Damn Cyclists!!

Silent Bob

There is no way I am going to take the whole "we are the most vulnerable road users" stuff from cyclists any more.

I was on my way home from work and EVERY single cyclist that I saw at a red traffic light broke it. Not a majority of cyclists, every single one.

Not only that, but only one of them was wearing a helmet.

Surely it is time for cyclists as a group to grow up and put some effort into their safety. The fact that you are propelling your vehicle yourself does not make you invulnerable to head injuries, nor does it give you a right to ignore the law.

mike65

The righteous rage of a true motorist!

The trouble with cylcists is that they're all smug, tree huggers
who belive they are without sin and therefore cannot be killed by
sinners (planet killing morotists).

That and the fact this country has a lasse faire attitude the heath and safety in just about every walk of life...

Mike.

Silent Bob

Actually I cycle in and out of work...

And yes I do wear a helmet and I obey the rules of the road (besides, a red traffic light provides a nice excuse to take a rest:))

mike65

Originally posted by Silent Bob
Actually I cycle in and out of work...

And yes I do wear a helmet and I obey the rules of the road (besides, a red traffic light provides a nice excuse to take a rest:))

Smug Mr Sensible "I have a nice big shiny helmet" cyclist ! :mad:

Mike.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by mike65
Smug Mr Sensible "I have a nice big shiny helmet" cyclist ! :mad:

Mike.

Guilty as charged!

I have to say that I would still prefer driving a motorbike...

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by mike65
The righteous rage of a true motorist!

The trouble with cylcists is that they're all smug, tree huggers
who belive they are without sin and therefore cannot be killed by
sinners (planet killing morotists).

That and the fact this country has a lasse faire attitude the heath and safety in just about every walk of life...

Mike.

Personally when I was cycling I found other cyclists more dangerous than cars. Now that I'm getting the train I find that more dangerous again. So overcrowded this evening it was worst than Tokyo!!!! Can't wait till I can get back to my car again. Public transport is terrible.

Silent Bob

Today was better. 4 other cyclists with helmets, one of whom was stopped at a red light :eek:

Perhaps a law to make it compulsory to wear a helmet if cycling on public roads would be a good thing?

jammy_dodger

tbh honest the cyclist are the ones doing themselves an infavour, they're the ones who will get milled for not wearing a helmet. Im a cyclist and i don't wear a helmet, why, cause they're g@y.
ignorance is bliss

Chimaera

As a motorist and a cyclist, I can see valid points made here on both sides.

When I'm cycling, I always wear a helmet - the consequences of whacking my head off the ground at 30mph give me nightmares. Most decent helmets look pretty funky too

On the red lights thing, I run them myself sometimes when on the bike, but only when I can do so without endangering myself. Most often, I'll go through a red light to turn left when there is no traffic approaching from the right (basically treating the light as a yield sign). I'll also go through a 4-cross roads if I have some speed up, and I know that the lights are red on the other road too (often when someone has used the pedestrian crossing and the lights haven't changed back). I'm not going to cycle into a situation where I'm likely to get splatted by a car, especially when I don't have the right of way. I'm taking a chance when I run a red light, but it's always a calculated risk on my part. I like being alive

I've been knocked off my bike twice by motorists - both times the motorist was at fault. I was lucky both times not to be injured, especially when I was doing about 20mph both times.

I've seen little enough silliness by cyclists while driving - mostly, it's just people not wearing helmets. Nothing has stuck in my mind as a particularly stupid move by a cyclist, though I've probably seen a few.

There are problems on both sides here. Motorists a lot of the time tend to treat cyclists as second-class citizens. Cyclists as a result flaunt a lot of rules (cycle on footpath, run red lights etc) to avoid being killed, or just to 'get back' at the bad motorists. Motorists see cyclists misbehaving and treat them with little or no respect. So a vicious circle ensues. BTW, I'm making extremely crass generalisations here, so don't go flaming me on this.

There's mistrust on both sides, and I don't think there's any easy way around it. People need to do the right thing and turn the other cheek for a while methinks. Not easy.....

d4r3n

the worst thing about cyclists in when they cycle in the middle of the road, annoying ****s.

Lemming

Originally posted by d4r3n
the worst thing about cyclists in when they cycle in the middle of the road, annoying ****s.

without attempting to be inflamatory ....

would you care to cycle along the edge of what seems to be about 80% of Irish roads?


When they're built, the builders don't seem to edge off the road correctly and as a result it becomes broken very quickly and as a result, potentially dangerous.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Lemming
without attempting to be inflamatory ....

would you care to cycle along the edge of what seems to be about 80% of Irish roads?


When they're built, the builders don't seem to edge off the road correctly and as a result it becomes broken very quickly and as a result, potentially dangerous.

While granted you have a point about the state of the roads. I think he means people actually in the "middle" of the road. You know when you have cyclists on your left and right as you are driving. Happens all the time on the Ranelagh road with all the commuters and students. Somehow you are expect to watch 360 degrees around you at all times. While its an admirable objective, it is actually impossible to do that.

herbie747

Originally posted by jammy_dodger
Im a cyclist and i don't wear a helmet, why, cause they're g@y.

A cracked skull is gayer.

mavedic

there's no excuse for cyclists to run red lights unless they get off the bike and walk. Cars aren't allowed to treat red lights as yield signs, so why should bikes be able to? I don't know why cyclists don't have to take the road theory test before they take to the roads.

Victor

What od people think of permitting "Left turn on Red" - it's legal in a lots of places, Germany, parts of the USA.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
You know when you have cyclists on your left and right as you are driving. Happens all the time on the Ranelagh road with all the commuters and students.

A large part of it will be the number of turns - roll on Luas.

mavedic

in the us, it is legal to turn right on a red light (not everywhere though). it seemed to make a lot of sense because you can get some traffic moving away safely, instead of queuing unecessarily. Never experienced any problems with it either - think it would be a good idea to bring in over here. As well as driving on the right side of the road Made a lot more sense!

MadsL

Apart from the fact that some research indicates that cycling helmets may actually *cause* more injuries (ie fast rotation of the neck injuries as a result of skidding the head on the tarmac) than they prevent. My child wears a helmet, I don't. Both rational decisions. Her head is more vunerable having a young soft skull, my neck is old and brittle.

I strongly believe that the myth that cycling is dangerous (wear a helmet! wear a helmet!) means that most people will never consider getting out of their cars despite the benefits of cycling. The more cycling is seen as dangerous (cycle? In this traffic? You must be mad - me, I prefer a ton of steel around me) the more 'acceptable' are road injuries to cyclists.

!

"There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use". *

Calling on cyclists to increase their safety by wearing a helmet shifts responsibility away from the drivers, the agents of accidents, on to cyclists who are nearly always the victims. Were cycle helmets to be made compulsory, it would reinforce public perceptions of the bicycle as a dangerous form of transport and encourage the view that cyclists are responsible for their own injury.**

Case in point is research that shows that separating cycling from the main traffic flow (off the carriageway cycle lanes and contra-flow cycle lanes) actually causes more fatalities at the points where they come back together on the highway. Motorists get 'desensitized' when cyclists are hidden away. Want proof, Amsterdam - cyclists everywhere therefore motorists are *careful*
and yes 180 degree observation IS REQUIRED BY LAW remember your test (those that have a full licence!:rolleyes: )

You can keep your safety devices, as far as I am concerned the best safety device would be a large spike attached to the steering wheel of a car and no seatbelts. I think we would see a reduction in the level of reckless driving!



*Rodgers. Journal of Product Liability 11 pp307-17, 1988

**Hillman. Policy Studies Institute ISBN 0 85374 602 8, 1993

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Victor
... A large part of it will be the number of turns - roll on Luas.

...the're not taking turns the're overtaking and undertaking all at the same time. Go to any junction on the ranelagh road and you will see continuous traffic offences by cyclists...

Silent Bob

IMO left on red would be a good idea, as would perhaps separate lights at some t-junctions to allow cyclists through (for instance around about Clonskeagh there are dedicated cycle lanes along the 'major' road of a t-junction, there shouldn't be any harm allowing cyclists through along the pavement side of that road all the time).

However UNTIL 'left on red' is introduced cyclists shouldn't break red lights. You're on public roads so you should obey the laws.

And as for most accidents involving bicycles not being the cyclists fault, what I have observed would lead me to believe that this isn't entirely the case. I constantly see cyclists running reds, undertaking large vehicles turning left etc.

Should car drivers be expected to be 100% aware of everything around them? No they shouldn't, it's not possible to be that aware of everything all the time, most driving instructors recommend checking your mirrors about every 15-20 seconds, in the kind of traffic we have in Dublin it is well possible for a bicycle or scooter or whatever to appear from nowhere during that time.

Cyclists should start to take more responsibility themselves. We should be more aware of what traffic is doing rather than just blindly plodding on

</rant>

Chimaera

@ MadsL

I'm a mountain biker, as are quite a few of my friends, and I've seen quite a few bike helmets after they have been crashed heavily, and I can honestly say that the wearer would have been very badly off without it.

Going head first into a tree at 20mph would have probably killed a friend of mine if he hadn't worn his helmet. In the event he got away with being knocked out for a few minutes, and had a mild concussion afterwards.

I don't care what any research may say about the potential dangers of wearing a helmet, my own experience and that of my friends shows them to be extremely useful at keeping people alive and uninjured.

Sangre

Originally posted by Chimaera
@ MadsL

I'm a mountain biker, as are quite a few of my friends, and I've seen quite a few bike helmets after they have been crashed heavily, and I can honestly say that the wearer would have been very badly off without it.

Going head first into a tree at 20mph would have probably killed a friend of mine if he hadn't worn his helmet. In the event he got away with being knocked out for a few minutes, and had a mild concussion afterwards.

I don't care what any research may say about the potential dangers of wearing a helmet, my own experience and that of my friends shows them to be extremely useful at keeping people alive and uninjured.

That research is refering to cyclists on footpaths and roads, anything that is tarmacadden(?). This is because the head doesnt collide with the road it slides and skids away from the head causing sever neck damage. The only real solution is a helmet with a neck strape to stop seperate helmet and neck movement.

Capt'n Midnight

RE as far as I am concerned the best safety device would be a large spike attached to the steering wheel of a car and no seatbelts

I been saying for years about that harpoon. - If a driver can't stop comfortably in the distance they can see they are going too fast.

Cars are safer than they used to be, seat belts have cut down on car fatalities - but like better brakes all these "SAFETY DEVICES" do is convince drivers to take more risks, so the overall risk level is the same - for the driver.

For most safety improvements for drivers there is a corresponding increase in fatalities in other road users. - How many fatalities would there be on our roads if all cars were banned ? - leave the buses / trucks / motorbikes etc..

The last time I saw the stats about cases where cars and bikes came together it was 90% in favour of bikes - and most of the judicial system and jury would be drivers...

I know of several deaths due to cycling not associated with motorists - tommy simpson (Heat Stroke - OD'ed on speed), A freak accident in Wexford between two unlit cyclists, a guy who went over a cliff on an Alpine descent, that freak accident with Bunio on the Tour De France. Every other cyclist death I've ever heard of was related to motorists.

Have a look at SUV's - for the occupant they are no safer than any other car in the same price bracket - but the stats show they are six times more deadly to other cars....

The law round this was is simple - If you hit something it is your fault. If you can't stop in the distance you can see you are traveling too fast..

MadsL

You are statistically more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than a cyclist. Funny how no one wears a pedestrian helmet.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by MadsL
You are statistically more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than a cyclist. Funny how no one wears a pedestrian helmet.

But are you statistically more likely to be hit as a pedestrian?

It may be that pedestrians are very rarely hit, but when they are it's almost always fatal.

I have to agree with Chimaera. I wear my helmet for protection against being hit in the head.

I'm fairly certain that my head would not bounce around all over the road if I went down while cycling - years of training have taught me to fall properly, but they can't make my head any tougher to impacts

Chimaera

That research is refering to cyclists on footpaths and roads,

There are trees beside roads too, and walls, and lamposts, and telephone poles - you get the picture.....there are lots of things to whack your head off when you come off the bike, the road itself included.

I'd rather risk a neck injury (which I reckon is very low risk anyway), which may or may not kill me, than a head injury which will more than likely kill me.

As an aside to those who think helmets look silly, check out the latest Giro ones - they look pretty funky, especially the switchblade full face :ninja:

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by MadsL
You are statistically more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than a cyclist. Funny how no one wears a pedestrian helmet.

I would have thoughtiIst very hard to fall on your head as a pedestrian. Its a lot easier to fall off a bike and crack your skull.

MadsL

Ricardo, did you already fall on your head!?! Or are you just trolling..Maybe I should spell it out for you to be sure..I was being IRONIC!!!! Pssk!

Back to my point...

Of the 32,351 admissions due to road traffic accidents almost 80% involved a car or motorcycle driver or passenger. In smaller percentages of RTA related admissions the injured person was a pedestrian or a pedal cyclist, but these still represent 5,034 and 1,185 injured persons respectively. Pedestrians represent a far greater proportion of RTA-related deaths (32.7%); car occupants account for almost half of all RTA-related deaths.
Source - INJURY IN IRELAND - Department of Public Health Medicine and Epidemiology

The NRA say that cyclist make up only 3.5% of those killed/injured on the roads.

%
Pedestrians 11.6
Pedal Cycle 3.5
Motor Cycle 10.5
Car Users 66.0
PSV Users 1.4
Goods Vehicle 6.0


Therefore:
1. I am accused of being irresponsible by not wearing a helmet but I know there is a risk to my neck (and I cracked my C6 vertabrae in a rock climbing accident once - guess what, I was wearing a helmet!) Some parts of the world would try to force me...(Australia) to wear a helmet.

2. We know that the greatest risk of injury is as a pedestrian(11.5%) yet we have no jaywalking laws or bans on pedestrian-mashing bullbars.

3. More people are put off commuting by bike by this perception that cycling is somehow absolutely lethal. Nobody mentions that walking to work is three times more dangerous than cycling to work.


Silent bob are you some sort of stunt man (Sideshow Bob perhaps), if you fall off your bike frequently maybe you should buy a tricycle! Personally, I haven't fallen off my bike since I was a kid.

Silent Bob

We do have jaywalking laws. It's illegal to jaywalk in Ireland.

Victor

Originally posted by MadsL
%
Pedestrians 11.6
Pedal Cycle 3.5

Actually, this would be roughly in line with the proportions of people walking (while pretty much everyone walks at soem stage, it tends to be for shorter journeys) and cycling. A fair number of pedestrian RTA deaths have alcohol as a factor (for driver or pedestrian).

Originally posted by MadsL
2. We know that the greatest risk of injury is as a pedestrian(11.5%) yet we have no jaywalking laws or bans on pedestrian-mashing bullbars.

Jaywalking is an offence - but as I walked (quite sensibly and carefully - any vehicle going to hit me was either gone, stopped or would have to go through 2 barriers) across a junction today, all the Garda had to say was "Hows it going?" (She looked bored senseless on point duty).

MadsL

I stand partially corrected...jaywalking is on the statute but in a typical Irish fashion it is unenforcable.


A LOOPHOLE in the 1997 regulations which made jaywalking an offence has meant that no prosecutions have ever been taken by the gardai.

Unlike most offences, a person stopped by a garda for jaywalking is not obliged to give his or her name and address to the garda. This has effectively prevented gardai from taking cases against jaywalkers. However, Superintendent John Farrelly of the Garda Press Office said "a handful'' of prosecutions have been made in conjunction with other charges such as obstructing a garda.

Under the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997, a person who crosses a road illegally can be fined £150 for a first offence, £350 for a second offence and £350 and/or three months' imprisonment for a third offence.

Sunday Independent

Actually, this would be roughly in line with the proportions of people walking (while pretty much everyone walks at soem stage, it tends to be for shorter journeys) and cycling.

In other words, cyclists have more exposure (longer journeys) and therefore you would expect them to have a high casuality rate. They don't. QED.

To back up my case, notice that the current ad campaigns focus on seatbelts and (finally) pedestrians.

Corega

Originally posted by mike65
The trouble with cylcists is that they're all smug, tree huggers
who belive they are without sin and therefore cannot be killed by
sinners (planet killing morotists).

Ehhh stfu. I don't hug ****ing tree's. I just don't want to pay insurance on a car. Furthermore I don't break traffic lights because they are, as already stated, a chance to take a rest. Motorists: get over the fact that something using pedal power can overtake you in traffic.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Corega
Ehhh stfu. I don't hug ****ing tree's. I just don't want to pay insurance on a car. Furthermore I don't break traffic lights because they are, as already stated, a chance to take a rest. Motorists: get over the fact that something using pedal power can overtake you in traffic.

Fine but do it legally, and in a way that doesn't cause a problem for other road users.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by MadsL
Ricardo, did you already fall on your head!?! Or are you just trolling..Maybe I should spell it out for you to be sure..I was being IRONIC!!!! Pssk!

No, really. Because I was making a VERY serious point.

All those stats prove is that one form of transport is more popular than another. Not that one is inherently less safe than another.

Its like those Donkey/Airplanes stats thats oft quoted. Yeah right.

MadsL

@ Ricardo - Serious point. Really.

I would have thoughtiIst very hard to fall on your head as a pedestrian

No, but it's very easy to have your brains splattered all over the pavement by a p*ss*d driver.

Its like those Donkey/Airplanes stats thats oft quoted. Yeah right.

So often that I haven't a clue WTF you are talking about.

I would give you per billion kilometers travelled statistics but it is very hard to find them as tracking how far pedestrians walk is kind of tricky. Personally I've found that in most stats Motorcyclist come out as being the riskiest group. A bit unfair as the graduated rider training has really helped in reducing deaths, the ones getting killed are now the born-again bikers aged 40+.

But (suprise) Ireland has the highest rate of Motorcyclists killed in Europe.
(I still think about you, Ian. RIP)