20 times the equavilent impact ?

Maybe you could also tell me why, when it was so definitively demonstrated to you on the other thread, the scale of difference between bike @ 30kph and car @ 30kph, why would you ignore all that and bring it back to square one on this thread to have the same argument all over again ad nauseum.

Only motivation I'm seeing is for your argument of 30kph limit on cyclists is "take dem cyclists down a peg or two." Am I wrong ?

kenmm

This is absolute groundhog day - I don't even know what people are arguing for or against at this stage. The ability to form any sort of cohesive argument seems to be lost.

Same old nonsense full of generalisations, now spread across multiple threads.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think it's a very general 'if motoring specific laws are not applied to cyclists too, then i am being oppressed' reaction.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So are you advocating that items 1-5 shouldn't be applicable to cyclists in any form what so ever?

1) speeding
2) drink driving
3) drug driving
4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space
5) texting or on the phone

Wut ?

Reminds me of this.

magicbastarder

kenmm wrote: »

Sure, but o'connel st is a bad example - look at custom house or any of the other more free flowing routes - but even then - whats the point? What does that mean -some people who ride bikes can go quite fast?

I am lost as to what the problem is?

exactly. it's farcical.
he's referring to a segment on which it's clear that over 90% of cyclists - at the fastest they've ever recorded - have not even managed to *achieve* the speed limit (which applies to cars!), and is using it to claim that cyclists cycling too fast is an issue to be tackled.
fewer than 0.5% of cyclists have exceeded 40 on that stretch. could we say the same for motorists?

he's undermining his own argument.

Thargor

I think he just doubled down on the Strava stupidity in order to distract from his badly mangled kinetic energy calculations comparing a cyclist hitting someone to a car doing the same, it seems to have worked, well it works if you have no sense of shame or embarrassment when it comes to posting petty nonsense, which he doesn't.

magicbastarder

i did get a chuckle from his claim that 'studies of strava have shown...' when he clearly just looked at a single segment, misread the results, and saw exactly what he wanted to see.

Duckjob

kenmm wrote: »

Why is 30kmph for cyclists an issue? We often have different limits for diffierent modes of transport anyway? Got a trailer on a motorway? Vans are different to cars, lorries are different in other places - so why is it the 30km/h is winding people up?

Also - I could well believe there are a number of cyclists easily doing 40 - while over 30 isn't particularly easy, but equally it's not like some pro tour feat of fitness either.

True enough, and that's why I also picked 50kph in my post, which, safe to say is a cyclist speed that's pretty much unheard of in Dublin City. Even at that speed, its 10% impact of a car at 30kph.

In other words, its a complete red herring, being dragged out by those with no other explainable motivation than a weird "dog in the manger" one. (if i'm limited and get stuck in traffic, they shouldnt be able to move about so freely). Utter BS.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

getting back to this point - you must have nothing but contempt for the abilities of motorists in general, if you think this is a serious issue?
this has been happening since the traffic jam first occurred, and is absolutely unavoidable unless you pass a law which states that cyclists cannot pass motorised traffic, no matter what speed that motorised traffic is moving at. if motorists cannot adapt to this, they clearly cannot be allowed to drive.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

exactly. it's farcical.
he's referring to a segment on which it's clear that over 90% of cyclists - at the fastest they've ever recorded - have not even managed to *achieve* the speed limit (which applies to cars!), and is using it to claim that cyclists cycling too fast is an issue to be tackled.
fewer than 0.5% of cyclists have exceeded 40 on that stretch. could we say the same for motorists?

he's undermining his own argument.

Thargor wrote: »

I think he just doubled down on the Strava stupidity in order to distract from his badly mangled kinetic energy calculations comparing a cyclist hitting someone to a car doing the same, it seems to have worked, well it works if you have no sense of shame or embarrassment when it comes to posting petty nonsense, which he doesn't.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i did get a chuckle from his claim that 'studies of strava have shown...' when he clearly just looked at a single segment, misread the results, and saw exactly what he wanted to see.

So if it's only a minority of cyclists capable of exceeding the posted 30kph motorised vehicle speed limit then there would be no harm in introducing a 30 kph blanket limit, would there. So that when a Garda picks up one of these 30kph+ cyclists they can charge them with something other than "Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration."

As to comparing car to bicycle in a collision, I didn't, I compared a 10kg -20kg bicycle to a 60-100 kg bicycle and rider.
The only reference to cars was that the actual cyclist makes up much more of the mass of the bicycle/cyclist than the equivalent driver in a car.

It would seem that as usual you read something and yet fail to comprehend it.

Duckjob

Duckjob wrote: »

Your turn now, tell me how limiting 30kph has anything to do with safety if you're allowing cars drive around at speeds yielding nearly 20 times the equavilent impact ?

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to comparing car to bicycle in a collision, I didn't, I compared a 10kg -20kg bicycle to a 60-100 kg bicycle and rider.
The only reference to cars was that the actual cyclist makes up much more of the mass of the bicycle/cyclist than the equivalent driver in a car.

Yep. You initiated the topic of speed limits for bikes in this thread, but sure carry on dodging the question....

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

True enough, and that's why I also picked 50kph in my post, which, safe to say is a cyclist speed that's pretty much unheard of in Dublin City. Even at that speed, its 10% impact of a car at 30kph.

In other words, its a complete red herring, being dragged out by those with no other explainable motivation than a weird "dog in the manger" one. (if i'm limited and get stuck in traffic, they shouldnt be able to move about so freely). Utter BS.

Yet again you fail to actually comprehend what was said on the 30kph thread, I do wonder sometimes if to be a cyclist requires some kind of mental blockage regarding comprehension.

Nobody (except typical cyclist rants ) has said anything of the kind. If cyclists were limited to 30kph they would still be able to legally (maybe not sensibly) filter at up to that speed.

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yet again you fail to actually comprehend what was said on the 30kph thread,
I do wonder sometimes if to be a cyclist requires some kind of mental blockage regarding comprehension.
I do wonder sometimes if to be a cyclist requires some kind of mental blockage regarding comprehension.

Nobody (except typical cyclist rants ) has said anything of the kind. If cyclists were limited to 30kph they would still be able to legally (maybe not sensibly) filter at up to that speed.

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout
Deflection



Time to get out the colors again to avoid wasting too much more of my time. This is fun!

Edit: Was going to leave it at the colors, but this is just too good to miss.

If cyclists were limited to 30kph they would still be able to legally (maybe not sensibly) filter at up to that speed.

So, even if you want to avoid answering my question,

By your own admission, applying a blanket 30kph limit would do nothing to address the issue of people riding at speeds inappropriate for the conditions.

The good thing about debating things with you is that you're so adamant never ever ever to back down on a bad point that you carry on until you end up undermining your own argument anyway:D

Spook_ie

Actually I introduced the idea that the 5 crimes listed for motorists should be extended to cyclists, funny how so many of you pick up on number 1 in the list, even though so many of you deny being able to cycle at that speed anyway.

So if so many of you can't cycle that fast why do you object to a maximum speed for cyclists?

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout
Deflection



Time to get out the colors again to avoid wasting too much more of my time. This is fun!

Edit: Was going to leave it at the colors, but this is just too good to miss.



So, even if you want to avoid answering my question,

By your own admission, applying a blanket 30kph limit would do nothing to address the issue of people riding at speeds inappropriate for the conditions.

The good thing about debating things with you is that you're so adamant never ever ever to back down on a bad point that you carry on until you end up undermining your own argument anyway:D

An inappropriate speed could be anything between 1 and 30kph depending on conditions, deflect much do you In real life?

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

An inappropriate speed could be anything between 1 and 30kph depending on conditions, deflect much do you In real life?

Agree, but you're the one who brought people filtering at over the (car) speed limit on either side of cars as a reason for a 30kph limit. It's your argument, not mine.

You've now once again completely undermined your previous argument by admitting straight out that applying a 30kph limit would do nothing to solve that issue of people filtering too fast for the conditions.

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

Agree, but you're the one who brought people filtering at over the (car) speed limit on either side of cars as a reason for a 30kph limit. It's your argument, not mine.

You've now once again completely undermined your previous argument by admitting straight out that applying a 30kph limit would do nothing to solve that issue of people filtering too fast for the conditions.

Not quite, I said it's dangerous and distracting to be overtaken when driving (for example at 25kph in a 30kph limit) a speed limit doesn't solve the filtering problem as you quite reasonably point out, however, I would contend that someone filtering dangerously through traffic at a permitted speed limit would then give the Garda the option of their original
"Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration" FCPN.

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually I introduced the idea that the 5 crimes listed for motorists should be extended to cyclists, funny how so many of you pick up on number 1 in the list, even though so many of you deny being able to cycle at that speed anyway.

So if so many of you can't cycle that fast why do you object to a maximum speed for cyclists?

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout
Deflection


More strawman nonsense. Unless, now of course, you're going to shows posts from the many of "us" that said we couldn't cycle that fast, as opposed to the many posts arguing the bigger picture that a statistically very small percentage of people cycling in Dublin City would achieve over 30kph, and a tiny percentage of people would achieve over 40kph.

BTW, it's not for anyone to justify why they would object to a 30kph bike limit - it's your argument, so own it. The onus is on you to put your case as to why what problem it would solve, bearing in mind you've not said anything about restricting the speed of 1.5t vehicles would be travelling around at the same speed, yielding 20x the impact in the event of a collision.

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout
Deflection


More strawman nonsense. Unless, now of course, you're going to shows posts from the many of "us" that said we couldn't cycle that fast, as opposed to the many posts arguing the bigger picture that a statistically very small percentage of people cycling in Dublin City would achieve over 30kph, and a tiny percentage of people would achieve over 40kph.

BTW, it's not for anyone to justify why they would object to a 30kph bike limit - it's your argument, so own it. The onus is on you to put your case as to why what problem it would solve, bearing in mind you've not said anything about restricting the speed of 1.5t vehicles would be travelling around at the same speed, yielding 20x the impact in the event of a collision.

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

kenmm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

I cycle between 25 and 35 when not slowing down for and accelerating after lights/ traffic etc.
I probably drive between 40 and 60 if I'm honest. If not then of course it's at the limit officer.


A blanket speed limit: the argument against is easy: there is no way for a non MVP to regulate, unless you also what to fit speedometers to every bicycle, runner, horse, whatever else is out there using our roads.

(And that would be after a study to show there would be any value in it, where value is some predefined meaning that we can measure)


Here's a thought, why is the limit on the motorway 120 for cars? Goods vehicles are 100, based on your logic we should have a blanket 100?

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

So if it's only a minority of cyclists capable of exceeding the posted 30kph motorised vehicle speed limit then there would be no harm in introducing a 30 kph blanket limit, would there.

It's a cool idea. Introduce an unenforceable law to achieve zero benefit so motorists can feel better about themselves.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.

My (known) record on the flat was just a shade over 60km/h, but that was with a 40km/h tailwind. Obviously I've gone faster on long downhills.

micar

micar wrote: »

Go off and ask the RSA why they aren't tackling any of these in relation to cycling.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd far more like to get the cyclists responses so I can include them in any correspondence with the RSA and Transport Minister

Why should cyclists put in this effort?

Do it yourself!!

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Or maybe driving within the posted speed limit!

Very unlikely.

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

They were put in "No particular order" ....I'll caveat it the next time......JHC