30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120708600#Comment_120708600

I don't think I've ever seen someone dressed in cycling gear whilst using one of those high speed electric bike (any of which are illegal). The first time one is spotted, they're doing that speed on the footpath?

Yeah, I stand by my assertion: you're talking bollocks (but you're more than welcome to post a video of it and I'll wholeheartedly withdraw it)!

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120708603#Comment_120708603

You’re telling stories about 60 kmph MAMIL cyclists on the footpath, but you ask if I’m having a laugh? Right back atcha Bro.

Presumably you never break a speed limit yourself?

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709097#Comment_120709097

i've done 60 on a bike before (once or twice on the flat with a very strong tailwind). no way in hell i'd go near a footpath at those speeds.

i know i keep labouring the point, but you're typically faster on a bike in dublin anyway - google maps will as often as not estimate travel time as faster by bicycle, and from what i can see, its estimate of the top speed of a bike is 20km/h, which is slower than a legit e-bike anyway.

e.g. getting from ikea to phibsboro, it's estimating 16 minutes by car and 18 minutes by bike at the moment - and that's on roads which are all 50km/h and staying that way.

magicbastarder

it's a pity DCC don't actually produce a video (a la the one the AA did with commuting times) measuring this.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709097#Comment_120709097

Where are they illegal? They can be imported as far as I know without any great difficulty.

magicbastarder

they are not illegal to buy, per se; but an e-bike which provides assistance above 25km/h, if used on a public road, requires tax, insurance, and a helmet, as it's legally classed as a moped.

it's not being policed, though.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709323#Comment_120709323

I explicitly said not on a footpath in that case.

So that's at least two posts you've hit reply to before engaging brain.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709097#Comment_120709097

Someone else who didn't read posts properly. The teenagers on the footpaths aren't doing 60km/h or anything like it but don't need to in order to terrorise pensioners etc. The guy on the dual carriageway (in the road) doing 60km/h was 40s-50s.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709588#Comment_120709588

Where’s the explicit “not on the footpath”?

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709588#Comment_120709588

no, you didn't. the words 'not on a footpath' did not appear in that post. that is what 'explicitly saying it' would entail.

monument

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120708859#Comment_120708859

For clarity: I might have added to the confusion by deleting it.

-- moderator

monument

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120708603#Comment_120708603

Back on topic or expect an infraction to follow.

-- moderator

AndrewJRenko

Bloody cyclists, riding on the footpaths again;

https://streamable.com/5hsusw

Seth Brundle

How has this thread turned to discussing cyclinsts on a footpath anyhow?

Weren't we discussing 30km/h speed limits?

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120711546#Comment_120711546

The public like fairness and consistency in such matters. The general thrust of the thread is that motorised vehicles should be obliged on grounds of safety to travel at 30kph maximum in all urban areas according to OP. It's perfectly reasonable in this context, to point out the reckless disregard for the public shown by some people on bikes and e-scooters etc. And how to control this equally dangerous behaviour.

magicbastarder

sure, let the gardai police that. no one has any issues with that happening.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712014#Comment_120712014

Equally dangerous? Have you looked at our road death statistics at all?

patrickbrophy18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120711546#Comment_120711546

It is important to discuss the double standards seen between the main road user groups as the proposed 30km/h speed limits I feel are accommodating those in cyclist and pedestrian groups who hold a double standard for their behaviour.

Respect is not likely going to be afforded to those who hold double standards due to the inherent dishonesty that goes along with it. For example, while it isn't illegal to cycle abreast, surely those that part take in this know that doing so is inconvenient to the motorists stuck behind them. Furthermore, being an inconvenience is inconsiderate which not a respectable human trait.

The pedestrain equivalent of this is walking on the road when there is a perfectly good footpath next to them. There are obvious exceptions to this such as when cars are illegally blocking the footpath or where the width of the kerb is occupied by on coming pedestrians or where the kerb is in a bad state. Then there are those who barge on to the road when the pedestrian light is still red when traffic is already moving. I realize that if it is safe and convenient to do so, that is a different story.

It is my belief that many of the posters here or members of the general public who are pushing for the implementation of 30km/h speed limits are the same ones who hold double standards for cyclists and pedestrians and are happy to navigate the roads anyway they see fit regardless of the inconvenience it causes motorists. This should certainly not be glorified or encouraged.

I acknowledge that when motorists make mistakes, it is often fatal for more vulnerable road users. I wont down play the seriousness of this as cars, trucks and buses are weapons in the wrong hands. Then, there is the criminal variety who careen into droves of cyclists or pedestrians on footpaths who have no business being behind the wheel.

I amn't against 30km/h speed limits on side roads or cul de sacs as they are off the beaten track which bigger vehicles like buses and trucks would seldom use. I do think they are inappropriate for main roads or important arterial routes.

Flinty997

If people are unable follow the rules then just close them.

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-parliament-street-traffic-free-6093412-Jun2023/

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120716455#Comment_120716455

You really should get your facts straight before commenting. Cycling abreast is absolutely NOT illegal, yet here you are, making judgments about an entire group, based on your own lack of knowledge.

There is no collective responsibility on any group of users. We all deserve to be safe on the road, regardless of the behaviour of others who happen to use the same mode of transport.

It’s absolutely appropriate and sensible that double standards apply to motorists and cyclists. Why would you expect the same standards to apply to a 10-20kg bike doing 10-30 kmph and a 1-5 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph?

magicbastarder

are the same ones who hold double standards for cyclists and pedestrians

if you were to phrase this more clearly, in the 'do you hold motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to different standards?' sense, the answer would be 'why yes; yes i do with cream on top'.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120716455#Comment_120716455

Cycling two abreast is immaterial to a driver who intends to overtake legally, which if they are so keen on avoiding double-standards is presumably all of them.

Though it is a good example of the victim mentality and incorrect perception of unfairness that is so prevalent in drivers. 30kph speed limits are not a "punishment" and frankly will make little difference. They also won't actually be on every road, it will merely be the default limit.

magicbastarder

to explain the issue re overtaking - if you are driving and the lane is 3m wide, you should expect the cyclist to be cycling ~0.5m from the side of the road. the cyclist is also ~0.5m wide. and even if this is in an area where the speed limit is 50km/h or below, you are expected to leave a gap of 1m between you and the cyclist when overtaking. that leaves 1m of road for your car.

so it's clear in this sense, that if you wish to overtake this cyclist, you must enter the oncoming lane and clearly would not do so until it is clear, and visibly clear far enough ahead for you to be able to complete the overtake safely.

add a second cyclist. you still have to enter the oncoming lane (and clearly would not do so until it is clear, and visibly clear far enough ahead for you to be able to complete the overtake safely). the addition of a second cyclist does not change the fact that you need to perform an overtake safely.

the fact that many motorists seem to think its okay to squeeze past when conditions would not permit a safe overtake is one reason why we need stricter enforcement of traffic law.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712014#Comment_120712014

This is almost the definition of whataboutery

patrickbrophy18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120716640#Comment_120716640

So, because one group of road users is more vulnerable, they get to act what ever way they want regardless of whether or not they are being an inconvenience. This reeks of freeloading and a sense of entitlement. It is also a very infantile attitude.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120716808#Comment_120716808

Same as my previous point. Once again, double standards will likely lead to resentment between the different road user groups due to the disparity in orderly conduct this creates across the spectrum. If you really want a frictionless utopia between the different types of road users, a good start would be holding them all to the same standards for consistency purposes.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120716843#Comment_120716843

Incorrect perception of unfairness?

Who gets to decide whether it is correct or not?

Regardless of the situation, if people insist on being a nuisance or an inconvenience to others, they will be viewed infavorably. This reaction isn't a victim mentality but rather one of annoyance due to the inherent disfunctional or disorderly nature of those being burdonsome. So, understandably, respect wont be given to them so easily.

If I'm to point out an example of motorists in this category, I would single out those who are holding fellow motorists up because they are slowing down to accommodate the fact that they are embroiled in a conversation with the passenger next to them. This goes double for those who do this while in the fast lane. This is probably the closest equivalent to cycling abreast in the motorist world. I realise that this is leisurely. However, if you insist on being so, keep it away from moving traffic especially, on main arterial routes.

All road users on the tarmac should be focused on the road ahead of them and the rules should equally apply to motorists and cyclists. So, not one set of rules for one and another set of rules for another.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120720724#Comment_120720724

Does the double standard and different regulations around paracetamol and morphine lead to resentment by morphine? Should paracetamol be prescription only just to make morphine users feel better?

The theory that double standards lead to resentment is hugely infantile. Get over yourself.

Flinty997

It's not fair... seriously...

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120720724#Comment_120720724

Same as my previous point. Once again, double standards will likely lead to resentment between the different road user groups due to the disparity in orderly conduct this creates across the spectrum. If you really want a frictionless utopia between the different types of road users, a good start would be holding them all to the same standards for consistency purposes.

you talk about 'double standards' as if they're hypothetical. they're not - a pedestrian is not subject to the same punishment as a motorist, for obvious reasons.

i'm fairly certain most motorists - sadly not all - don't look at pedestrians and assume an equivalency with them in terms of responsibility while using the road. a pedestrian walking on a country road is carrying 0.05% - one two thousandth - of the kinetic energy someone in a car would be (person weighing 80kg walking at 6km/h, car 1,500kg at 60km/h)

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120720724#Comment_120720724

Incorrect perception of unfairness?

Who gets to decide whether it is correct or not?

The law.

It has been explained to you why cycling abreast is irrelevant to a law-abiding motorist. Yet you continue to insist it is causing inconvenience (or at least inconvenience over and above a single cyclist).

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120720724#Comment_120720724

@patrickbrophy18 Regardless of the situation, if people insist on being a nuisance or an inconvenience to others, they will be viewed infavorably. This reaction isn't a victim mentality but rather one of annoyance due to the inherent disfunctional or disorderly nature of those being burdonsome. So, understandably, respect wont be given to them so easily.

@magicbastarder explained politely and clearly above why cycling 2 abreast is only a nuisance or inconvenience to those drivers who are determined to breach the Road Traffic Act (Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 to 2019, Article 10, Paragraph 1) and who are determined to ignore this sign.

If you are doing a legal overtake of a cyclist on a standard road in an average sized car, you are going to have at least two wheels over the centre line, so you need to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and perform a safe overtaking manoeuvre. If you are passing two bikes side by side you're still waiting for the exact same gap in oncoming traffic to perform your overtaking manoeuvre so it shouldn't inconvenience you in the slightest that they are choosing to cycle side by side rather than one behind the other. Indeed, if it is a group of cyclists and they choose to travel two abreast, they are actually facilitating passing drivers rather than inconveniencing them as they are halving the distance the driver needs to be in the oncoming lane to complete the overtaking manoeuvre.

Even after @magicbastarder's explanation you continue to refer to people being "a nuisance or an inconvenience to others". Does this mean that you just didn't see @magicbastarder's post? Or that you did see it but you disagree with it on some basis? If that is the case then I don't think I'm the only one who would be very interested in understanding which part you disagree with. Or are you in the cohort of drivers who think it's OK to illegally squeeze past people on bikes while both of you are still fully in the same 3m lane?

You highlight "nuisance and inconvenience" from the perception of someone driving as your chief concern but if you stop to think about it from the perception of the person on the bike it's not "nuisance and inconvenience" that they are experiencing when someone close passes them at anything other than a crawling speed. When a driver does that to me when I'm on my bike it's visceral fear, and sense that my life has been needlessly endangered by some inconsiderate asshole, that I'm experiencing. I drove to work three days this week and cycled on two days. I did experience "nuisance and inconvenience" while driving behind someone on a bike but that was caused not by the person cycling, but rather by the driver behind me expressing their frustration that I was waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake the cyclist, by driving right up my arse and revving their engine.

As I type this in Galway I'm very conscious of the cyclist who suffered life changing injuries here yesterday evening when rear-ended by a driver and another elderly cyclist just north of us in Mayo who is in hospital with serious injuries after being hit by a driver the day before. And most upsettingly, the case of a 9 year old who was hit by a driver just around the corner from here yesterday, and where one of my friends was among the first on the scene. He had to deal with another driver demanding that the injured child (with an open head wound) be moved off the road rather than waiting for the ambulance to arrive, so he (the driver) could go about his business unhindered. Apparently he wasn't a fan of "nuisance and inconvenience" caused by vulnerable road users either.