Comment on Why cyclists should NOT get the same fines as motorists | Car Culture 6 - Motonormativity
Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 months agowhich is essentially just a jogging pace
It’s slower than a slow jog.
The complication I also saw is that few people would have a speedometer on their bike so it would need some common sense and judgement
This exactly. But you don’t need speed limits to do that. Just enforce the usual reckless driving/riding laws.
Police like speed limits because they’re lazy as fuck and can just set up a trap without having to do any real work. They like it against cyclists especially because they’re arseholes who hate cyclists. (As evidence for this, I submit the fact that they regularly do “bell blitzes” despite the fact that bells are a completely useless implement when you have a voice, as well as how they enforce these ridiculous speed limits. And the fact that they refuse to ever prosecute dangerous driving by drivers when reported by cyclists with video evidence.)
ApeNo1@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I think saying it is slower than a slow jog underplays it a bit. 10km/h is a 6 min km which is a common running speed for amateur runners and a reasonable speed, 12km/h is a 5 min km which requires above average fitness, and 15km/h is a 4 min km which is an elite amateur pace. Anything approaching 20km/h is elite professional athlete level.
I think the point is still the same though. You have now introduced another new term to me. “Bell Blitz”. Really going after those worst of crimes.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 months ago
I’m a runner and personally, my slow easy runs might go as slow as 5:30s, at the extreme end, which is why I said that 10 km/h is slower than a slow jog. 5:00s is more my usual slow run pace for runs less than 12 km in distance. But yeah, I guess it’s mainly a semantic point. The important thing is that when running, one can easily exceed the supposed speed limit on that bridge, which is just crazy.
The bell blitzes strike me as the same kind of stupid as when they crack down on “jaywalking” by pedestrians in the CBD. In a better world, our entire CBD would be a shared-use zone where cars can drive if they need to, but pedestrians always have right of way. Likewise, the bell law should just be done away with. But our politicians are so car-brained the idea of these is abhorrent to them.
abhibeckert@beehaw.org 8 months ago
Pedestrians always do have right of way, at least in QLD. There’s no situation where it’s acceptable to run over a pedestrian except if it was literally impossible to avoid doing so (e.g. if a pedestrian sprints across the street at high speed with no time for the driver to swerve or hit the brakes).
That doesn’t mean it’s legal for pedestrians to obstruct traffic. Doing so tends to create traffic jams which create situations where pedestrians/cyclists/etc are more likely to be killed. J-Walking fines on high traffic streets, should absolutely be handed out.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 months ago
Incorrect. Yes, a driver will get in trouble if they recklessly run into a pedestrian, but the driver still has right of way when continuing along a straight road, or when at an intersection where the pedestrian has a red light.
I’m not interested in that semantic argument some people like to get into about the difference between “right of way” and “must give way to”. One is just the inverse of the other. No more, no less.
It’s not the same as a fully pedestrianised mall, like Queen Street, or a mixed-use area like Albert Street between Adelaide St and Burnett Ln. That latter is what I’m chiefly talking about here. That’s how the CBD should be designed.