30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

patrickbrophy18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120722047#Comment_120722047

@AndrewJRenko @Unrealistic @magicbastarder

Okay, first off, I am in no way shape or form condoning the injury or death of any pedestrians or cyclists. It is appalling to hear that the cyclists mentioned in that final paragraph had such misfortune. So, RIP to the deceased.

Now, from previous posts, my complaints of double standards, 30km/h speed limits, jaywalking and recently cycling 2 abreast seem to be met with extreme reactions. Conflating my reservations and gripes of our transport system (and the protocols which govern it) with the death of pedestrians and cyclists is quite the leap.

I also know perfectly well how to overtake cyclists safely and do it all the time. In fact, even when there is one cyclist, I am completely in the oncoming side. Moreover, when there are a particularly high volume of pedestrians on the path, I give that portion of kerb a wide berth especially when there are kids around. So, I am ultra careful.

@Podge_irl Yes, the law absolutely (in Andrews terms) permits cycling abreast. You can disagree with the law i.e. find it inconvenient. For example, look at minimum unit pricing for alcohol, a law which was originally mooted to keep the pub trade in business through price fixing which is a scam. However, breaking the law i.e. causing serious injury or fatally striking a pedestrian or cyclist is inexusable.

Furthermore, going down the rabbit whole of labelling disagreement as incorrect perceptions of unfairness because it is the law is heading into Kim Jong Un territory. In other words, it is thought policing.

@magicbastarder @Unrealistic To answer the question of how irrelevant cycling abreast is to law-abiding motorists. Take being stuck behind 2 or 3 cyclists travelling 20 to 30 km/h abreast in an 80 km/h zone for example. It will likely irk most motorists behind them especially when said cyclists are deliberately doing it to hold them up. Motorists have every right to find this legally sactioned tosser behaviour annoying. However, doing something about it i.e. restorting to violence towards them like criminal intimidation tactics or worse serious or fatal injuries is breaking the law. Those that do so belong in prison and have no business behind tge wheel. Nevertheless, you can still find the law an ass without breaking it.

magicbastarder

Now, from previous posts, my complaints of double standards, 30km/h speed limits, jaywalking and recently cycling 2 abreast seem to be met with extreme reactions. 

'extreme reactions'? People are debating you on a message forum and are being polite about it. If you think people attempting to tell you you're wrong is an 'extreme reaction'...

magicbastarder

Re your comment about cyclists deliberately holding motorists up - you appear to be wilfully ignoring the point that on a normal road, unless the cyclists are cycling over the white line, they cannot prevent you from performing a safe and legal overtake.

In fact, it's advice often given to cyclists (including solo cyclists) to take the primary position - one reason being it can help stave off dangerous overtakes.

Anyway, we've gone way OT here, yet another thread derailed by the 'but cyclists' merchants.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726114#Comment_120726114

"..Motorists have every right to find this legally sactioned tosser behaviour annoying...."

If something that is legal enrages you because it delays you. Perhaps thats an anger management issue rather than a 30kph limit issue.

magicbastarder

my usual advice to people who i don't think would respond to a 'you should try cycling on the roads yourself, where you give out about cyclists' suggestion; is to stick an L plate up on your car and drive around for a bit. you'll see an instant deterioration from some motorists in how they treat you; and if you think the fall in standards is bad in that context, it's not a patch on how those same motorists react to cyclists.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726114#Comment_120726114

As a cyclist, I find the legally sanctioned tosser behaviour of driving around with an empty couch and armchair for short journeys that are easily walked or cycled, doing it deliberately to hold me up on my bike. They never move over when I come up behind.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726139#Comment_120726139

Advice given by whom? And on what authority?

As a Pedestrian (and former cyclist), I regularly advise Cyclists to stay off the footpath. The clue is in the name. Do they do it?

magicbastarder

i dunno, have you said it to every single cyclist ever?

anyway, the UK police have occasionally issued that advice, found this in a guardian article:

"Chief inspector Ian Vincent, Cycle Task Force, said:

"There is no specific Metropolitan police service guidance on cycle safety. We refer cyclists to the Highway Code and Transport for London's (TfL) cycling safely page, which recommends cyclists ride assertively, away from the gutter. If the road is too narrow for vehicles to pass you safely, it may be better to ride in the middle of the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking.""

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726399#Comment_120726399

On what authority do you give that advice?

How would anyone know if the cyclists you talk to follow your advice?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726292#Comment_120726292

I think in a topic thats primarily about pedestrian safety from motorists, and someone brings cyclists into it. You're hoping for rational logic where none exists.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726399#Comment_120726399

also, how do motorists react when you tell them not to park on footpaths (the clue is in the name). do they do it?

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726449#Comment_120726449

Usually, yes. But I haven't spoken to them all. I've repeatedly told the same geniuses on their bikes along my walking route to the hospital. None seem to care, especially the ones on E-bikes.

As a pedestrian, I'd rather face a parked car than one driving towards me on the footpath. It's quite a bit of a difference. So kudos to you on comparing apples with elephants.

patrickbrophy18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726311#Comment_120726311

Okay, that picture made me laugh. Generally, I can't see how a car travelling at a higher speed would hold up a cyclist at a lower speed. As such, in the majority of cases, it is the other way around. However, if you can cycle 50km/h in a 50km/h zone, that is impressive.

In an ideal world, we would have mandated segregation of the different road user groups with equal enforcement of traffic lights and other rules instead of this 30km/h to accommodate the members of slower road user groups.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726139#Comment_120726139

I did not know this. Good to know. Thanks.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726268#Comment_120726268

Classic thought policing. Some laws are an inconvenience. Yeah, some laws make sense while others are absolute bullshit. It has nothing to do with anger management issues. 30km/h speed limits are one of many measures aimed at handicapping the efficiency of motorized transport and it reeks of social justice causes.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726480#Comment_120726480

30km/h speed limits are one of many measures aimed at handicapping the efficiency of motorized transport and it reeks of social justice causes.

30km/h limits are designed to allow all road users (not just people driving cars) the safe use of the road which is a shared space. Higher limits deter many people from venturing out on ones for example.

However, the idea is that 30km/h would be the default limit and where appropriate, it could be increased on roads including main arteries.

This victimhood nonsense is just a load of crap by some who don't want to safely share the space they've come to believe they own!

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726480#Comment_120726480

I like how you've mixed unresearched rant with paranoia.

magicbastarder

30km/h speed limits are one of many measures aimed at handicapping the efficiency of motorized transport

the private car is the least efficient form of transport there is. and your average speed in a car in an urban area would rarely approach 30km/h anyway.

and where it might do so is probably on roads which are not in scope for 30km/h limits anyway.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726479#Comment_120726479

You'd prefer to be hit by 2 tons of car then a bicycle. Have you really thought that through. The statistics do not agree with you.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726904#Comment_120726904

I was hit by a 2 ton electric car while on my bike, which frightened me enough to stop cycling. It didn't break any bones but split my helmet open and tore my trousers (maybe the road did that?). Either way, it was a bit of a bang. I was probably doing 25-30kph in a straight line and the car hit me from the side as it couldn't have been bothered to stop/yield at the stop sign. My bike was pretty buckled. I guess I was lucky to be thrown from it as I escaped with just bruising and a bit of disorientarion. Afterwards, the guards gave me the drivers details in case I wanted to make a claim. I didn't, but they covered the cost of my scan. That prompted me to start walking instead 4 years ago.

Last month, a little scrote on an electric scrambler "driving" on the footpath collided with me from behind. I didn't see or hear him coming. He hit me pretty hard, hard enough to knock me, break my leg and the phone in my pocket and disappeared into the sunset. I'm now out of pocket for my trip to A&E and the tax payer is footing the bill for my scans, treatment, physio because the offender is long gone. Plus I've been in near constant agony although I'm nearly fully mobile again.

If given the choice to repeat either accident, I'd rather be hit by a slow moving car than a fast moving bike. Especially if the driver has morals. So I've no problem with the 30kph limit as long as it applies to everyone, but seeing as some folk in society are over riding their 25kph limiter, I remain sceptical.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726424#Comment_120726424

On the same authority that any law abiding citizen can advise any other citizen of the laws they are breaking. The rules of the road/Road traffic act specifically state that you cannot cycle on footpaths unless entering/exiting a property or signage specifically mandates to allow it. In fact, cycling in any pedestrianised space (such as pedestrian street) is generally banned, save for children who are exempt or signage permits.

I've yet to see the rules/acts stating that you should cycle in the middle of the road to act defensive. So whoever is giving this advice should not be doing so.

Ditto the argument that you don't have to use the cycle track if it is provided. It is mandatory per S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997. See below:

14. (1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a cycle track

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.

(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

(4) Where a cycle track is one-way, pedal cycles shall be driven in the same direction as traffic on the side of the roadway adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel.

(5) When a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727063#Comment_120727063

A scrambler is not a bicycle. It's a false equivalence.

Fact remains your far more likely to have an accident, with a car than anything else. Odds of being hit by a scrambler must be quite low. Regardless of the high profile cases in the media.

The 30kph zone will also apply to legal scramblers. Though an electric Scrambler would be illegal on a road or public space regardless.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727117#Comment_120727117

People aren't advised to cycle in the middle of roads (unless the road isn't wide enough) but are advised by our RSA via the Rules if the Road to cycle in the middle of the lane.

As for your selective extraction of a piece of legal text, maybe extract from the actual Act in force at the moment rather than a superseded piece!

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727117#Comment_120727117

So no authority.

The irony here is you are quoting out of date laws which are no longer valid.

The reason they are no longer valid is because it's not always appropriate or safe to be in the cycle lane or staying left. So they were forced to change it.

Unfortunately uninformed people keep referencing old laws and old out of date practice. As your comment demonstrates.

Flinty997

And again non of this has any relevance to 30kph zone.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727140#Comment_120727140

An electric scrambler falls under the electric bike bracket. Otherwise, what is it?

Whatever you classify it as, the "driver" was no more interested in pedalling than I am in skipping, but it's still a two wheeled "bi-cycle". It hurt like hell, I guess because all of the energy in the impact was concentrated via the handlebar that hit me. The impact from the car was more distributed due to the broader profile on the Nissan Leaf. Not sure if that made it better or worse though.

You are correct though, the odds of being hit by a bicycle might be lower than a car due to the sheer number of cars on the road. However, I reckon the odds are changing as more bikes take to the road. That coupled with generally poor behaviour by certain cyclists (mounting paths, breaking the green man, etc) probably means that you are more likely to have an accident with one going forward.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727230#Comment_120727230

If it as you originally described, it is a mechanically propelled vehicle and subject to tax and insurance but AGS dont enforce it. It is not, in any way, a bicycle. You even didn't describe it as such!

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727182#Comment_120727182

Instead of claiming that the law is old and invalid, perhaps you could provide a link to the latest applicable clauses? If I've missed one, I apologise. Ignorance of the law is not an appropriate defence, but unless you can actually provide it, I will not be able to learn!

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727246#Comment_120727246

Definition of a bicycle: a vehicle consisting of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel.

That covers those electric scramblers no? They have pedals, two wheels, handlebars. I could just as easily have said e-bike, but it doesn't change anything. They shouldn't be on the footpath and they shouldn't be assisted by a motor over 25kph.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120726311#Comment_120726311

🤣🤣🤣

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727285#Comment_120727285

Where are you getting your definition of a bicycle from?

The law does make a distinction between a bicycle (including an e-bike) which both require human power and a MPV which does not require human power. The latter require both tax and insurance. The number of wheels is irrelevant unless you are getting your legal information from the Oxford English Dictionary!

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727392#Comment_120727392

Yep, bicycle is two wheels. The clue is in the name. The other stuff is direct from the dictionary. I believe that under 25kph, those pedal assisted electric scramblers fall in that category. Sadly, most aren't pedalled and often exceed the limit so it's a bit of a mess. Either way, they shouldn't be on the footpath nor exceeding 30kph.