Impact of Luas Cross City

OleRodrigo · 28-07-2017 1:38pm

bazermc wrote: »

Well lads. The advert, and its incorrect information has annoyed me so much I have made a complaint to the Advertising standards agency. I'll let ye know how I get on.

Have you considered calling Joe? Such an outrage deserves no less!

Mr. Grieves · 28-07-2017 1:41pm

Ok, I did a little test on my lunch break:

Flat road, dry tarmac, slight headwind.
Rider + bike = 78 kg
Brakes: hydraulic discs with 180mm rotors front, 160mm rear
Tyres: 29er, 2.3" wide, approx 20 psi

At 30 km/hr, on my 5th attempt, I manged to stop in 4 m. It took a little practice, my first attempt was 7 m. You need to throw your weight backwards and even still the back wheel is lifting.

I don't think you would get a much better setup in terms of brakes/grip, but further practice would give further improvements, I think.

Of course reaction time is not included as I was anticipating the line on the road where I would start braking.

I may repeat this on the road bike in the wet to get a 'worst-case' number.

flatface · 28-07-2017 2:30pm

I know from painful experience that I emergency brake slower than a taxi. I try to keep more distance now but car brakes are more effective IMO

Mr. Grieves · 28-07-2017 2:36pm

flatface wrote: »

I know from painful experience that I emergency brake slower than a taxi. I try to keep more distance now but car brakes are more effective IMO

Hence the username? :P

ford2600 · 28-07-2017 3:27pm

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

Ok, I did a little test on my lunch break:

Flat road, dry tarmac, slight headwind.
Rider + bike = 78 kg
Brakes: hydraulic discs with 180mm rotors front, 160mm rear
Tyres: 29er, 2.3" wide, approx 20 psi

At 30 km/hr, on my 5th attempt, I manged to stop in 4 m. It took a little practice, my first attempt was 7 m. You need to throw your weight backwards and even still the back wheel is lifting.

I don't think you would get a much better setup in terms of brakes/grip, but further practice would give further improvements, I think.

Of course reaction time is not included as I was anticipating the line on the road where I would start braking.

I may repeat this on the road bike in the wet to get a 'worst-case' number.

Friction factor of 0.884, which is pretty decent.

Really hard to get to 0.95; where you doing a manual abs or had you full lockup?

Mr. Grieves · 28-07-2017 4:09pm

Front didn't lock (but according to your graph must have been slipping to some degree), back did but it was lifting off the ground anyway. I guess if I got my weight further back the front would lock too.

There's probably a few large sources of error in my measurement, the biggest being the exact location where I first applied the brakes. A slo-mo video would probably be useful for recording that.

Mr. Grieves · 28-07-2017 4:17pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Friction factor of 0.884, which is pretty decent.

How do you calculate this?

ford2600 · 28-07-2017 4:25pm

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

How do you calculate this?

On phone so forgive notation.

For where vehicle brakes to a stop

Initial velocity squared = 2.(f)(g)(d)

Where f is dimensionless friction factor
g iso gravitational constant 9.81
d is skid distance

Velocity is in m/s BTW!

papu · 28-07-2017 4:49pm

ford2600 wrote: »

On phone so forgive notation.

For where vehicle brakes to a stop

Initial velocity squared = 2.(f)(g)(d)

Where f is dimensionless friction factor
g iso gravitational constant 9.81
d is skid distance

Velocity is in m/s BTW!

Here is a calculator and background

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/crstp.html

OleRodrigo · 28-07-2017 8:30pm

So the Luas travels at around 20 kmph around junctions with pedestrians and vehicles. We can assume it will continue to do so around the contentious junctions of the Cross City extension.

Bikes have an average speed of 12 kmph, but lets say a median speed of 17 kmph in the city center.

What have the stopping distances mentioned got to do with anything, in this context ?

tomasrojo · 29-07-2017 5:07pm

Sticky bottle has an article about how often people on bikes make the Luas do emergency stops. Not all that often, all things considered.
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/luas-reveals-number-incidents-cyclists-drivers-pedestrians/

papu · 29-07-2017 6:07pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Sticky bottle has an article about how often people on bikes make the Luas do emergency stops. Not all that often, all things considered.
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/luas-reveals-number-incidents-cyclists-drivers-pedestrians/

That's a good write up, the messages between the three campaigns have been very much skewed against the least hazardous and dangerous mode of transport. If they really wanted to combat luas collisions, hold ups and emergency brakes they would continually run sponsored advertisement for motorists.

OleRodrigo · 29-07-2017 6:45pm

All things considered, its what you might expect. Cyclists are a small portion of traffic in the city center, compared with vehicles and pedestrians, including at points of intersection with the Luas.

I'd bet their percentage of incidents is broadly in line with their population percentage.

magicbastarder · 29-07-2017 9:07pm

so is it just me who didn't really see a fault with the video?
they tackled the three main categories of road user who might interact with the luas. what's the implication - that because cyclists are the third most likely to be hit, that it shouldn't be addressed?

papu · 29-07-2017 9:31pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

so is it just me who didn't really see a fault with the video?
they tackled the three main categories of road user who might interact with the luas. what's the implication - that because cyclists are the third most likely to be hit, that it shouldn't be addressed?

Did you read the article?

tomasrojo · 30-07-2017 12:28pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Funnily enough, cycling is more important, not just than the Luas, but than rail in total, according to recent data. 50% higher modal share.
https://twitter.com/HanneyDP/status/881529097666654209

That's nationally. Not sure what restricting focus to Dublin would do: both rail and cycling would be a bigger proportion.

Well, I need wonder no longer. More people carried by bike than rail in Dublin.

Census 2016 results show that that 54,009 people put cycling down as their main mode of transport to work and education, while 50,970 people use Luas, Dart, and Commuter Rail.
Those cycling amount to 7.1% of residents commuters, while all types of rail commuters account for 6.7%.

http://irishcycle.com/2017/07/30/more-residents-commute-by-bicycle-than-by-luas-and-dart-in-dublin-city-and-suburbs/

Feckofff · 30-07-2017 12:47pm

What width tyre would you need to be safe on the tracks?

I'm thinking of throwing a fat tyre on the front just to stop supermaning over the handle bars.

ED E · 30-07-2017 12:54pm

Cant find the spec, its 1435mm (Standard Gauge) but thats the internal measurement.

At a guess 45mm+ would be ok. They're still slippy c*nts though.

Arcade_Tryer · 30-07-2017 1:35pm

Or you could slow down and turn your handlebars toward a right angle when crossing the tracks? You'll lose momentum and it will lead to an increased journey time, but you won't fall.

ED E · 30-07-2017 2:30pm

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Or you could slow down and turn your handlebars toward a right angle when crossing the tracks? You'll lose momentum and it will lead to an increased journey time, but you won't fall.

Try that in three columns of traffic with a Dublin Bus on your heel and let us know how you get on.

Safe crossings are not possible due to the failure of a design.

HivemindXX · 30-07-2017 2:47pm

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Or you could slow down and turn your handlebars toward a right angle when crossing the tracks? You'll lose momentum and it will lead to an increased journey time, but you won't fall.

Swerving out in to traffic is a very stupid idea. This is the issue when people who don't understand the problem think they have an easy solution.

Arcade_Tryer · 30-07-2017 11:17pm

ED E wrote: »

Try that in three columns of traffic with a Dublin Bus on your heel and let us know how you get on.

Safe crossings are not possible due to the failure of a design.

HivemindXX wrote: »

Swerving out in to traffic is a very stupid idea. This is the issue when people who don't understand the problem think they have an easy solution.

My bad. You're both right.

Doctor Bob · 31-07-2017 5:33pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

so is it just me who didn't really see a fault with the video?

No. I thought some of the framing was a bit questionable - as noted, the fact that it was aimed at passengers rather than cyclists - but I don't have an issue with the video itself.

I think some of the reactions have been a bit OTT too. There's some validity to the assertions of the various campaign groups, but they're dressed up in such alarmist rhetoric ('ghastly language', 'hate speech', 'incitement to hate', 'profit over people', etc.) that the message gets lost. This make it quite easy to dismiss their legitimate concerns as the ravings of a bunch of cranks.

Arcade_Tryer · 31-07-2017 11:25pm

Doctor Bob wrote: »

No. I thought some of the framing was a bit questionable - as noted, the fact that it was aimed at passengers rather than cyclists - but I don't have an issue with the video itself.

I think some of the reactions have been a bit OTT too. There's some validity to the assertions of the various campaign groups, but they're dressed up in such alarmist rhetoric ('ghastly language', 'hate speech', 'incitement to hate', 'profit over people', etc.) that the message gets lost. This make it quite easy to dismiss their legitimate concerns as the ravings of a bunch of cranks.

I think the reaction might stem from the systematic treatment of cyclists in society. For example, I had a situation recently where one or two vehicles genuinely put me in a near death situation, and a while later, with the shock still present from the previous incidents, I reacted quite strongly to a pretty close pass; nothing over the top, but I would not have reacted in the same way had it not been for the initial incidents.

The reaction to the Luas video cannot be viewed in isolation. It needs to be understood within the context of cycling in this country. Whether Luas should also have shown more awareness in this regard is debatable. In my view, they could have delivered a similar message without singling out cyclists, who are a vulnerable and oft mistreated group on our roads.

bazermc · 01-08-2017 2:14pm

bazermc wrote: »

Well lads. The advert, and its incorrect information has annoyed me so much I have made a complaint to the Advertising standards agency. I'll let ye know how I get on.

Well here's what I got back

RE: Safety Notice for the Luas
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT]Dear Mr. xx,
I refer to your complaint received regarding the above matter a copy of which was acknowledged to you by post today.
The function of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland is to ensure that advertisers comply with the requirements of the Code of Standards for Advertising and Marketing Communications in Ireland and to investigate complaints concerning advertisements that may be considered to be in breach of the Code.
The Code applies to advertisements carried in the media (e.g. press, radio, television, cinema, brochures, direct mail, etc) and to promotions and promotional material. Having reviewed the poster referenced in your complaint, we consider it to be a ‘safety notice’ and a matter of public interest rather than a marketing communication and it is therefore not within the remit of the Code.
We have, however, brought your complaint to the attention of Veolia Transport (the Luas) without disclosing your name and address so that they are aware of your concerns.
While we are not in a position to pursue your complaint we are grateful that you took the time to let us know your concerns in the matter.
Yours sincerely,
xxxx
CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER
[/FONT][/FONT]

OleRodrigo · 01-08-2017 2:24pm

I would agree that it is (and should be taken as ) a safety notice.

Your biggest problem as a cyclist in the city centre, is other cyclists and pedestrians. Not trams, tracks, cars or other vehicles.

07Lapierre · 01-08-2017 2:28pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

I would agree that it is (and should be taken as ) a safety notice.

Your biggest problem as a cyclist in the city centre, is other cyclists and pedestrians. Not trams, tracks, cars or other vehicles.

Really?

OleRodrigo · 01-08-2017 2:32pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Really?

You disagree?

Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

tomasrojo · 01-08-2017 2:32pm

The *basic* point in the "stopping distance" ad is reasonable (the Luas takes a lot longer to stop than you might think). That's all the ad had to say, instead of getting into the odd notion that bikes can stop on a dime, or are practically stationary in the first place, or whatever was in their heads.

Their framing is weird in both campaigns, the "emergency stop" one and the "stopping distance" one. Especially the former.

tomasrojo · 01-08-2017 2:35pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

Define "problem", I suppose. More likely to have a collision with another cyclist or with a pedestrian, maybe, but a trivial outcome way more likely.

I have to say that I find tram tracks harder to deal with than pedestrians, but only at a few points where crossing at right angles isn't an option. I haven't tried the cross-city route yet, and I might just avoid it from now on, from what I've heard.

AndrewJRenko · 01-08-2017 2:55pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Your biggest problem as a cyclist in the city centre, is other cyclists and pedestrians. Not trams, tracks, cars or other vehicles.

The death and injury statistics would suggest otherwise. Not too many cyclists get killed by other cyclists or pedestrians

OleRodrigo · 01-08-2017 3:03pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Define "problem", I suppose. More likely to have a collision with another cyclist or with a pedestrian, maybe, but a trivial outcome way more likely.

I have to say that I find tram tracks harder to deal with than pedestrians, but only at a few points where crossing at right angles isn't an option. I haven't tried the cross-city route yet, and I might just avoid it from now on, from what I've heard.

Anything from getting on your nerves, forcing you to brake/ swerve... to a collision, I'd say.

07Lapierre · 01-08-2017 3:04pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

You disagree?

Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

Yes I disagree... Other cyclists or pedestrians won't cause serious injury or death. other cyclists/pedestrians don't tend to pass by and shout abuse at me!

OleRodrigo · 01-08-2017 3:05pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The death and injury statistics would suggest otherwise. Not too many cyclists get killed by other cyclists or pedestrians

My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.

tomasrojo · 01-08-2017 4:01pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.

That's a pretty uncivil response to a perfectly civil post.

Mr. Grieves · 01-08-2017 5:16pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.

Does your mam's cat think it can stop a bike at 25 km/hr in 1m? Or does it know something about cycling?

Arcade_Tryer · 01-08-2017 5:16pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.

Not only do you attack the poster and not the post, but you do so in an attempt to defend against having your argument defeated by the data. Please disappear.

OleRodrigo · 01-08-2017 6:21pm

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Please disappear.

Is that you, Harry Potter?

CramCycle · 02-08-2017 12:46am

MOD VOICE: Handbags down, if you cannot accept, debate, or counter the point made, then it is time to leave the discussion until you can

check_six · 02-08-2017 10:05am

bazermc wrote: »

Well here's what I got back

RE: Safety Notice for the Luas
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT]Dear Mr. xx,
Blah blah blah...

...we consider it to be a ‘safety notice’ and a matter of public interest rather than a marketing communication and it is therefore not within the remit of the Code.

Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

Yours sincerely,
xxxx
CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER
[/FONT][/FONT]

Well done for sending in a formal complaint. I find it intriguing that a poster that targets one class of transport with a load of nonsense antifacts can be classed as a 'safety notice' and that makes it okay. I would be interested to see where we could go with this.
"Unlike bicycles, Luas Trams eat babies."
It's a 'safety notice' so it gets a pass, yes? If someone is handy with the ol' photoshoppe they might whip up a poster and we could have it on rotation with the 'official' ones by the end of the week.

Mr. Grieves · 02-08-2017 10:20am

I saw another one, "unlike your bike, a tram can't swerve", or similar wording.

That's reasonable, and actually when you think about how predictably the Luas moves, any collision with another road user (mainly cars according to the stats) probably involves serious misjudgement on the part of that user, and not the Luas driver.

mcgratheoin · 02-08-2017 10:33am

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

That more or less explains cycling risk while glossing over how we measure "potentially", "likely" and "problem" from the point of risk assessment. While the probablility of adverse interaction with peds & cyclists may be higher, the potential severity of the outcome is much lower. A risk assessment takes both into account.

OleRodrigo · 02-08-2017 12:11pm

mcgratheoin wrote: »

That more or less explains cycling risk while glossing over how we measure "potentially", "likely" and "problem" from the point of risk assessment. While the probablility of adverse interaction with peds & cyclists may be higher, the potential severity of the outcome is much lower. A risk assessment takes both into account.

That's true, but for practical purposes we shouldn't need such a watertight definition.

In any case, motor traffic between the canals moves slower (overall) which has weight on how much of a problem it should be considered as.

With a higher concentration of peds and cyclists between the canals, and slower moving vehicles, there is a higher risk of a ' problem ' but a lower risk of it being serious.

OleRodrigo · 02-08-2017 12:18pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's a pretty uncivil response to a perfectly civil post.

Its a reasonable response to anyone who would rather whinge on the internet rather then get out and do something about a problem in the real world.

Not that there is a problem with the Cross City Luas extension, which makes the whining posts about it weaker still.

Furiously thanking posts doesn't count !

07Lapierre · 02-08-2017 12:45pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Its a reasonable response to anyone who would rather whinge on the internet rather then get out and do something about a problem in the real world.

!

What do you suggest we do?

OleRodrigo · 02-08-2017 1:20pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

What do you suggest we do?

Get the Luas instead. Then we can have a thread complaining about junkies

I don't think threes anything that needs be done - the project already has an awareness campaign. That should be enough.

07Lapierre · 02-08-2017 1:30pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Get the Luas instead. Then we can have a thread complaining about junkies

I don't think threes anything that needs be done - the project already has an awareness campaign. That should be enough.

Ah ok... I thought you wanted us to do something about cyclists and pedestrians!

DanDublin1982 · 02-08-2017 2:45pm

check_six wrote: »

Well done for sending in a formal complaint. I find it intriguing that a poster that targets one class of transport with a load of nonsense antifacts can be classed as a 'safety notice' and that makes it okay. I would be interested to see where we could go with this.
"Unlike bicycles, Luas Trams eat babies."
It's a 'safety notice' so it gets a pass, yes? If someone is handy with the ol' photoshoppe they might whip up a poster and we could have it on rotation with the 'official' ones by the end of the week.

Actually I read the response as saying he basically agreed with the complaint but dealing with it really wasn't in his remit.

papu · 02-08-2017 2:57pm

check_six wrote: »

Well done for sending in a formal complaint. I find it intriguing that a poster that targets one class of transport with a load of nonsense antifacts can be classed as a 'safety notice' and that makes it okay. I would be interested to see where we could go with this.
"Unlike bicycles, Luas Trams eat babies."
It's a 'safety notice' so it gets a pass, yes? If someone is handy with the ol' photoshoppe they might whip up a poster and we could have it on rotation with the 'official' ones by the end of the week.

voila

check_six · 02-08-2017 3:03pm

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Actually I read the response as saying he basically agreed with the complaint but dealing with it really wasn't in his remit.

Well, yes, that is what they said, but I still feel that you shouldn't be allowed to throw up any old rubbish on signs all over Dublin and get away with it because somehow you can write anything on a 'safety notice'.

Impact of Luas Cross City

Comments