Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

breezy1985 · 27-08-2020 02:04PM

Duckjob wrote: »

This. Or at very least slow right down to a crawl. Give people the respect of 5 f**king seconds of your time to let people get past safely and comfortably.

Blindlingly simple concept to ensure the safety of other road users - and yet terrifyingly, it's such an alien concept to so many.

I must live a privileged life because I'm never going anywhere in such a hurry that I can't slow down for a child.

Spook_ie · 27-08-2020 02:23PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

1) What percentage of speeding drivers are caught? (the 98% of drivers that break urban speed limits would be a good hint here)
2) How long do you think it will take for the arrested driver to be back behind the wheel of a car breaking speed limits again?

Doesn't matter, he was regulated.

BTW the 98% is the 30Kph Urban speed limit, just so people know which figure you love to use.

Where as the rate of speeding for cars in all limits is actually ( still an unacceptably high ) 46%

Anyways to your question of how many drivers caught speeding.

Last year:

348 motorists were caught exceeded a 30km/ph speed limit.
38,060 were detected exceeding a 50km/ph speed limit.
19,367 were detected exceeding a 60km/ph speed limit.
14,255 were detected exceeding a 80km/ph speed limit.
19,944 were detected exceeding a 100km/ph speed limit.
12,787 were detected exceeding a 120km/ph speed limit.

Source https://www.thejournal.ie/penalty-points-figures-4955966-Jan2020/

So hardly not being enforced or regulated

The number of speed checks and radar traps in 30Kph zones would seem to be negligible ( in so far as I very rarely see one in Dublin city center ) compared to the speed checks and radar traps outside of the canal zone.

Perhaps the number of posts on Garda Twitter might be used to show this as I don't recall many of them being of drivers caught speeding in the 30Kph areas, where as the number of drivers caught for drink/drug driving/no insurance/ etc. ( far worse crimes than doing 35-40 in a 30 zone ) would seem to be higher when rather than running 30 kph speed checks they actually run checkpoints.

As to how long before he speeds again, who knows, if he's a career offender no punishment will deter him, even taking his car and crushing it isn't likely to act as a deterrent. Maybe you'd like him executed as that is the only surefire way to prevent him re offending

Spook_ie · 27-08-2020 02:25PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Funny how much you have to say about this, and how little on certain other topics in discussion on the thread.

How about respect or disrespect for peoples safety and lives ? Personally I'd consider the actions of the driver in the video above, passing an unprotected family on a narrow road without slowing down a lot more "scrotebaggy" .

Tellingly though, and oh so predictably, you prefer to spend all your time posting about very minor infringements of property being "criminal damage" and how the kids who might do it are "scrotebags".

Maybe that's more because I prefer to talk about the points I raise rather than posting to just agree with people.

breezy1985 · 27-08-2020 02:47PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Respect or disrespect of property, give me a middle "grey" shade.

So about 25 on the 50 shades of grey spectrum. What's would the punishment be ; )

Duckjob · 27-08-2020 03:01PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Maybe that's more because I prefer to talk about the points I raise rather than posting to just agree with people.

I'm gratified to know that you find my posts so agreeable

Spook_ie · 27-08-2020 03:19PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

So about 25 on the 50 shades of grey spectrum. What's would the punishment be ; )

There is no 50 shades of grey, except in your liberal namby pamby world where scrotes don't deserve any punishment because sure, weren't they just having a lark.

However in the real world, we do actually have laws and punishments proscribed by the judiciary, so perhaps you'd like to direct that at a member of the judiciary.
However the range of punishments available to them is wide ranging as set in law.

Spook_ie · 27-08-2020 03:20PM

Duckjob wrote: »

I'm gratified to know that you find my posts so agreeable

I'm not posting on any sections that agree with you, perhaps, you misunderstood the point.

Duckjob · 27-08-2020 03:37PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no 50 shades of grey, except in your liberal namby pamby world where scrotes don't deserve any punishment because sure, weren't they just having a lark.

However in the real world, we do actually have laws and punishments proscribed by the judiciary, so perhaps you'd like to direct that at a member of the judiciary.
However the range of punishments available to them is wide ranging as set in law.

I've no problem admitting - I was that "scrote". Definitely wrote on a few dirty cars / vans when I was a kid. Even at that age I would have been appalled at the idea of anyone slashing a tyre or breaking a window though.

Somehow I still managed to grow from that "scrote" into a reasonably responsible adult.

Are you going to tell us all now that you never ever wrote on a dirty car as a kid ?

breezy1985 · 27-08-2020 03:58PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no 50 shades of grey, except in your liberal namby pamby world where scrotes don't deserve any punishment because sure, weren't they just having a lark.

However in the real world, we do actually have laws and punishments proscribed by the judiciary, so perhaps you'd like to direct that at a member of the judiciary.
However the range of punishments available to them is wide ranging as set in law.

I'm pretty sure there was definitely punishment handed out in 50 shades of grey for people who were naughty

07Lapierre · 27-08-2020 04:20PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Doesn't matter, he was regulated.

BTW the 98% is the 30Kph Urban speed limit, just so people know which figure you love to use.

Where as the rate of speeding for cars in all limits is actually ( still an unacceptably high ) 46%

Anyways to your question of how many drivers caught speeding.

Last year:

348 motorists were caught exceeded a 30km/ph speed limit.
38,060 were detected exceeding a 50km/ph speed limit.
19,367 were detected exceeding a 60km/ph speed limit.
14,255 were detected exceeding a 80km/ph speed limit.
19,944 were detected exceeding a 100km/ph speed limit.
12,787 were detected exceeding a 120km/ph speed limit.

Source https://www.thejournal.ie/penalty-points-figures-4955966-Jan2020/

So hardly not being enforced or regulated

The number of speed checks and radar traps in 30Kph zones would seem to be negligible ( in so far as I very rarely see one in Dublin city center ) compared to the speed checks and radar traps outside of the canal zone.

Perhaps the number of posts on Garda Twitter might be used to show this as I don't recall many of them being of drivers caught speeding in the 30Kph areas, where as the number of drivers caught for drink/drug driving/no insurance/ etc. ( far worse crimes than doing 35-40 in a 30 zone ) would seem to be higher when rather than running 30 kph speed checks they actually run checkpoints.

As to how long before he speeds again, who knows, if he's a career offender no punishment will deter him, even taking his car and crushing it isn't likely to act as a deterrent. Maybe you'd like him executed as that is the only surefire way to prevent him re offending

A few rocks would sort this out.

https://twitter.com/thefireuk/status/1298642552170721282?s=21

AndrewJRenko · 27-08-2020 08:19PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well in my mind you either respect the rule of law and common decency and respect for others property or you don't and if that means arguing/disagreeing with people on here, then so be it.

So just to be clear, you NEVER break the speed limit yourself, right? Never - no grey area, no namby pamby excuses - just respect for the rule of law and common decency - yeah?

Charles Babbage · 27-08-2020 08:35PM

Speeding breaks a law, but in terms of safety 101Kmh is not much different from 100kmh and so speeding is not a binary thing in terms of effect.
Cycling on the footpath is binary, you are either on the footpath or you are not, and so there is no justification for it whatsoever.

Spook_ie · 27-08-2020 08:40PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, you NEVER break the speed limit yourself, right? Never - no grey area, no namby pamby excuses - just respect for the rule of law and common decency - yeah?

I went through that argument with you several threads ago, not this thread but several ago, you can look up my answers to the same question there

micar · 27-08-2020 10:51PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Cycling on the footpath is binary, you are either on the footpath or you are not, and so there is no justification for it whatsoever.

You could the same thing about a parked car

Pure whataboutery.......

magicbastarder · 27-08-2020 11:13PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Speeding breaks a law, but in terms of safety 101Kmh is not much different from 100kmh and so speeding is not a binary thing in terms of effect.
Cycling on the footpath is binary, you are either on the footpath or you are not, and so there is no justification for it whatsoever.

another way at looking at your binary calculation.
a 1.5 ton car doing 100km/h has a kinetic energy of 578704J
a 1.5 ton car doing 101km/h has a kinetic energy of 590336J

a combined cyclist+bike weighing 80KG doing 20km/h on a footpath has a kinetic energy of 1234J.

in short, that trivial 1km/h increase in speed is an increase in kinetic energy nearly ten times what a cyclist might be carrying on a footpath.

or another way, a cyclist (combined weight of cyclist and bike of 80KG) going from 0 to 60km/h adds less to their kinetic energy than a car going from 100 to 101km/h.

TaurenDruid · 27-08-2020 11:43PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

another way at looking at your binary calculation.
a 1.5 ton car doing 100km/h has a kinetic energy of 578704J
a 1.5 ton car doing 101km/h has a kinetic energy of 590336J

a combined cyclist+bike weighing 80KG doing 20km/h on a footpath has a kinetic energy of 1234J.

in short, that trivial 1km/h increase in speed is an increase in kinetic energy nearly ten times what a cyclist might be carrying on a footpath.

or another way, a cyclist (combined weight of cyclist and bike of 80KG) going from 0 to 60km/h adds less to their kinetic energy than a car going from 100 to 101km/h.

The super-lightweight cyclist-and-bike combo you postulate might only have a kinetic energy of 1.2kJ, but it does not require a force 1.2kJ to injure someone, cause them to drop their belongings, knock them over, cause them to jump out of the way - possibly into traffic, or cause them needless distress. On a bike on the footpath? Dismount, and wheel it. Simple.

Spook_ie · 28-08-2020 12:47AM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The super-lightweight cyclist-and-bike combo you postulate might only have a kinetic energy of 1.2kJ, but it does not require a force 1.2kJ to injure someone, cause them to drop their belongings, knock them over, cause them to jump out of the way - possibly into traffic, or cause them needless distress. On a bike on the footpath? Dismount, and wheel it. Simple.

Wonder what the effect is on the human torso of being hit by a 25mm bar in their midriff or small of the back with that kind of force?

jackofalltrades · 28-08-2020 03:19AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

another way at looking at your binary calculation.
a 1.5 ton car doing 100km/h has a kinetic energy of 578704J
a 1.5 ton car doing 101km/h has a kinetic energy of 590336J

a combined cyclist+bike weighing 80KG doing 20km/h on a footpath has a kinetic energy of 1234J.

in short, that trivial 1km/h increase in speed is an increase in kinetic energy nearly ten times what a cyclist might be carrying on a footpath.

or another way, a cyclist (combined weight of cyclist and bike of 80KG) going from 0 to 60km/h adds less to their kinetic energy than a car going from 100 to 101km/h.

Imagine being on a popular TV or Radio programme and making that argument.
Do you think the audience or listeners/viewers would be won over to your side by it?
It's embarrassing, but not as much as this sh*t show of a thread and the moderation of it.
This thread was created to complain about cycling on footpaths and wind cyclists up.
But rather than take it on the chin and not rise to the bait, certain posters from the cycling forum just can't let it go.

magicbastarder · 28-08-2020 06:07AM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The super-lightweight cyclist-and-bike combo you postulate might only have a kinetic energy of 1.2kJ, but it does not require a force 1.2kJ to injure someone, cause them to drop their belongings, knock them over, cause them to jump out of the way - possibly into traffic, or cause them needless distress. On a bike on the footpath? Dismount, and wheel it. Simple.

I never claimed otherwise. I was bemused at the 'speeding is not really speeding but cycling on footpaths is dangerous' argument.

magicbastarder · 28-08-2020 06:20AM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Imagine being on a popular TV or Radio programme and making that argument.

this is not a popular TV or radio program.
you could make the above argument about probably every single post in this thread. or the vast majority of posts on boards.

07Lapierre · 28-08-2020 08:09AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wonder what the effect is on the human torso of being hit by a 25mm bar in their midriff or small of the back with that kind of force?

?? I don’t see many cyclists cycling along holding a steel pipe out front like a sword? Any injuries from being impaled by the end of a handlebar are a risk taken by the cyclist, not a pedestrian. BTW that happened to me a few years ago. Yes it hurts... but I’m still here.

Pinch Flat · 28-08-2020 09:11AM

lots of kids back this morning around Dublin 15. Great to see so many cycling. A lot on the paths - hopefully the penny will drop with the council and join the dots where cycle lanes don't exist.

breezy1985 · 28-08-2020 09:45AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Speeding breaks a law, but in terms of safety 101Kmh is not much different from 100kmh and so speeding is not a binary thing in terms of effect.
Cycling on the footpath is binary, you are either on the footpath or you are not, and so there is no justification for it whatsoever.

I'm not disagreeing as I hate cycling on the footpath but there is the odd justification like when a cycle path stops every 10 seconds to yield for a driveway or some just stop abruptly without reason and you have to use the path to get onto the road. This is particularly common on roundabout cycle paths. There are also way too many paths that cut right across the wait area/button for the green man

DoraDelite · 28-08-2020 11:04AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

lots of kids back this morning around Dublin 15. Great to see so many cycling. A lot on the paths - hopefully the penny will drop with the council and join the dots where cycle lanes don't exist.

Noticed that also yesterday morning in D9. Loads of kids cycling to school but having to do it on the footpath as there isn't a single safe cycle lane in the area. When it's 20-30 kids on the path it's fairly a stark contrast to see. DCC should be embarrassed with how bad it really is.

magicbastarder · 28-08-2020 11:14AM

at least they've started on a segregated cycle path along griffith avenue. seemed to start quickly and not a lot of progress on it though, from what little i've seen.

Thelonious Monk · 28-08-2020 11:15AM

DoraDelite wrote: »

Noticed that also yesterday morning in D9. Loads of kids cycling to school but having to do it on the footpath as there isn't a single safe cycle lane in the area. When it's 20-30 kids on the path it's fairly a stark contrast to see. DCC should be embarrassed with how bad it really is.

Cycle lanes would be great but anyone who has a problem with kids cycling to school on footpaths just has a chip on their shoulder. For all the talk of kinetic energy and weight, bicycles are not harming anyone, except for the one or two posters here which cyclists are clearly targeting.

AndrewJRenko · 28-08-2020 11:20AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

I went through that argument with you several threads ago, not this thread but several ago, you can look up my answers to the same question there

So presumably you break the speed limit routinely, like the vast majority of motorists, while banging on about the importance of 'respect for law' from other people, but not yourself.

Similar to your own views on hi-vis really - something for other people, but not you.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Speeding breaks a law, but in terms of safety 101Kmh is not much different from 100kmh and so speeding is not a binary thing in terms of effect.
Cycling on the footpath is binary, you are either on the footpath or you are not, and so there is no justification for it whatsoever.

So there's absolutely no difference between cycling on the footpath at 5kmph with a child perhaps and tearing along the footpath at 30 kmph on a road bike?

Good to know...

Interesting perspective from the UK on some of the broader issues:
https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1299256906632933376?s=20

Duckjob · 28-08-2020 11:40AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Speeding breaks a law, but in terms of safety 101Kmh is not much different from 100kmh [100% physics viewpoint] and so speeding is not a binary thing in terms of effect.
Cycling on the footpath is binary, you are either on the footpath or you are not [100% legal view] , and so there is no justification for it whatsoever.

Nonsense post. At least make some sort attempt to dress up your biased garbage.

From a physics viewpoint, There's a whole spectrum of ways of cycling on the footpath, ranging from getting around respectfully and always giving priority to pedestrians to flying through crowded paths at 30kph like a king d**k. It's far from binary to anybody whose mind doesn't start frothing as soon as the topic of cycling comes up.

Or if you want to use a legal view point, speeding of any sort is illegal. You're either speeding or you're not, so i'm pretty sure its as binary as cycling on the footpath.

Pick whichever position you like, just try to have a modicum of consistency.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wonder what the effect is on the human torso of being hit by a 25mm bar in their midriff or small of the back with that kind of force?

You'll probably need to carry on wondering since any documented examples of this very specific arrangement happening and with any sort of serious consequence seem to be pretty short supply.

DoraDelite · 28-08-2020 11:52AM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Cycle lanes would be great but anyone who has a problem with kids cycling to school on footpaths just has a chip on their shoulder. For all the talk of kinetic energy and weight, bicycles are not harming anyone, except for the one or two posters here which cyclists are clearly targeting.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have no issue with kids cycling on footpaths. I just thought when there was such large numbers of them that it made the absence of safe cycling infrastructure more obvious than usual. DCC need to get the finger out. DLRCC have already shown how quickly this type of infrastructure can be built. Just get it done!

Spook_ie · 28-08-2020 12:15PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So presumably you break the speed limit routinely, like the vast majority of motorists, while banging on about the importance of 'respect for law' from other people, but not yourself.

Similar to your own views on hi-vis really - something for other people, but not you.

So there's absolutely no difference between cycling on the footpath at 5kmph with a child perhaps and tearing along the footpath at 30 kmph on a road bike?

Good to know...

Interesting perspective from the UK on some of the broader issues:
https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1299256906632933376?s=20

Me thinks you presume too much, use the search function, I think you were involved in the thread, if not then apologies but I'm not going through the same old tired arguments from cyclists.

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments