Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New proposed 30km/h speed limits-"Consultation"?

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Long Time Lurker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭Long Time Lurker


    There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

    Fully supportive of 30k limit by the way. Protects all idiots but more importantly small children and the like. There will come a time in the future where automotive transport and pedestrians will simply not be tolerated together. Long way off sadly.


  • Options
    #153
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

    Fully supportive of 30k limit by the way. Protects all idiots but more importantly small children and the like. There will come a time in the future where automotive transport and pedestrians will simply not be tolerated together. Long way off sadly.

    Ah yes, was wondering when the victim blaming would come in and bang on time......

    Have a look here
    http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

    And see how many deaths were the "fault" of the cyclist due to behaviour like that you've mentioned.


  • Options
    #154
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.
    transport for london commissioned a survey which found that in the majority of cases (i think 60%), the motorist was at fault in cyclist fatalities in london. i'm not aware of a similar study in an irish context.
    one caveat is that there is now a HGV ban in dublin city centre, which does not not exist in london, to my knowledge.


  • Options
    #155
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

    You've got absolutely nothing to back that up.

    The figures I've seen have put deaths of cyclists ranging from 75-92% of cyclist fatalities (in ireland) down to motorist error.

    Though presumably it will be less than that for the 2015 figures.


  • Options
    #156
    Long Time Lurker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭Long Time Lurker


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    There's a very simple manipulation of statistics going on here. Someone earlier mentioned that car drivers kill more cyclists and that's why they need to adhere to the new regs. The stats might be correct but I think its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules. The stats will show the car killed the cyclist but the reason might have been because they cycled off a foot path and straight though a red light.

    Fully supportive of 30k limit by the way. Protects all idiots but more importantly small children and the like. There will come a time in the future where automotive transport and pedestrians will simply not be tolerated together. Long way off sadly.

    Ah yes, was wondering when the victim blaming would come in and bang on time......

    Have a look here
    http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

    And see how many deaths were the "fault" of the cyclist due to behaviour like that you've mentioned.

    Nah I wasn't trying to implie blame in any quantity to any specific road users. Just stating the fact that the statistic was a little simple. It does suggest that it was 100% motorists fault which we agree it isn't.

    No axe to grind and I'm sure you're not suggesting that cyclists are of a higher intelligence level that a motorist. I was simply pointing out that all road users can be morons.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Long Time Lurker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭Long Time Lurker


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.

    You've got absolutely nothing to back that up.

    The figures I've seen have put deaths of cyclists ranging from 75-92% of cyclist fatalities (in ireland) down to motorist error.

    Though presumably it will be less than that for the 2015 figures.

    Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?


  • Options
    #158
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?
    You go from saying that the gross fatality figures don't tell the whole story (fair enough, they don't) to assuming that the bulk of those are caused by cycling error, the figures that are available on this say otherwise.

    Many cyclists do break the law. yes It's annoying and no they shouldn't do it...but it's realistically it's nowhere near the same ball-park of danger caused to cyclist (or anyone else) as when people in cars break the law.


  • Options
    #159
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Ah yes, was wondering when the victim blaming would come in and bang on time......

    Have a look here
    http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

    And see how many deaths were the "fault" of the cyclist due to behaviour like that you've mentioned.

    And not one of these incidents were caused in the newly proposed 30km zone? Why is that ???


  • Options
    #160
    shootermacg
    Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    Almost every day there's a car crash related death. The fact is people in motorised vehicles cause injury and death on a regular basis, to pedestrians, cyclists and each other.

    How some posters can come on here with a straight face and complain about "jay-walking" or "rogue cyclists".

    The insanity and the irony of it all is not lost on the sane. The 30km/h limit is actually to save you motorists from yourselves, because left to your own devices, you'd continue killing people.


  • Options
    #161
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,311 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    You've got absolutely nothing to back that up.

    The figures I've seen have put deaths of cyclists ranging from 75-92% of cyclist fatalities (in ireland) down to motorist error.

    Though presumably it will be less than that for the 2015 figures.

    And the other could be as a result of natural causes such as heart attacks


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?
    Here's what you need to back up?

    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.


    And just to add one more to the strong international trend of where the fault lies;

    http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html


  • Options
    #163
    Long Time Lurker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭Long Time Lurker


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?
    You go from saying that the gross fatality figures don't tell the whole story (fair enough, they don't) to assuming that the bulk of those are caused by cycling error, the figures that are available on this say otherwise.

    Many cyclists do break the law. yes It's annoying and no they shouldn't do it...but it's realistically it's nowhere near the same ball-park of danger caused to cyclist (or anyone else) as when people in cars break the law.

    But I never said the bulk of them are caused by cyclists. Where did I say that. I suggested that some of the deaths by cyclists coming into contact with motorists were possibly the cyclists fault where as the data be used suggests that all deaths were caused by the motorists. You imagined in your head that I said the bulk of them.

    Geez you're an angry crowd today. Calm down, read what others are saying before drawing conclusions and stop having a pre disposition based only on what your assumptions of what other people are inferring buy not actually what they've said at all.


  • Options
    #164
    Long Time Lurker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭Long Time Lurker


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?
    Here's what you need to back up?

    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.


    And just to add one more to the strong international trend of where the fault lies;

    http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html
    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    Back up what now? What did I say that needs backing up?
    Here's what you need to back up?

    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    its fair to say that as many cyclists kill themselves by putting themselves in the most ridiculous situations simply by not adhering to the most basic of rules.


    And just to add one more to the strong international trend of where the fault lies;

    http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html


    So just to be sure what you're saying now, and to be sure you understand what I'm saying too. I never said the majority, I said many. Now using your preferred survey it gives you 7% of cyclists at blame. Not a majority and just a reminder, I never said majority, I said many. 7% it is so. We'll call that 'some'

    Now lets use someone's else's earlier survey from London which puts cyclists at fault around 40% of the time. Again not a majority but just to be extra sure you know what I said earlier , I never said majority, you did. I said many. 40% in my mind is many. You can (likely) draw a completely different interpretation from that given your ability to do so thus far :-)

    Read what people are saying before jumping to conclusions, hopping on a high horse and ignoring reality while hollering your own opinion. I agree with a 30kmh limit. I feel too many people are killed by motor vehicles. I would fully support a lower speed limit in all urban and residential areas. I was simply trying to be slightly more objective with the facts that the inference been given by the term deaths involving cyclists and motorists. Some as we both agree were in fact cyclists fault. Doesn't actually matter, none of them should have happened.


  • Options
    #165
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    So just to be sure what you're saying now, and to be sure you understand what I'm saying too. I never said the majority, I said many. Now using your preferred survey it gives you 7% of cyclists at blame. Not a majority and just a reminder, I never said majority, I said many. 7% it is so. We'll call that 'some'

    Now lets use someone's else's earlier survey from London which puts cyclists at fault around 40% of the time. Again not a majority but just to be extra sure you know what I said earlier , I never said majority, you did. I said many. 40% in my mind is many. You can (likely) draw a completely different interpretation from that given your ability to do so thus far :-)

    Read what people are saying before jumping to conclusions, hopping on a high horse and ignoring reality while hollering your own opinion. I agree with a 30kmh limit. I feel too many people are killed by motor vehicles. I would fully support a lower speed limit in all urban and residential areas. I was simply trying to be slightly more objective with the facts that the inference been given by the term deaths involving cyclists and motorists. Some as we both agree were in fact cyclists fault. Doesn't actually matter, none of them should have happened.

    WHat you said was 'as many' - not 'many'. So you said that it is at least a 50:50 scenario. Do you have any backup for this?


  • Options
    #166
    Long Time Lurker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭Long Time Lurker


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    So just to be sure what you're saying now, and to be sure you understand what I'm saying too. I never said the majority, I said many. Now using your preferred survey it gives you 7% of cyclists at blame. Not a majority and just a reminder, I never said majority, I said many. 7% it is so. We'll call that 'some'

    Now lets use someone's else's earlier survey from London which puts cyclists at fault around 40% of the time. Again not a majority but just to be extra sure you know what I said earlier , I never said majority, you did. I said many. 40% in my mind is many. You can (likely) draw a completely different interpretation from that given your ability to do so thus far :-)

    Read what people are saying before jumping to conclusions, hopping on a high horse and ignoring reality while hollering your own opinion. I agree with a 30kmh limit. I feel too many people are killed by motor vehicles. I would fully support a lower speed limit in all urban and residential areas. I was simply trying to be slightly more objective with the facts that the inference been given by the term deaths involving cyclists and motorists. Some as we both agree were in fact cyclists fault. Doesn't actually matter, none of them should have happened.

    WHat you said was 'as many' - not 'many'. So you said that it is at least a 50:50 scenario. Do you have any backup for this?

    No. Next. Christ.


  • Options
    #167
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i don't think you understand how your sentence was phrased. in the context you used, the most logical reading was that you used 'as many' in the sense of 'an equal number'.
    anyway, it's clear you did not mean to use that formulation.


  • Options
    #168
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Long Time Lurker wrote: »
    No. Next. Christ.

    So this would be a good time to withdraw it then.


  • Options
    #169
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    Im not going to reply to everybody directly ,

    However the point im making is we cant have a law that discriminates against certain road.

    firstly to the person who said bikes havent got speedometers so you can prosecute somebody for know knowing what their doing is stupid. That is not the law.

    bikes should have to follow the rules laid out. If we bring speed down to this and 20k in college green you cant allow some breaking the law.


  • Options
    #170
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    bpb101 wrote: »

    However the point im making is we cant have a law that discriminates against certain road

    So we should get rid of motorways and allow Hgvs drive on footpaths?

    Thee is no law restricting the speed anyone can cycle at, nor run at not ride a horse at
    So these road users are complying with the law that applies to them


  • Options
    #171
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    bpb101 wrote: »
    However the point im making is we cant have a law that discriminates against certain road.
    So the lower speed limit for HGVs on motorways, should that limit apply to everybody now? And the tachograph that restricts the driving time for HGV drivers - we should have tachos now, to avoid any discrimination?

    Or perhaps, the penny might be dropping for you, and you're starting to see that it makes absolute perfect sense to have different laws for different levels of risk?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    So we should get rid of motorways and allow Hgvs drive on footpaths?

    Thee is no law restricting the speed anyone can cycle at, nor run at not ride a horse at
    So these road users are complying with the law that applies to them

    Not correct for cyclists.

    The numerical speed limits may not apply to them yes. However article 7? or the general duty regarding speed does apply to them.

    The general duty on drivers regarding speed specifies that you cannot travel at a speed at which you would not be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

    So even if they are not bound by a limit or are breaking the limit that applies to others they could still be guilty of speeding.


  • Options
    #173
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The numerical speed limits may not apply to them yes. However article 7? or the general duty regarding speed does apply to them.
    that said, many years ago, i came down knockmaroon hill on the bike (posted speed limit at the time was 30mph) and there was a garda with a mobile speed camera at the bottom. i passed him doing 38mph and he pumped the air with his fist in encouragement as i did so.


  • Options
    #174
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Warning to ALL posters:

    Thankfully the thread is a bit more back on topic now. But you must restrict posts as much as possible to relate to 30km/h and not unrelated comments about cyclists (which there's other threads for).

    -- moderator


  • Options
    #175
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    So the lower speed limit for HGVs on motorways, should that limit apply to everybody now? And the tachograph that restricts the driving time for HGV drivers - we should have tachos now, to avoid any discrimination?

    Or perhaps, the penny might be dropping for you, and you're starting to see that it makes absolute perfect sense to have different laws for different levels of risk?

    Digital tachos in everything would be a great idea


  • Options
    #176
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i wonder is there anything that can be done to tackle the 'i pay money for may car, therefore i'm entitled to use it as i see fit' attitude (which is admittedly unfair on the attitude of most reasonable motorists), which is one of the reasons many motorists balk at the 30km/h suggestion?
    without any doubt, the provision of facilities in DCC (comparing motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) is heavily weighted in favour of the motorist, yet any erosion of the motorist's 'rights' - to right the balance somewhat - are seen as unfair.
    how did other cities achieve a more reasoned - and accepted - balance?


  • Options
    #177
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Digital tachos in everything would be a great idea
    but that would look out of place on my vintage colnago*!

    *(i don't have a vintage colnago)


  • Options
    #178
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but that would look out of place on my vintage colnago*!

    *(i don't have a vintage colnago)

    sit still while we graft one on :P


  • Options
    #179
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    a vintage colnago? bring it on.


  • Options
    #180
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.

    If this limit was to be implemented correctly there should be an analysis of traffic on particular roads to establish which ones would warrant a 30km limit within certain times. I would agree with a blanket 30km limit in all residential areas but not across the majority of the city?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭plodder


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Ok back to the 30km limit...has anyone ever driven down the quays at 30km in the early hours of the morning with no traffic? Its hilarious...an absolute joke. This would be why the majority of motorists dont obey the limit.
    Even during the day, it's the same. At George's quay there is a bottleneck just before it, and when cars get through they take off trying to make up lost time.

    It's all the more crazy, because 30km is actually justified there. The paths are narrow and there are tons of pedestrians going all directions. If they can't enforce it there, then the likely pattern is fairly clear - poor overall compliance, and the occasional "campaign" to pull in some revenue.


Advertisement