Spook_ie wrote: » So what speed do you cycle at then, AJR says he doesn't exceed 30kph except downhill, there's so much deflection being felt here that I assume you dont have a logical argument against a blanket speed limit.
Duckjob wrote: » StrawmanGeneralisationWhatAboutDeflection More strawman nonsense. Unless, now of course, you're going to shows posts from the many of "us" that said we couldn't cycle that fast, as opposed to the many posts arguing the bigger picture that a statistically very small percentage of people cycling in Dublin City would achieve over 30kph, and a tiny percentage of people would achieve over 40kph. BTW, it's not for anyone to justify why they would object to a 30kph bike limit - it's your argument, so own it. The onus is on you to put your case as to why what problem it would solve, bearing in mind you've not said anything about restricting the speed of 1.5t vehicles would be travelling around at the same speed, yielding 20x the impact in the event of a collision.
Spook_ie wrote: » Actually I introduced the idea that the 5 crimes listed for motorists should be extended to cyclists, funny how so many of you pick up on number 1 in the list, even though so many of you deny being able to cycle at that speed anyway.So if so many of you can't cycle that fast why do you object to a maximum speed for cyclists?
Duckjob wrote: » Agree, but you're the one who brought people filtering at over the (car) speed limit on either side of cars as a reason for a 30kph limit. It's your argument, not mine. You've now once again completely undermined your previous argument by admitting straight out that applying a 30kph limit would do nothing to solve that issue of people filtering too fast for the conditions.
Spook_ie wrote: » An inappropriate speed could be anything between 1 and 30kph depending on conditions, deflect much do you In real life?
Duckjob wrote: » StrawmanGeneralisationWhatAboutDeflection Time to get out the colors again to avoid wasting too much more of my time. This is fun! Edit: Was going to leave it at the colors, but this is just too good to miss. So, even if you want to avoid answering my question, By your own admission, applying a blanket 30kph limit would do nothing to address the issue of people riding at speeds inappropriate for the conditions. The good thing about debating things with you is that you're so adamant never ever ever to back down on a bad point that you carry on until you end up undermining your own argument anyway:D
Spook_ie wrote: » Yet again you fail to actually comprehend what was said on the 30kph thread,I do wonder sometimes if to be a cyclist requires some kind of mental blockage regarding comprehension.I do wonder sometimes if to be a cyclist requires some kind of mental blockage regarding comprehension.Nobody (except typical cyclist rants ) has said anything of the kind. If cyclists were limited to 30kph they would still be able to legally (maybe not sensibly) filter at up to that speed.
If cyclists were limited to 30kph they would still be able to legally (maybe not sensibly) filter at up to that speed.
Duckjob wrote: » True enough, and that's why I also picked 50kph in my post, which, safe to say is a cyclist speed that's pretty much unheard of in Dublin City. Even at that speed, its 10% impact of a car at 30kph. In other words, its a complete red herring, being dragged out by those with no other explainable motivation than a weird "dog in the manger" one. (if i'm limited and get stuck in traffic, they shouldnt be able to move about so freely). Utter BS.
Duckjob wrote: » Your turn now, tell me how limiting 30kph has anything to do with safety if you're allowing cars drive around at speeds yielding nearly 20 times the equavilent impact ?
Spook_ie wrote: » As to comparing car to bicycle in a collision, I didn't, I compared a 10kg -20kg bicycle to a 60-100 kg bicycle and rider. The only reference to cars was that the actual cyclist makes up much more of the mass of the bicycle/cyclist than the equivalent driver in a car.
magicbastarder wrote: » exactly. it's farcical. he's referring to a segment on which it's clear that over 90% of cyclists - at the fastest they've ever recorded - have not even managed to *achieve* the speed limit (which applies to cars!), and is using it to claim that cyclists cycling too fast is an issue to be tackled. fewer than 0.5% of cyclists have exceeded 40 on that stretch. could we say the same for motorists? he's undermining his own argument.
Thargor wrote: » I think he just doubled down on the Strava stupidity in order to distract from his badly mangled kinetic energy calculations comparing a cyclist hitting someone to a car doing the same, it seems to have worked, well it works if you have no sense of shame or embarrassment when it comes to posting petty nonsense, which he doesn't.
magicbastarder wrote: » i did get a chuckle from his claim that 'studies of strava have shown...' when he clearly just looked at a single segment, misread the results, and saw exactly what he wanted to see.
Spook_ie wrote: » Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.
kenmm wrote: » Why is 30kmph for cyclists an issue? We often have different limits for diffierent modes of transport anyway? Got a trailer on a motorway? Vans are different to cars, lorries are different in other places - so why is it the 30km/h is winding people up? Also - I could well believe there are a number of cyclists easily doing 40 - while over 30 isn't particularly easy, but equally it's not like some pro tour feat of fitness either.
kenmm wrote: » Sure, but o'connel st is a bad example - look at custom house or any of the other more free flowing routes - but even then - whats the point? What does that mean -some people who ride bikes can go quite fast? I am lost as to what the problem is?
magicbastarder wrote: » i think it's a very general 'if motoring specific laws are not applied to cyclists too, then i am being oppressed' reaction.
Spook_ie wrote: » So are you advocating that items 1-5 shouldn't be applicable to cyclists in any form what so ever? 1) speeding 2) drink driving 3) drug driving 4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space 5) texting or on the phone
Spook_ie wrote: » I would have thought you'd know by now I never run away from arguments, and as to the argument on the 30kph thread it was nothing to do with the speed limits, it was to do with the usual cyclists missing out vital pieces of information, such as being in collisions with a 10-20kg cycle rather than a 60-100kg cycle and rider. Which would you prefer to be hit by the magical 10-20kg cycle or the (reality of ) 60-100 kg cycle and rider
magicbastarder wrote: » no, i'm not. my point is that not all laws which apply to motorists should necessarily also apply to cyclists, and only spoke specifically about the speeding one. btw, i'll ask again, which segment in strava are you looking at with reference to the o'connell street and cyclist speed claim?
magicbastarder wrote: » on the only segment strava seems to list for o'connell street, out of a total of 2,890 people who have attempted it, 12 have averaged a (perfectly legal) 40km/h+ or, less than half of one percent; and that is the PR for each cyclist listed, the fastest they have ever gone on it. this information is being used to try to sustain a claim that 'numerous' cyclists go faster than 40. also worth mentioning that in general, i'd expect a cyclist using strava to be faster than an 'average' cyclist as strava use is skewed towards sports and leisure cyclists.https://www.strava.com/segments/5967744
kenmm wrote: » Also - I could well believe there are a number of cyclists easily doing 40 - while over 30 isn't particularly easy, but equally it's not like some pro tour feat of fitness either.
Spook_ie wrote: » So are you advocating
SeanW wrote: » Because cyclists are little angels, right? On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/ (Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling) Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems). Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river. And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:
Charles Babbage wrote: » But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.
07Lapierre wrote: » One would assume motorists would drive with due care and attention? One would assume that any motorists that has cyclists overtakeing them on both sides at the same time is clearly driving too slow?
Duckjob wrote: » It's Groundhog Day! Already covered over on the 30kph Limits thread here in C&T where you nitpicked your way around a similar topic and then ran away from the discussion when it was pointed out to you that using the calculator you mentioned, a cyclist colliding while travelling at 50kph (which in Dublin City is virtually no-one) still has less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne vehicle at 30kph, and a cyclist colliding at 30kph (which is still a speed beyond 90% of people cycling), has just over 5% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle doing the same. In other words, going on about cyclists exceeding 30kph as a safety issue is ridculously petty, unless you're advocating limiting car speeds down to about 1.7kph, which yields equivalent impact to the same person doing 30kph on a 10kg bike.
Duckjob wrote: » I didn't mention the other point 4 (you highlighted 1 and 4) because to me there's no argument that you should give decent space to pedestrians. It's a no brainer, as are the other points on the list. That was Micar's list, not mine, but you responded to his post with a post which was all about cyclist speed, which, in case you didn't notice you're still chunnering on about ) . It was pointed out to you in some detail on the other thread that your physics was arseways at which point you run away only to try to repeat the same nonsense argument here.
