[PR] Another Cyclist Dies In A Traffic Accident Involving a Large Vehicle

Victor

.

ANOTHER CYCLIST DIES IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A LARGE VEHICLE IN DUBLIN CITY

The death of a child yesterday in collision with a bus in Cabra brings to 22 the number of riders killed in road traffic accidents in the Dublin region in the 2000-'07 period. The majority (79%) of these fatalities were due to impact with large vehicles (goods vehicles, buses and coaches)

Cyclists are uniquely vulnerable in road traffic accidents involving large vehicles for these reasons:
1. the greater width of large vehicles (a bus is about 2.1 m wide; some HGVs are 2.5 m wide) occupies most of the vehicle lane, which can lead to their drivers trying to overtake cyclists from within-lane by leaving an unsafe separation distance in relation to the rider
2. the front-end conformation characteristics of these vehicles means that they are blunt and essentially non-deformable and they don't have to meet EuroNCAP pedestrian-protection standards and
3. the rider has zero protection against impact (no steel body cage; no seatbelts; no airbags).

For these reasons, drivers of large vehicles have a particularly onerous responsibility to drive carefully and considerately in the normal traffic mix where cyclists are invariably present.

These fatality data have to be assessed in the light of the relatively low (and declining) numbers of cyclists present on the roads of the city and point to an inadequate road safety regime for cyclists within this city.

Of course the city (Roads and Traffic Division; Quality Bus Network Office and the Dublin Transportation Office) makes much of how it has rolled out a network of bus and cycle lanes over the years but what drivers and cyclists are not told is that may sectors of this infrastructure, ostensibly aimed at making life safer and easier for cyclists, is in fact sub-standard by international design norms and best practice. Many of the marked and signed cycle lanes are too narrow in width (far too many are less than 1.5 m) and are placed on the left side of already far too narrow vehicle lanes and therefore the rider is given a false sense of security riding along in these facilities. More insidiously the overtaking vehicle driver is trying to stay within his or her vehicle lane without realising that the safe separation distance between the rider and the vehicle in now less than the minimum required (internationally accepted as a minimum of 1.5 m).

This driving behaviour leads to large vehicles literally 'shaving' past riders in the cycle lane, or just minding their own business on the left side of the road where they are required to be by public policy, and it is tantamount to dangerous driving.
This Campaign calls on

1. the City to subject all cycling facilities to an independent road safet audit as a mater of urgency and to de-construct any sub-standard sectors and all local authority roads/traffic engineers to cease constructing sub-standard cycle facilities by adhering to best practice;
2. the Garda to be much more pro-active in identifying dangerous driving behaviour in relation to cyclists and tackling drivers who engage in it before there are any more fatalities;
3. the Road Safety Authority to considerably improve the HGV/psv driver training and testing regimes in relation to the safety of cyclists and the presence of large vehicles on narrow roads in urban areas;
4. Operators of buses, coaches and HGVs to undertake a review of their driver instruction and training regimes by consulting with cycling groups in the process;
5. The City must deliver, at a minimum, commuting cyclecraft training to all school students based upon on-road instruction as opposed to wholly in school yards.

Dr. Mike McKillen
Chairman
DCC

END

NOTES

1. Cycling facilities design guidance is provided to local authority roads/traffic engineers by the Dublin Transportation Office (www.dto.ie)
2. Dublin Cycling Campaign (DCC) is the lobby group for commuting cyclists in the greater Dublin area (see http://home.connect.ie/dcc/)
3. EuroNCAP testing and rating of pedestrian-impact characteristics of vehicles is only extended to cars at present (see http://www.euroncap.com/). Cyclists have similar safety requirements as pedestrians in terms of vehicle front-end conformation properties in order to survive impact.
4. The Road Safety Authority (see www.rsa.ie) now sets the standards for driver instruction and testing.

cyclopath2001

A friend of my put a question to Dublin City Council about the cycle track at Annesley Bridge which leads cyclists from the footpath/cycleway into a line of left-tirning traffic and which does not have the required RUS009 road sign and which has RUS023, shared car/truck/cycle track markings even though there is no right-turn at the junction.

The response was that the cycle track conformed to 'Best Practice'.

MiniD

One thing missing from this press release is the training of all cyclists using the road. I find it alarming how very few cyclists wear safety helmets, yet this press release highlights that "the rider has zero protection against impact (no steel body cage; no seatbelts; no airbags)".

From my observations it is common to see many cyclists break traffic lights, wear dark clothing and cycle on footpaths etc. It is fine having these alarming press releases following an accident but it works both ways and cyclists need to be seen to obey the rules too. For the record, Dublin Bus probably have one of the highest standards in driving safety training.

BrianD

I agree. The DCC continues to shoot itself in the foot but issuing these press releases that clearly creates a "them and us" situation between cyclists and other road users.

He continues to point out the failings of other users and never that of the cyclist. While some motorists may 'shave' past cyclists and show them less due care and attention most, including myself, do take the responsible approach.

However, it is safe to state that the majority of cyclists do not take on the same 'onerous responsibility'. The majority of cyclists do not signal, do not have lights at night, do not wear helmets and do not wear appropriate clothing for being on the road.

My advice to the DCC would be to get somebody else to write your press releases and start creating an environment that would assist cycling in urban areas rather than turning everybody off.

cyclopath2001

MiniD wrote:

One thing missing from this press release is the training of all cyclists using the road. I find it alarming how very few cyclists wear safety helmets,

Safety helmets play no role at all in accident prevention and offer no protection in the type of accidents that are happening. Diverting attention to helmet use takes away from more effective accident-prevention measures.

Education would certainly help. Breaking the lights is certainly bad for cyclists' image, but the incidence of this is greatly exagerrated by motorists who are frequent practtitioners themselves. More importantly, motorists should set a good example for young cyclists to follow, by not breaking the lights themselves, observing speed limits, overtaking legally and by leaving some room on the road (and cycle track) so that cyclists are not tempted to use the footpath. I've seen many incidents of school-children cycling on the footpath while the adjacent cycle track was full of cars and trucks. Often, these children have been told to do this by their car-driving parents.

We need more compliance all round, let's get our priorities in order and start with the people who have the ability to cause the most harm.

wyndham

MiniD wrote:

One thing missing from this press release is the training of all cyclists using the road. I find it alarming how very few cyclists wear safety helmets, yet this press release highlights that "the rider has zero protection against impact (no steel body cage; no seatbelts; no airbags)".

From my observations it is common to see many cyclists break traffic lights, wear dark clothing and cycle on footpaths etc. It is fine having these alarming press releases following an accident but it works both ways and cyclists need to be seen to obey the rules too. For the record, Dublin Bus probably have one of the highest standards in driving safety training.

I often cycle up on the footpath (at slow pace) when near a dangerous junction or where there is inadequate clearance for bikes and vehicles. Also where the traffic is moving too fast for my liking. Or a combination of these factors. How many people have died due to cyclists being on the footpaths?

luckat

Until it's the norm for politicians, civil servants, laywers, etc to cycle, we're not going to have what we need - a network of *separate* cycleways, with their own traffic lights, and a *physical* border between the cycleway and the road.

We could start with cycleways on one bank of each of the canals, beside the Dart line, and along a boardwalk on the non-boardwalk side of the Liffey.

Ghost Train

good article. i think councels etc don't really think of cyclists as much as they should and leave them slightly vunerable in some situations

cyclists cycling the wrong way up one way streets, too fast on paths and being slightly blind to other road users sometimes don't do themselves any favours. I know thats probably the minority of cyclists but just like you get bad drivers you get bad cyclists

rubadub

BrianD wrote:

The majority of cyclists do not signal, do not have lights at night, do not wear helmets

I very rarely signal. It is simply because I do not have to, i.e. I presume the motorist is not going to give way to me so I usually stop and wait until it is clear. I also prefer to have both hands on the handlebar whenever I can. The only time I do is on an empty road so a car pulling out knows that I am turning so they can pull out. Usually the car ignores this anyway. The worst is motorists on roundabouts, I just ignore signalling now since it is only time I have come close to crashing (both in cars & on bikes).

I do not wear a helmet and you can see in other threads that is a great topic of debate, some studies have shown that head injuries increased in countries where helmets were made mandatory. Studies showed motorists gave less room to helmet wearers. The motorists are obviously thinking that they are safe since they have a helmet. Same goes for helmet wearers they might think they are safe so perform more dangerous manoeuvres. Also I have read that it is more advantageous to wear a helmet in a car than on a bike but I have yet to see a motorist wear one. Some cyclists would not dare get on a bike without a helmet yet would sit in a car without one.

I cycle on some footpaths where it is unsafe to cycle on the road, I go slow and there are usually no pedestrians at all, where there are I go back onto the road, depends on the particular road. I also do not cycle on cycletracks all the time, many times it is more dangerous on the track due to pedestrians. A lot of tracks are poorly signed, there is one in particular where pedestrians seem convinced it is a footpath and I get nasty looks for using it!

I do break lights the odd time, pedestrians are the worst for breaking lights IMO. When on foot I break the lights a lot. Thing is the law is not enforced so people get away with it and continue to do it. I never have and never would break the lights in a car. The gardai seem to view pedestrians and cyclists breaking lights in the same light, if they are doing it in a dangerous way that could cause and accident then they will caution them, but people rarely do that, I mostly encounter common sense from everybody.

Mucco

MiniD wrote:

OI find it alarming how very few cyclists wear safety helmets, yet this press release highlights that "the rider has zero protection against impact (no steel body cage; no seatbelts; no airbags)".

I agree, a lump of polystyrene would have prevented the bus from crashing into him. I love magic polystyrene.

M

markpb

rubadub wrote:

I very rarely signal. It is simply because I do not have to, i.e. I presume the motorist is not going to give way to me so I usually stop and wait until it is clear.

Very true. I do try to cycle very safely, I signal 99% of the time (anyone who cycles knows there are situations where it's impossible) but I find that most motorists simply ignore me. Normally I'll signal for a bit, force my way out when it's reasonably safe and continue to signal until I'm done.

Hotblack Desiato

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Diverting attention to helmet use takes away from more effective accident-prevention measures.

Exactly and something similiar happened when motorcycle helmets were made compulsory. All that it does is put out the perception that "Mode of transport X is dangerous, therefore any accidents occurring to users of Mode X must be their own fault."

We need more compliance all round, let's get our priorities in order and start with the people who have the ability to cause the most harm.

When I'm in pedestrian mode or motorcyclist mode, a cyclist most certainly does certainly have the potential to do physical harm to me, so the idea that only certain people should obey the law doesn't fly.

SickCert

From my own forum and one of Sparemans piccys.

I give you the chaos of the Eglinton rd junction - simply who gives way to who?
Why do photos not appear?

Navan Junction

The child that was killed was 10 or 12 years of age and on the way to hurling training.

I'm not sure what many of the above comments have to do with that situation, but I think the sad reality is that the roads aren't a safe place for anyone on a bike.

Separate to the accident, it would be great to see more real rather than make-believe cycle lanes that just constitute part of road.

Take the 2 lanes heading up towards Constitution hill - you have 2 lanes alledgedly but half of the inside one is also marked as a cycle-way - that is crazy.

Particularly as the inside lane is also the turning lane for buses returning to Broadstone bus depot.

I'm not likely to be cycling in a cycle lane in Dublin anytime soon, but it would be great to see cyclists with more dedicated space around the city.

Besides, better quality cycle lanes would mean more cyclists, fewer car users and less traffic on the road for me to be stuck in!

cyclopath2001

ninja900 wrote:

When I'm in pedestrian mode or motorcyclist mode, a cyclist most certainly does certainly have the potential to do physical harm to me, so the idea that only certain people should obey the law doesn't fly.

Nobody has proposed that only certain people should obey the law.

These debates are usually characterised by motorists calling for the strictest application of the law to cyclists, when it would be more sensible to prioritise the application of scarce resources to the behaviours that produce the most serious consequences.

It's open to discussion, but I suggest that speeding and illegal overtaking by motorists should receive the highest priority.

Victor

SickCert wrote:

From my own forum and one of Sparemans piccys.

I give you the chaos of the Eglinton rd junction - simply who gives way to who?

Surely this is straight forward, people going straight or left get priority, those turning right yield.

Why do photos not appear?

http://273k.net/cyclegallery/2007-05-02/

Calibos

I'm not commenting on the particular incident mentioned in this thread but in these truck/bus accidents in general.

Whatever about the massive shortcomings of co called cycle lanes in Ireland and whatever about the rights and wrongs of how cyclists are treated by motorists.....

....can someone tell me how the self preservation gene does not kick in with most cyclists at junctions. I am not a cyclist and never have been but if I was, do you think I would ever trust a bus or a lorry that pulls along side. I'd be straight off my bike and up onto the footpath or at least hang back and wait till the truck has pulled off or made its left turn. I couldn't care less if I "As a cyclist" had as much right to be there. I couldn't care less if the truck should have indicated. I aint taking any chances.

If that means I have to hop off the bike every time I hear a truck coming behind me near a junction then so be it. If it means I hop off and push the bike across evry single traffic light controlled junction on my journey then so be it.

I put my life ahead of any considerations of making a point to motorists that they should see me or grant me all the rights that I as a cyclist and fellow road user am entitled to.

Is it a disgrace that most motorists are morons who don't give due care and attention to their fellow road users the cyclists? Yes it is a disgrace.

Am I going to risk my life to stake my claim to my rightful place on the road as a cyclist. Not a chance!

markpb

Calibos wrote:

If that means I have to hop off the bike every time I hear a truck coming behind me near a junction then so be it. If it means I hop off and push the back across traffic light controlled junctions then so be it.

The simple answer (in my case) is that if we did that, there'd be no point to cycling. It would be slower than taking the bus or driving and we'd get no exercise because we'd be stopped all the time.

If you stop to let a bus go past at the lights (as I do regularly), you won't be able to rejoin the traffic because no-one will stop or slow down to let you. If you cross on foot, you'll have the same problem on the other side.

Mr. Presentable

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article1746923.ece

Article about cycle lanes in yesterdays Sunday Times. Seems particularly pertinent to this debate.

Mr. Presentable

My belief, as both cyclist and motorist is that the local councils are failing both by their road design. In too many places the lanes for cars are too narrow in order that a cycle lane can be created. Naturally, the cycle lane is also too narrow.

Motorists are generally afraid of what cyclists might do. Vulnerable to wind, small imperfections on the road etc makes them liable to move in unpredictable ways. Also the usual sins of dark clothing, misbehaviour at lights, junctions etc are compounded by the cyclists lack of education and respect for other road users. I am aware many of the posters here are good, experienced road users, but am also aware there are others who have no place out in public.

We need

Proper sized lanes
seperate cycle lanes
trained cyclists
motorists trained for cyclists
properly paved/finished cycle lanes (this one really piffes me off. Lanes with bits of tyres, pot holes, glass and parked cars are not safe for cyclists)

Slice

cyclists cycling the wrong way up one way streets, too fast on paths and being slightly blind to other road users sometimes don't do themselves any favours

The issue of one-way streets is to facilitate better flow of traffic for motor vehicles but to the detriment of cyclists. Some of the one way systems in the city would encourage a significant increase in journey times for cyclists which are at odds with efforts to encourage more cycling within the canals with the introduction of more cycle lanes. At the same time these one-way systems force cyclists onto road space that I consider quite dangerous to navigate when there are plenty of other alternatives were it not for one-way systems (Dame Street is good example of this). Idealistically one way streets should not be applicable to cyclists and those same one-way streets should have provisions for two-way cycling. In terms of journeys made cyclists are closer in nature to pedestrians than cars yet no one is suggesting pedestrians should be forced to use a one-way street in one direction only.

Of course there are plenty of cycling lanes such as those on the north quays that don't take account of the space required by cars & lorries to navigate a two lane street. These cycle lanes may adhere to "best practice" but what about the rest of the road space in cases where space is simply insufficient for two lanes and a cycle path? Furthermore where do cyclists stand in situations where a cycle lane resembles a car park? If we're talking about enforcement of road safety then this is an area that needs to be considered too. I think some cycle lanes seem to exist simply to increase the Council's figures without any regard for the people who might actually use them.

Mr. Presentable

Slice wrote:

where do cyclists stand in situations where a cycle lane resembles a car park?

This is something which need to be treated like dangerous driving, given that it endangers another road user as much as if the car had swerved across the cyclist, by forcing him into the traffic

seamus

Slice wrote:

Idealistically one way streets should not be applicable to cyclists and those same one-way streets should have provisions for two-way cycling. In terms of journeys made cyclists are closer in nature to pedestrians than cars yet no one is suggesting pedestrians should be forced to use a one-way street in one direction only.

There is one place that I'm familier with a two-lane cycleway, on the Inchicore road, passing in front of Kilmainham Gaol. It's a bizarre one. The only way to get onto the cycle lane legally (if you're going contra-flow), is to walk across the road, and join the track when it starts. Then it goes for about 300m. Then it stops abruptly because there's parking provided for cars. So at this point, you're expected to dismount, walk along the path to the end of the parking zone, remount your bicycle for 20m, dismount again and use the pedestrian lights to cross. :rolleyes:
It's a bit of a deathtrap because vehicles coming towards you seem to have no regard whatsoever for the existence of the 2m cycle lane.

Furthermore where do cyclists stand in situations where a cycle lane resembles a car park?

The problem is with mandatory and non-mandatory cycle lanes. No-one seems to know the difference and no-one seems to care.

MiniD

Mucco wrote:

I agree, a lump of polystyrene would have prevented the bus from crashing into him. I love magic polystyrene.

M

Mucco, I´m not sure what you agree with, as that was not my view. If you read my post you will see my point was that this press release does little to remind cyclists on the importance of high-viz vests and lighting. It also calls for the further training of bus drivers, which is already in place with Dublin Bus. It does not mention training for cyclists.

I don´t know the full facts behind the real benefits of cycle helmets, but don´t knock my opinion that in some cases a cycle helmet may save a life.

Mucco

MiniD wrote:

Mucco, I´m not sure what you agree with, as that was not my view. If you read my post you will see my point was that this press release does little to remind cyclists on the importance of high-viz vests and lighting. It also calls for the further training of bus drivers, which is already in place with Dublin Bus. It does not mention training for cyclists.

I don´t know the full facts behind the real benefits of cycle helmets, but don´t knock my opinion that in some cases a cycle helmet may save a life.

There's a certain amount of victim blaming by saying the cyclist wasn't wearing a vest/helmet/ other anti-bus device.

A quick trip to Holland where a huge portion of journeys are made by bike will show you that hardly anyone wears a helmet, lycra, high viz etc.... Yet injuries are low relative to most other EU countries.

Why is this?

Because cyclists are everywhere, drivers are very aware of them and have to go slower.

Ref: Pasanen. Safety problems of pedestrians and cyclists. Helsinki 1997

cyclopath2001

MiniD wrote:

It does not mention training for cyclists.

As far as I know, there is a cycling school in Clontarf organised by the Gardaí. But for a number of years now, we've had training and a mandatory test for drivers. How's that working out?

There's no doubt that in favourable cases quoted by the helmet industry, that their products have occasionally saved lives or serious injury. The question is if resources would be better expended in promoting helmet use or in tackling the causes of accidents.