Spook_ie wrote: » About the same as AJR's contribution of 10-20kg bikes vs 1 to 3 tonne vehicles, did you want to ask that question of AJR or just me?
Spook_ie wrote: » Sorry, but if you are involved in a collision as a pedestrian or cyclist with another cyclist then the actual mass of what hits you will make a substantial difference. 10kg bike as base line 75kg rider Mass increase 650% 2000kg car as base line 75kg driver Mass increase 3.75% If you can't see that in an argument of cars v cycles that the mass of the cyclist makes a substantial difference, then you shouldn't be using 10kg v 2000kg as an argument Wonder why it's always cyclists that seem to think the actual cyclist has no mass or effect during a collision?
FarmerBob wrote: » DCC planning rolling out 30kph to most (all?) main routes in the city. Most residential routes are already 30kph but little media attention about this one. Can you imagine driving at 30kph on Howth rd, Malahide Rd, Stillorgan Rd, Griffith ave etc. Buses in empty bus lanes sneaking along at 30kph?https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/consultation-proposed-special-speed-limit-2020/ Consultation open until 13 August 2020>>>https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/consultation-proposed-special-speed-limit-2020/consultation/subpage.2016-07-06.7004763650/
bmc58 wrote: » Will there be Go safe Vans or Gardai everywhere then?
Amirani wrote: » Your knowledge of physics seems a bit shaky. It's the absolute magnitude of the force hitting you that's important, not the relative magnitude of the force. An additional 75kg has the same additional impact whether it's coming via a 10kg bike or a 2000kg car. Calculating percentage differences here is really dumb.
Duckjob wrote: » Indeed. According to that calculator, 90 kg (10kg bike+90kg rider) @ 30kph = Av: 1.5kN, Peak: 3kN 90kg (10kg bike+90kg rider) @50kph = Av: 2.5kN, Peak: 5kN 1590kg (1.5 tonne car + 90kg driver) @ 30kph = Av: 26.5kN, Peak: 53kN 1590kg (1.5 tonne car + 90kg driver) @ 50kph = Av: 44.2kN, Peak: 88.3kN So the force of a 90kg (bike + rider) colliding at 50kph (which excludes every cyclist in Dublin City) turns out to be less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5tonne car colliding at 30kph (which is the safety measure being discussed that is causing such wailing and gnashing of teeth here. The impact of a 90kg (bike + rider) colliding at 30kph (which still excludes most Dublin City cyclists) is just over 5% of a 1.5 tonne car (+driver) doing the same speed.@spook.ie, Great calculator, thanks !
Spook_ie wrote: » You all seem to think I'm arguing that a car hitting you isn't as bad, I'm not I'm just trying to make people realise that a 10kg bicycle hitting you is in reality a 10kg plus rider hitting you, a fact that it seems cyclists have difficulty in grasping. I mean to be honest yeah I'd sooner be hit by a cyclist than a car but in reality I'd rather not be hit by either. So for future reference if you want to argue that a 10kg bike isn't going to hurt you remember it's not a 10kg bike, it's a 10kg plus a cyclist.
Duckjob wrote: » Nobody here has a problem grasping that there's a difference between 10kg and 10kg + rider. I'm just putting it to you, and (others here that are raising questions about bikes being subjected to 30kph limit that whether you count a bike rider is pointless nitpicking (and irrelevent to the thread topic) when compared with of the figures of a car hitting someone at 30kph (which is directly relevent to the thread topic) Seriously, sometimes you can salvage some credibility by conceeding that you made a silly point. This is one of those times, fella.
Spook_ie wrote: » It's not a silly point, it's a point being made that you can't (as AJR and others often do) mention this magical 10-20kg cycle that if it's involved in an accident won't hurt people, you have to take into account the total mass involved and the mass of the rider is far more than the mass of the bicycle.
John_Rambo wrote: » The anti-cycling fundamentalists are ruining all the threads on commuting and transport. It's getting to be a joke now. If a law was brought in that made motorists carry a light on their roof they'd want the cyclists sellotape a light to their heads. Seriously... the speed limit is for the cars that do the damage we hear about every week in the news.
John_Rambo wrote: » The anti-cycling fundamentalists are ruining all the threads on commuting and transport. It's getting to be a joke now. If a law was brought in that made motorists carry a light on their roof
AndrewJRenko wrote: » How about beg buttons for drivers? Lean out the window and press the button when you want to get through the junction.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » We could certainly give automatic overrides to emergency services and maybe buses. Isn't there something already in place to give buses priority at certain traffic lights. No, not necessary - but it would send a helpful message, wouldn't it?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Most cars are RHD in my experience in Ireland, but sure the LHD drivers can just stop and get out. What's the problem with that?
SeanW wrote: » And yet, these people dominate many threads here
SeanW wrote: This same poster has also called for mandatory driver retesting every 5 years, motorists and passengers to be legally required to wear racing helmets while in the car. But, like motorists "beg button" at junctions these are all to do with "road safety" and not a broader motorist-bashing agenda. (And if you believe that, I have a cycle lane on the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you).
SeanW wrote: » This same poster has also called for mandatory driver retesting every 5 years,
MJohnston wrote: » Does this forum not have any mods anymore?
Zebra3 wrote: » That's a good idea. Too many people with no idea how to drive on the road. Easier idea would be losing your licence for six months once you hit two penalty points. Bizarre that the system is set up to allow motorists away with so many chances to put innocent lives at risk.
kenmm wrote: » To moderate the massive deviation from the thread topic you mean?
SeanW wrote: » Thank you for making my point so clearly. :rolleyes:
SeanW wrote: » Actually more like most of the world, including most of Europe. But what you, Andy and the other cyclists demand is more than an "inconvenience," it's downright extreme. And it dominates any discussion on this board, even of threads that did not start out being about motorists.
MJohnston wrote: » Can you two sort this out on the playground instead?
MJohnston wrote: » Submitted a strongly supportive response! I also mentioned the need to back up the lowered speed limits with a drastic, widespread program of road diets, footpath widening, rat run elimination, and lots of other street design measures that will induce motorists to subconsciously reduce their speed. I honestly think that's more important than enforcement, unless the enforcement can be near-omnipresent.
07Lapierre wrote: » Streets can be redesigned in such a way that it's difficult to drive over 30kph. Example..if vehicles have to weave left and right instead of driveing straight on, results in lower speeds. Also, narrow streets like this look nice, and are much safer for all:https://images.app.goo.gl/TFvMdYJn4n1bYqtM8
