30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

It is important to discuss the double standards seen between the main road user groups as the proposed 30km/h speed limits I feel are accommodating those in cyclist and pedestrian groups who hold a double standard for their behaviour.

Respect is not likely going to be afforded to those who hold double standards due to the inherent dishonesty that goes along with it. For example, while it isn't illegal to cycle abreast, surely those that part take in this know that doing so is inconvenient to the motorists stuck behind them. Furthermore, being an inconvenience is inconsiderate which not a respectable human trait.

The pedestrain equivalent of this is walking on the road when there is a perfectly good footpath next to them. There are obvious exceptions to this such as when cars are illegally blocking the footpath or where the width of the kerb is occupied by on coming pedestrians or where the kerb is in a bad state. Then there are those who barge on to the road when the pedestrian light is still red when traffic is already moving. I realize that if it is safe and convenient to do so, that is a different story.

It is my belief that many of the posters here or members of the general public who are pushing for the implementation of 30km/h speed limits are the same ones who hold double standards for cyclists and pedestrians and are happy to navigate the roads anyway they see fit regardless of the inconvenience it causes motorists. This should certainly not be glorified or encouraged.

I acknowledge that when motorists make mistakes, it is often fatal for more vulnerable road users. I wont down play the seriousness of this as cars, trucks and buses are weapons in the wrong hands. Then, there is the criminal variety who careen into droves of cyclists or pedestrians on footpaths who have no business being behind the wheel.

I amn't against 30km/h speed limits on side roads or cul de sacs as they are off the beaten track which bigger vehicles like buses and trucks would seldom use. I do think they are inappropriate for main roads or important arterial routes.

You really should get your facts straight before commenting. Cycling abreast is absolutely NOT illegal, yet here you are, making judgments about an entire group, based on your own lack of knowledge.

There is no collective responsibility on any group of users. We all deserve to be safe on the road, regardless of the behaviour of others who happen to use the same mode of transport.

It’s absolutely appropriate and sensible that double standards apply to motorists and cyclists. Why would you expect the same standards to apply to a 10-20kg bike doing 10-30 kmph and a 1-5 tonne vehicle doing 20-150 kmph?

This is almost the definition of whataboutery

Does the double standard and different regulations around paracetamol and morphine lead to resentment by morphine? Should paracetamol be prescription only just to make morphine users feel better?

The theory that double standards lead to resentment is hugely infantile. Get over yourself.

@magicbastarder explained politely and clearly above why cycling 2 abreast is only a nuisance or inconvenience to those drivers who are determined to breach the Road Traffic Act (Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 to 2019, Article 10, Paragraph 1) and who are determined to ignore this sign.

If you are doing a legal overtake of a cyclist on a standard road in an average sized car, you are going to have at least two wheels over the centre line, so you need to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and perform a safe overtaking manoeuvre. If you are passing two bikes side by side you're still waiting for the exact same gap in oncoming traffic to perform your overtaking manoeuvre so it shouldn't inconvenience you in the slightest that they are choosing to cycle side by side rather than one behind the other. Indeed, if it is a group of cyclists and they choose to travel two abreast, they are actually facilitating passing drivers rather than inconveniencing them as they are halving the distance the driver needs to be in the oncoming lane to complete the overtaking manoeuvre.

Even after @magicbastarder's explanation you continue to refer to people being "a nuisance or an inconvenience to others". Does this mean that you just didn't see @magicbastarder's post? Or that you did see it but you disagree with it on some basis? If that is the case then I don't think I'm the only one who would be very interested in understanding which part you disagree with. Or are you in the cohort of drivers who think it's OK to illegally squeeze past people on bikes while both of you are still fully in the same 3m lane?

You highlight "nuisance and inconvenience" from the perception of someone driving as your chief concern but if you stop to think about it from the perception of the person on the bike it's not "nuisance and inconvenience" that they are experiencing when someone close passes them at anything other than a crawling speed. When a driver does that to me when I'm on my bike it's visceral fear, and sense that my life has been needlessly endangered by some inconsiderate asshole, that I'm experiencing. I drove to work three days this week and cycled on two days. I did experience "nuisance and inconvenience" while driving behind someone on a bike but that was caused not by the person cycling, but rather by the driver behind me expressing their frustration that I was waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake the cyclist, by driving right up my arse and revving their engine.

As I type this in Galway I'm very conscious of the cyclist who suffered life changing injuries here yesterday evening when rear-ended by a driver and another elderly cyclist just north of us in Mayo who is in hospital with serious injuries after being hit by a driver the day before. And most upsettingly, the case of a 9 year old who was hit by a driver just around the corner from here yesterday, and where one of my friends was among the first on the scene. He had to deal with another driver demanding that the injured child (with an open head wound) be moved off the road rather than waiting for the ambulance to arrive, so he (the driver) could go about his business unhindered. Apparently he wasn't a fan of "nuisance and inconvenience" caused by vulnerable road users either. 

"..Motorists have every right to find this legally sactioned tosser behaviour annoying...."

If something that is legal enrages you because it delays you. Perhaps thats an anger management issue rather than a 30kph limit issue.

As a cyclist, I find the legally sanctioned tosser behaviour of driving around with an empty couch and armchair for short journeys that are easily walked or cycled, doing it deliberately to hold me up on my bike. They never move over when I come up behind.