30kph coming to Dublin road near you? (note warning in post #254)

MJohnston wrote: »

Funny, I usually take the lane when I’m cycling because driving a car turns pretty much *everyone* into a selfish arsehole who would risk your life for a few extra seconds shaved off their journeys. I could upload hours worth of GoPro footage, because it happens constantly on every cycle.

All you lost was that few seconds of journey time, cyclists could lose their fúcking lives. Grow the fúck up, stop being so brainlessly selfish.

There’s a proper cycle lane running parallel that they don’t use. Brush up on the old comprehension there.
He’s a prick to be using the road.

Duckjob

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Sure.. because at 10/11 at night (or later) there's so many pedestrians and cyclists around, that anything over 30 km/h is like playing Russian Roulette :rolleyes:

It's an attempt to severely discourage car usage without outright banning them from the streets. Zero to do with "safety". But on that point, how about pedestrians and cyclists take some responsibility for their own safety and behaviours on the roads? Y'know.. like not weaving between cars in traffic, or dashing across the road in front of moving cars, or breaking the lights, or not stumbling out onto the road because they're drunk.

Couldn't be having that I suppose - always the motorists fault/responsibility for the risk-taking and outright idiocy of others eh?

There's idiots floating around on all forms of transport. Let the idiots watch out for themselves. The ones on bikes and on foot will likely only hurt themselves.

In the meantime.. All of us while driving heavy and potentially dangerous vehicles are tasked with a greater duty of care due to the proportionately greater risk to unprotected road users we may be in close proximity with.
It's harsh, but fair.

The stats regarding collisions of motorised vehicles with unprotected people at different speeds are well documented. By having lower speeds where vehicle mix with non-vehicles you lower the risks of serious injury and death.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

There’s a proper cycle lane running parallel that they don’t use. Brush up on the old comprehension there.
He’s a prick to be using the road.

I don’t care, I’ll take the lane if I need to. It doesn’t give selfish people like you the right to endanger my life due to your impatience.

begbysback wrote: »

You're actually contradicting yourself here, if motorists were abdicating responsibility then wouldn't they be seeking to have all speed limits reduced, thereby absolved of any responsibility for driving competence, or lack thereof?

What? I’m sorry but your post makes no sense.

The only reason motorists don’t want speed limits reduced, the ONLY reason, is because they only think about how something will affect them.

Any other weak arguments popping up are just attempts to deflect from what they’re really thinking - “but that means my journey will be two minutes slower, and that’s not acceptable”.

I’m sorry drivers, but it’s time to get used to the fact that commutes are just going to keep getting worse and worse for you. The health and environmental effects of air pollution have become a matter of critical importance, and the car reduction actions we’re seeing right now are the tip of the iceberg.

begbysback

MJohnston wrote: »

What? I’m sorry but your post makes no sense.

The only reason motorists don’t want speed limits reduced, the ONLY reason, is because they only think about how something will affect them.

Any other weak arguments popping up are just attempts to deflect from what they’re really thinking - “but that means my journey will be two minutes slower, and that’s not acceptable”.

I’m sorry drivers, but it’s time to get used to the fact that commutes are just going to keep getting worse and worse for you. The health and environmental effects of air pollution have become a matter of critical importance, and the car reduction actions we’re seeing right now are the tip of the iceberg.

Let me simplify that for you as you seem to find it a difficult concept to grasp. If I, as a motorist, want to abdicate responsibility then I would gladly hand over the responsibility to authorities and champion lowering of speed limits.

On the other hand, if I, as a motorist, can accept responsibility for a motor vehicle, and believe it is my responsibility to achieve a high competence of driving ability, then I don't need speed limits to be reduced, I just need to be competent at driving to the current speed limits.

Therefore you argument of using "responsibility" abdication against motorists not only doesn't hold up, it actually contradicts the point you are trying to make.

I see you've now gone down the road of saving the world by reducing speed limits to 30kph, best of luck - Im out.

_Kaiser_

MJohnston wrote: »

Motorists always want to abdicate responsibility for the fact that they’re driving something that’s incredibly dangerous to *everyone* else. If you’re driving a car, the responsibility is yours and yours alone to ensure you’re not endangering anyone. Stop trying to shirk that, stop trying to blame others for any selfishness you’ve displayed while driving.

Nonsense. You are basically advocating exactly the same thing you're accusing me off - shifting the blame for ones own behaviour onto others.

"But.. but.. you drive a 3 tonne machine that blah blah..." - again whataboutery designed to shift the responsibility for personal safety onto other road users

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the perpetual victimhood that is pushed in arguments like yours. If you use the roads - regardless of what form of transport you use, even if it's your own two feet - you absolutely are responsible for your own safety and not to do stupid things that may endanger yourself, others, or indeed put others in the position of having to take that responsibility for you.

begbysback wrote: »

Let me simplify that for you as you seem to find it a difficult concept to grasp. If I, as a motorist, want to abdicate responsibility then I would gladly hand over the responsibility to authorities and champion lowering of speed limits.

On the other hand, if I, as a motorist, can accept responsibility for a motor vehicle, and believe it is my responsibility to achieve a high competence of driving ability, then I don't need speed limits to be reduced, I just need to be competent at driving to the current speed limits.

Therefore you argument of using "responsibility" abdication against motorists not only doesn't hold up, it actually contradicts the point you are trying to make.

I see you've now gone down the road of saving the world by reducing speed limits to 30kph, best of luck - Im out.

That’s a truly bizarre argument that justifies nothing.

There’s zero contradiction in saying that drivers both don’t want to take responsibility for their actions AND don’t want speed limits reduced. In fact, they both have exact same root cause - pure selfishness.

They don’t need to take responsibility for their actions because they believe roads are designed specifically for them.
They don’t want speed limits reduced because that would impinge upon their own desire to drive at the fastest possible speeds.

Pure selfishness.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nonsense. You are basically advocating exactly the same thing you're accusing me off - shifting the blame for ones own behaviour onto others.

"But.. but.. you drive a 3 tonne machine that blah blah..." - again whataboutery designed to shift the responsibility for personal safety onto other road users

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the perpetual victimhood that is pushed in arguments like yours. If you use the roads - regardless of what form of transport you use, even if it's your own two feet - you absolutely are responsible for your own safety and not to do stupid things that may endanger yourself, others, or indeed put others in the position of having to take that responsibility for you.

To live in a world of such doublethink must be exhausting for you!

Let’s put it simply: no matter how much pedestrians, cyclists, or anyone on the road looks after their own safety, they will never be *in control* of their own safety because cars exist.

If you drive a vehicle, you are driving something that can very easily *kill other people*. The same cannot be said of cycling, and is absolutely not true of walking.

So, why is it that drivers, the ones who should understand that their actions constantly endanger everyone else, are the ones who claim, as you do, that it’s the fault of everyone else for putting themselves in danger?

Do you not see the pure and utter callousness and selfishness in what you are saying? Your attitude is a symptom of a disease that is finally being surgically removed from our society.

FarmerBob

A full traffic lane is being removed in bound along Fairview, to install a cycle lane, whilst a large park sits beside the route ... would it not make sense to route cycle through the Park?

spurious wrote: »

Even better....wait for this.... I saw on a Facebook group that Annesley bridge is to be shut for 16 months (apart from buses and cyclists) and all the Howth, Malahide and Coast road traffic funneled into one lane through Ballybough. Why? To build yet another cycle lane for them to not use.

We will be dreaming of getting to 30kph.
Lunacy.

MJohnston wrote: »

I don’t care, I’ll take the lane if I need to. It doesn’t give selfish people like you the right to endanger my life due to your impatience.

Who mentioned endangering lives anyway? All I said was that the tosser holds people up.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Who mentioned endangering lives anyway? All I said was that the tosser holds people up.

Your implication is clear - they’re a “tosser” for preventing you from driving faster in your car. No regard for the fact that they might be trying to keep themselves safe from you tossers in your cars. Typical selfish driver attitude.

MJohnston wrote: »

Your implication is clear - they’re a “tosser” for preventing you from driving faster in your car. No regard for the fact that they might be trying to keep themselves safe from you tossers in your cars. Typical selfish driver attitude.

There’s a cycle track they won’t use that runs parallel with a grass verge, a footpath, and a kerb between them and the road. They have no call to be on it only the mentality to annoy drivers at all costs.

Paddygreen

Still too fast. A car at 30kmph could still kill me. No part of Dublin is more than 20km away from any other part (inside the M50) an hour to travel anywhere in the city isn’t too much to ask therefore I think the limit should be 20kmph, around the same speed as your average cyclist, which is plenty fast enough on arterial roads. It should be even slower in residential areas. The city should be a safe space for everyone.

jams100

Xterminator wrote: »

so no one yet has recognized the benefits of this move in loss of life?

i mean you dont have to agree, but to go full donald trump and claim is just ignoring science and evidence.

If you hit a pedestrian:

at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.

from https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/#:~:text=If%20you%20hit%20a%20pedestrian%3A,chance%20they%20will%20be%20killed.

You could lower the speed limit to 5km which would probably save every life. That doesn't mean you should.
In general, as both a driver and a cyclist I dont have a problem with 99% of speed limits inside the m50.
Most areas in the city you cant do much beyond 30 anyway except on weekends or late evening etc.
30km/h on the likes of stillorgan road at 10pm at night would just make no sense.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I (and a heap of others) get stuck going home from work near every day by the same arsehole cycling on the road alongside a cycle lane.

I and a heap of other cyclists and bus passengers get stuck going home from near every day by the same arseholes driving around with four empty seats taking up all the space on the road.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

There’s a cycle track they won’t use that runs parallel with a grass verge, a footpath, and a kerb between them and the road. They have no call to be on it only the mentality to annoy drivers at all costs.

Have you cycled it yourself? It's pretty difficult to tell how good a cycle track is from behind a windscreen. Let me know where you're talking about or give us a link on Google Maps and we'll see how good it is.

Elmer Blooker

I wouldn't pay much attention to these DCC publicity stunt gimmicks.
I know roads in my parts where it is possible to drive at 80kph in a 30kph area, the so called 'speed bumps' are as flat as pancakes and are designed not to upset whining motorists.
Just another Irish solution and makes it look like the CC are 'concerned'.

Carawaystick

Charles Babbage wrote: »

That is clearly what cyclists think. But the law is for everyone, however self important they may feel themselves.

No its not, children younger than the age of criminal responsibility dont have to obey the law.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So cars will be limited to 30kph while cyclists can do what they like?
That figures.

yep. As long as people on biked dont ride furiously ( on their bikes in a public road), theres no law preventing people cycling as fast as its safe to do.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So cars will be limited to 30kph while cyclists can do what they like?
That figures.

no, cyclists will not be able to do what they'd like.
i'd like to be able to maintain 50km/h on the bike, but can't as i'm not a freak of human performance.
the number of cyclists you would see on the road in the context in question, who would be able to maintain 35km/h is exceedingly rare. it's a non-issue.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

There’s a cycle track they won’t use that runs parallel with a grass verge, a footpath, and a kerb between them and the road. They have no call to be on it only the mentality to annoy drivers at all costs.

Let's see it? Google Maps is very easy to link here.

MJohnston wrote: »

Let's see it? Google Maps is very easy to link here.

Do you want my bank account information too?

Have you never seen a separate cycle lane? One separate from the road? Sheltered life.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Do you want my bank account information too?

Have you never seen a separate cycle lane? One separate from the road? Sheltered life.

I’ve cycled on plenty of them that are awful. N11, for example. I’m not sure why you can’t link to the cycle path in question, doesn’t reveal anything private about you. Unless of course you’re making it all up.

MJohnston wrote: »

I’ve cycled on plenty of them that are awful. N11, for example. I’m not sure why you can’t link to the cycle path in question, doesn’t reveal anything private about you. Unless of course you’re making it all up.

Nope I’m not. This one is very near my house.

Bottom line, there’s a separate cycle lane and they use the road so they’re a cretin.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Nope I’m not. This one is very near my house.

Bottom line, there’s a separate cycle lane and they use the road so they’re a cretin.

Though you could have posted details of the lane in question without mentioning your house, and no-one would have been any the wiser. A cynic might think that you're covering something up.

Presumably the one near your house is the only instance that you see of a cyclist not using a cyclist to your frustration?

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Nope I’m not. This one is very near my house.

Bottom line, there’s a separate cycle lane and they use the road so they’re a cretin.

Lol nobody knew you lived near it until you just mentioned it. Amazing, and you’re calling someone else a cretin?

Tell you what, I could list half a dozen cycle paths that I regularly avoid and use the road because they’re so badly implemented.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Nope I’m not. This one is very near my house.

here's an astounding piece of information - you could have just posted the link, and *not* mentioned it was near your house, and no-one would have been any the wiser. instead, now your point just looks evasive and completely unconvincing.

also, it's gas how this has somehow become the fault of cyclists not doing what motorists want them to do.
again.
and again.
and again.

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, it's gas how this has somehow become the fault of cyclists not doing what motorists want them to do.
again.
and again.
and again.

It’s not about what motorists want them to do, it’s about what they should do. But there’s always that defiance to do what’s most awkward for motorists in them. It’s why they’re generally so hated.

so that's why i hate myself for owning a car while i'm cycling, and for owning a bike when i'm driving?
i must tell my psychotherapist.