DRLs could save 14 people a year

Theta

RSA Report on DRLs

I am all for DRLs on cars and leave my lights on all the time but how did they come to the figure of 14? Then again I believe very little the RSA tell me.

Mr Benevolent

I am all for DRLs on cars and leave my lights on all the time but how did they come to the figure of 14? Then again I believe very little the RSA tell me.

The RSA pull numbers out of the air, we all know that.

Didn't Sweden conclude that DRLs worked less well as motorist became used to them? Also, the NHTSA said that they weren't useful in reducing the number of accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists.

From Wikipedia

As ambient light levels increase, the potential safety benefit decreases while the DRL intensity required for a safety improvement increases. The safety benefit produced by DRLs in relatively dark Nordic countries is roughly triple the benefit observed in relatively bright Israel and America

AugustusMinimus

Confab wrote: »

Didn't Sweden conclude that DRLs didn't work as motorist became used to them and failed to see a car without them?

Mustn't all cars in Sweden have DRL's for years ? If so, the only problem there would be visability with foreign cars (Norway and Finland have DRL's too) who don't turn on their lights also.

Personally, I'm all for DRL's. First thing I do after starting the engine is to turn on my dims, wether it be dark or blazing summer sunshine. IMO, its a good habit to have. I've seen the odd driver going around with full beams on during the day, which even in bright sunshine can be dazzling.

But as you say, yet another ******** figure pulled out of the sky by the RSA.

jayok

Isn't there also the problem with DRLs that motorbikes become more invisible?

I remember there was talk about around 2001/2002 about encouraging people to use their headlights. Dublin City Council has signs and a campaign going. But the Motorbiking community were objecting as there was enough dozy drivers already and the full-beam on the bike was a critical safety factor.

Personally, as both a car and motorbike driver, I put lights on the wholetime. In heavy daytime traffic though, I'll use the full beam on bike. Makes a big difference.

amacachi

Confab wrote: »

Didn't Sweden conclude that DRLs didn't work as motorist became used to them and failed to see a car without them?

I'd've thought that could very well become a problem. In the twilight over the last couple of months there's been a few times I wondered why my dad wasn't putting his foot down, luckily he spotted the people with their lights off.

jimogr

Theta wrote: »

...but how did they come to the figure of 14? Then again I believe very little the RSA tell me.

They didn't. It says if DRLs saved 14 lives, then it would offset the cost.

KamiKazi

jayok wrote: »

Isn't there also the problem with DRLs that motorbikes become more invisible?

I remember there was talk about around 2001/2002 about encouraging people to use their headlights. Dublin City Council has signs and a campaign going. But the Motorbiking community were objecting as there was enough dozy drivers already and the full-beam on the bike was a critical safety factor.

Personally, as both a car and motorbike driver, I put lights on the wholetime. In heavy daytime traffic though, I'll use the full beam on bike. Makes a big difference.

+1

As it is, car drivers barely notice bikes (bear in mind all bikes have dipped lights 100% of the time, by law).

If cars start having dipped lights on all the time motorbikes will become even harder to spot.

Did the RSA calculate how many bikers a year not having DRL for cars would save? Did they f*ck.

galwaytt

...at what speed, btw ?

(total random speed comment, that..........:D )

langdang

KamiKazi wrote: »

+1

As it is, car drivers barely notice bikes (bear in mind all bikes have dipped lights 100% of the time, by law).

If cars start having dipped lights on all the time motorbikes will become even harder to spot.

Did the RSA calculate how many bikers a year not having DRL for cars would save? Did they f*ck.

The bad news for bikers is that - People that never use mirrors for traffic, won't ever use mirrors for traffic, they won't notice any light if their mirrors are adjusted for parking, makeup, kids in the back seat, or just so they don't get dazzled (distracted) by other drivers.
DRL's are all very well, but a cull of comatose drivers would be better. Metaphorically of course hohoho

Winty

Are 14 lives worth 41 million?

That’s 3,000,000 a life.

I am not trying to be cruel; I know every life is important and it could be my life but if you have a cancer drug that cost 3,000,000 would you give it to people?

langdang

Winty wrote: »

Are 14 lives worth 41 million?

Yes, if they give me that much to supply them with LEDs.;)
Seriously like 41million? increased fuel use? Increased bulb useage?
LEDs all the way, they're only there to be seen, not to see by???

Sofiztikated

Winty wrote: »

Are 14 lives worth 41 million?

That’s 3,000,000 a life.

I am not trying to be cruel; I know every life is important and it could be my life but if you have a cancer drug that cost 3,000,000 would you give it to people?

Yes, actually, I would. €3mil isn't a lot, for a life.

Anyway, I'd love to know how the RSA came up with the figure of €41million to implement DLRs.

Surely "Switch on your lights" doesn't cost €41million!

No doubt, they'll cock it, and with expenses and the like, it'll come closer to the €70mil mark.

EDIT: Just saw there. Don't know how I missed a whole paragraph.

Theta

Winty wrote: »

Are 14 lives worth 41 million?

That’s 3,000,000 a life.

I am not trying to be cruel; I know every life is important and it could be my life but if you have a cancer drug that cost 3,000,000 would you give it to people?

Sure why not if it cured people why wouldnt you?

KamiKazi

langdang wrote: »

The bad news for bikers is that - People that never use mirrors for traffic, won't ever use mirrors for traffic, they won't notice any light if their mirrors are adjusted for parking, makeup, kids in the back seat, or just so they don't get dazzled (distracted) by other drivers.
DRL's are all very well, but a cull of comatose drivers would be better. Metaphorically of course hohoho

Exactly.

The RSA would be better off taking their €41 million and spending it on driver training.

stevenmu

We should all just drive around with our fog lights on.

stimpson

How the hell could it cost 41 million?? Surely it's just a firmware upgrade for most modern cars?

Oh, hang on, I forgot - this is Ireland. :rolleyes:

seamus

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Yes, actually, I would. €3mil isn't a lot, for a life.

Anyway, I'd love to know how the RSA came up with the figure of €41million to implement DLRs.

Surely "Switch on your lights" doesn't cost €41million!

No doubt, they'll cock it, and with expenses and the like, it'll come closer to the €70mil mark.

EDIT: Just saw there. Don't know how I missed a whole paragraph.

I think people aren't understanding that €41 million figure.

That would be the increase in total cost across all vehicles in the state. It wouldn't be €41 million that the RSA would pay, it would be €41 million paid for by the owners of the 3 million or so vehicles on Irish roads.

To put it more simply, the RSA have calculated that if they implement mandatory DRLs, the cost of motoring will increase by about €15 per year for each vehicle/driver. It will cost the government little or nothing. It will simply be made law that all vehicles must have their headlights on at all times. Then it becomes the drivers' problem.

I'm not entirely in support of this. Having been a motorcyclist and being a cyclist now, most near misses for me have occured where there's a lot of ambient light (i.e. a few minutes before dusk) but everyone has their lights on anyway - the motorcycle/bicycle light gets drowned out by the sea of headlights.

peasant

KamiKazi wrote: »

Exactly.

The RSA would be better off taking their €41 million and spending it on driver training.

The RSA wouldn't be spending it though ...you would

Having DRL's running of your normal dipped lights would cost you more in bulbs (and possibly in getting them installed) and more in fuel consumption. (having your lights switched on puts a higher load on your alternator which in turn saps more power from your engine)
The running cost would come down significantly if you used specific LED front DRL's only ...but then again those cost some money to buy and install as well.

But the equasion looks slightly different at the bottom line then. No more 14 lives and 41 Million ...just your life (and that of any passengers) against how ever little it costs to run DRL's ...and then the equasion makes sense.

Sofiztikated

seamus wrote: »

I think people aren't understanding that €41 million figure.

That would be the increase in total cost across all vehicles in the state. It wouldn't be €41 million that the RSA would pay, it would be €41 million paid for by the owners of the 3 million or so vehicles on Irish roads.

To put it more simply, the RSA have calculated that if they implement mandatory DRLs, the cost of motoring will increase by about €15 per year for each vehicle/driver. It will cost the government little or nothing.

I'm not entirely in support of this. Having been a motorcyclist and being a cyclist now, most near misses for me have occured where there's a lot of ambient light (i.e. a few minutes before dusk) but everyone has their lights on anyway - the motorcycle/bicycle light gets drowned out by the sea of headlights.

Yeah, had to get in with the ninja edit.

Can't see it being too bad, but then again, I'm not a biker.

However, if they did more to increase driver training, rather than people being taught how to pass an antiquated test, we'd have a lot more than 14 a year saved. (and insurance premiums would come down as there would be a lot less stupid claims!)

mickdw

KamiKazi wrote: »

Exactly.

The RSA would be better off taking their €41 million and spending it on driver training.

But its not costing the RSA anything. The 41 million is the overall cost to everyone when additional fuel, light bulbs etc is taken into account. Its not important that figure in reality.
The recent debate at the rsa was whether to bring in the law that every car must have lights on from say next year or just to go with the EU idea of the compulsary DRL being fitted to all new cars from next year and then only making those cars run with the lights on. THis way would mean for years & years to come, there would be people allowed legally on the road without DRL.
Surely they will just have to bring it in from a certain date and anybody that doesnt have the auto DRL will just have to remember to switch them on. Otherwise we will have a situation where there will always be a few without lights on and this in my opinion would be very dangerous

Matt Simis

KamiKazi wrote: »

+1

As it is, car drivers barely notice bikes (bear in mind all bikes have dipped lights 100% of the time, by law).

If cars start having dipped lights on all the time motorbikes will become even harder to spot.

Did the RSA calculate how many bikers a year not having DRL for cars would save? Did they f*ck.

I hear what you are saying (and I know you have voiced this before!), but I strongly disagree:

a) Perhaps it becomes harder to differentiate Bikes from cars (mainly those with one working DRL..), though a bike light and factory fit modern DRLs look totally different [as below], but differentation is only one aspect. If one can see other road users better, then it benefits everyone, no matter what they are driving. Bear in mind Bikes crash into cars too, if they saw them sooner then the Bike rider would be safer.
There is also the line of thought that if people become accustomed to looking out for lights on in daylight, then they will notice bikes better. The statement that DRLs become less effective as they become more prevalant is misleading, thats not really a negative for DRLs, thats just diminishing returns in action.

b) There are vastly more cars than bikes on the road. Therefore car drivers as a demographic represent the highest saving (of lifes) as well as the highest instigators of accidents, by sheer volume. This is why safety campaigns should be targetted at car drivers but also why car drivers as a group are the ones in most accidents.

c) If car drivers truely rarely see bikes today, then logically anything you change to diminish that would have a minimal effect as it wasnt an efficient protocol anyway (numerically a 50% reduction on a case that occurs 5% of the time is infact a net drop of 2.5% from a global stat pool). But again, at the very least it would make bikes able to see the 99% of other road users better, so a net gain for bikers.


I think its fairly alarmist to state that making cars more visiable would cost bike riders lifes, I think quite the opposite, it would save them, car drivers, kids going to school, general pedestrians etc.
The majority of our roads are unlit, poorly maintained and hilly back roads, DRLs are absolutely critical.

DRLs on car



[Motor bike pictured with headlights on and side mounted bike designed vertical DRLs]

Gregor Samsa

jayok wrote: »

Isn't there also the problem with DRLs that motorbikes become more invisible?

The purpose of is DRLs help cars or bikes stand out from the background - they don't need to stand out from eachother - the idea being that if you see a light, you know it's a vehicle of some sort.

There probably is an issue in that the more vehicles drive with lights on during the day, the less visible the ones without them become, but as motorbikes already have to have lights on at all times, that isn't a problem for them.

KamiKazi

phutyle wrote: »

The purpose of is DRLs help cars or bikes stand out from the background - they don't need to stand out from eachother - the idea being that if you see a light, you know it's a vehicle of some sort.

Of course they do, when's the last time you saw a car covered in reflective material?

phutyle wrote: »

There probably is an issue in that the more vehicles drive with lights on during the day, the less visible the ones without them become, but as motorbikes already have to have lights on at all times, that isn't a problem for them.

The point I'm trying to make is, car drivers primarily have a glance for cars and bigger vehicles. If they see a headlight coming towards them it will probably make them take a second glance and see the bike coming towards them. If every car has DRL then seeing a lit up vehicle will much more common and people will start subconsciously ignoring them to a certain extent.

KamiKazi

And if the cost of €41 million is going to be paid by the motorists at €15 per year, I genuinely think that money would be spent on a refresher driving course / test every couple of years.

seamus

phutyle wrote: »

The purpose of is DRLs help cars or bikes stand out from the background - they don't need to stand out from eachother - the idea being that if you see a light, you know it's a vehicle of some sort.

There probably is an issue in that the more vehicles drive with lights on during the day, the less visible the ones without them become, but as motorbikes already have to have lights on at all times, that isn't a problem for them.

Actually, the problem here is that if all vehicles have their lights on, then they *become* the background.

The issues that bikers have really only occurs in steady or constant traffic. On the main road with little traffic, any vehicle with its lights on will stand out from the background - and "standing out" is one of the primary factors in saving bikers' lives.

However, when the traffic becomes steady, drivers become accustomed and fatigued by the constant sea of lights and in this case a car *without* lights on actually becomes more visible (oddly) because it stands out.

The problem for bikers in particular is that they can "disappear". For example, if someone is sitting on a side road waiting to turn out with traffic approaching using DRLs. Let's say the traffic is moving around 50km/h with 25m between vehicles.
Between two cars, there's a bike. His headlight can "merge" into the headlights of the car behind him (it's a trick of the eyes) such that the car waiting to turn now sees a gap of 50m between two cars and decides to go for it. This generally tends to occur when drivers are only glancing at the oncoming traffic (not taking in enough information) or have been staring at it for a while (and get fatigued).

That's the risk with DRLs.

KamiKazi

Well said Seamus, my point exactly.

Cookie_Monster

Winty wrote: »

Are 14 lives worth 41 million?

That’s 3,000,000 a life.

I am not trying to be cruel; I know every life is important and it could be my life but if you have a cancer drug that cost 3,000,000 would you give it to people?

3m is going to be something like the average cost of a road death between insurance, gardai, fire services, investigation, court case etc etc. Lives are in reality worth an awful lot less than that.

BronsonTB

Very doubtful on the figures supplied...

If everyone has drl's on I just wonder how many bike lives will not be saved.....If everyone has the lights on it will hinder drivers seeing motorbikes....

As both a bike & car driver I'm not that in favor of making it drl compulsory.......optional yes....

Certainly no harm in those people that travel alot of the roads having there lights on....always helps when coming up behind someone who doesn't use there rear view mirror except when they spot a light behind them....

Matt Simis

KamiKazi wrote: »

Of course they do, when's the last time you saw a car covered in reflective material?

Garda car? I dunno what you mean by this though.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Well said Seamus, my point exactly.

And ignoring the fact I disagree on the whole concept that everything will look the same, this one aspect would surely be offset by the fact bikers are less likely to overtake into oncoming traffic (silver car on dull morning, no lights, bumpy road, thing is basically invisible)...

While the fact a bike could visually "merge" with a car behind it is true , I still dont accept that has anything to do with DRLs.. Firstly you are never going to get 100% of cars with DRLs on the road, every DRL looks different, every car is different (height and positioning of lights and vehicle) etc. So you simply are not going to get a "sea of lights" that all look the same. We arent talking about nighttime here, its daytime, even the colour of the car paint would make them stand out. DRLs will not and do not make cars and bikes look the same. They may make people more aware of vehicles with lights on in general (this is what happened in Canada) which would make bikes more conciously visible.
And since DRLs are of primary benefit on backroads (no sea of cars there), not packed city streets, its all moot. Its not like Bikes are driving parallel to cars in single lane traffic or anything is it...

Seamus wrote:

Actually, the problem here is that if all vehicles have their lights on, then they *become* the background.

That sounds like more theory than practice.
If you have 10 cars, all silver, on a grey road with a grey sky (welcome to Ireland!), the 8 with lights are going to stand out, not the 2 without lights, they become the background. Unless the background is a disco ball, a bunch of cars with lights are never going to look like tarmac or sky. :rolleyes:


I consider myself very courteous to bikers on the road, I get salutes (the good type..) all the time. However DRLs will have a massively positive impact (and statisically proven) on the vast majority of road users and no direct (IMO) negative to anyone. If bikers want to continue to uniquely stand out (and I think they will anyway, as shown DRLs and Bike Headlights look completely different), they need to think of something new that achieves that, not put the majority of the world in danger for their benefit.
Needs of the many outway the needs of the few and all that.

I use my lights day and night. I have been doing it for a long time now at this stage I turn them on without even noticing that I'm doing it.

It makes a big difference in seeing another cars during the day when pulling out at junctions etc.

I dont think cars using there lights make bikes any less visible tbh.

KamiKazi

Matt Simis wrote: »

And ignoring the fact I disagree on the whole concept that everything will look the same, this one aspect would surely be offset by the fact bikers are less likely to overtake into oncoming traffic (silver car on dull morning, no lights, bumpy road, thing is basically invisible)...

Let's not turn this into a bike vs. car thread, but you can't argue that it's much more likely for a car to miss a bike than for a bike to miss a car - pretty much down to the size of bike and them generally travelling faster than cars. Simple fact of the matter is that bikers that miss things don't last on the road.

Matt Simis wrote: »

While the fact a bike could visually "merge" with a car behind it is true , I still dont accept that has anything to do with DRLs.. Firstly you are never going to get 100% of cars with DRLs on the road, every DRL looks different, every car is different (height and positioning of lights and vehicle) etc. So you simply are not going to get a "sea of lights" that all look the same. We arent talking about nighttime here, its daytime, even the colour of the car paint would make them stand out. DRLs will not and do not make cars and bikes look the same. They may make people more aware of vehicles with lights on in general (this is what happened in Canada) which would make bikes more conciously visible.
And since DRLs are of primary benefit on backroads, not packed city streets, its all moot. Its not like Bikes are driving parallel to cars in single lane traffic of anything is it...

It already happens on rainy days when cars have their lights on, bikes do become much harder to spot in the midst of lots of cars.

Matt Simis wrote: »

That sounds like more theory than practice.
If you have 10 cars, all silver, on a grey road with a grey sky (welcome to Ireland!), the 8 with lights are going to stand out, not the 2 without lights, they become the background. Unless the background is a disco ball, a bunch of cars with lights are never going to look like tarmac or sky. :rolleyes:

Sounds like you're describing a day with poor visibility? If so (and I may be wrong here) but don't the ROTR advise drivers to turn on dipped lights when visibility is poor?

Matt Simis wrote: »

I consider myself very courteous to bikers on the road, I get salutes (the good type..) all the time. However DRLs will have a massively positive impact (and statisically proven) on the vast majority of road users and no direct (IMO) negative to anyone. If bikers want to continue to uniquely stand out (and I think they will anyway, as shown DRLs and Bike Headlights look completely different), they need to think of something new that achieves that, not put the majority of the world in danger for their benefit.
Needs of the many outway the needs of the few and all that.

I'd argue that DRL will cost more bikers their lives than it will save car drivers, making the biking community the majority.

seamus

Matt Simis wrote: »

And ignoring the fact I disagree on the whole concept that everything will look the same, this one aspect would surely be offset by the fact bikers are less likely to overtake into oncoming traffic (silver car on dull morning, no lights, bumpy road, thing is basically invisible)...

Head-on collisions between cars and bikes make up a tiny proportion of motorcycle accidents. Most collisions occur where a car pulls across the path of a motorcycle because the car driver failed to observe the oncoming motorcyclist.
That's really my point here - DRLs may increase the risk of aggravating the most common type of accident which occurs against bikes.

While the fact a bike could visually "merge" with a car behind it is true , I still dont accept that has anything to do with DRLs.. Firstly you are never going to get 100% of cars with DRLs on the road, every DRL looks different, every car is different (height and positioning of lights and vehicle) etc. So you simply are not going to get a "sea of lights" that all look the same. We arent talking about nighttime here, its daytime, even the colour of the car paint would make them stand out. DRLs will not and do not make cars and bikes look the same. They may make people more aware of vehicles with lights on in general (this is what happened in Canada) which would make bikes more conciously visible.

Car drivers fail to see bikes because they fail to anticipate the existence of a small vehicle - they're generally looking out for larger vehicles. A DRL on a bike (or a high-vis vest) disturbs the driver's field of vision and makes him notice the bike. But if everyone is running DRLs, then the lights themselves become part of the expected background noise and the bikers lose their advantage.

If you have 10 cars, all silver, on a grey road with a grey sky (welcome to Ireland!), the 8 with lights are going to stand out, not the 2 without lights, they become the background. Unless the background is a disco ball, a bunch of cars with lights are never going to look like tarmac or sky. :rolleyes:

But if you have 30 cars all coming towards you with lights on, the ones that will stand out - the ones that you will consciously notice - are the ones that don't have lights on. Something being more illuminated and something "standing out" are not necessarily the same thing. The human brain is wired to recognise and expect patterns. We notice a phenomenon more easily when it breaks a pattern (such as by not having lights on).

Needs of the many outway the needs of the few and all that.

I'm not specifically against DRLs per se, but I do think that the bikers have a very good argument. It's worth examining all of the evidence from countries with a similar biker profile and similar weather patterns to us to see if introducing DRLs had any negative effect. If it makes car driving slightly safer, but biking significantly more dangerous (for example), then that's not a good trade-off.

Matt Simis

KamiKazi wrote: »

Let's not turn this into a bike vs. car thread, but you can't argue that it's much more likely for a car to miss a bike than for a bike to miss a car - pretty much down to the size of bike and them generally travelling faster than cars. Simple fact of the matter is that bikers that miss things don't last on the road.

So you are just ommiting the "bikes traveling fast towards a car they cant see vs bike rider seeing a car due to DRL" side of the argument. Right oh.
I look out for lights and movement. Moving objects with lights are easier to spot. I feel confident that I will continue to see bikes even if I can now also see cars better. I dont consider this to be outrageous.

It already happens on rainy days when cars have their lights on, bikes do become much harder to spot in the midst of lots of cars.

As long as everyone has their lights on, again I dont see the issue. Bikes in rain are inherently dangerous, but every single bike accident I have seen (3), the bikes crashed into things for a variety of reasons (one of them the biker not seeing the car ironically). Ive never seen a bike hit by a car thankfully.

Sounds like you're describing a day with poor visibility? If so (and I may be wrong here) but don't the ROTR advise drivers to turn on dipped lights when visibility is poor?

Lol, yeah, ROTR.

I'd argue that DRL will cost more bikers their lives than it will save car drivers, making the biking community the majority.

Argue based on numbers then.
Have you actually found any evidence (and not just some other bikers patting each other's backs and agreeing) in the many countries that introduced DRLs that experienced overall lower road accidents that they infact seen a net increase in fatalities (which seems contradictory, but its what you propose)?

The data is there (we arent living in a bubble) and if you cannot provide it you simply do not have a case here at all, its just an opinion.

seamus wrote: »

If it makes car driving slightly safer, but biking significantly more dangerous (for example), then that's not a good trade-off.

I like bikes and bike riders, but to be blunter than I would like to be (for the sake of clarity), I think that if DRLs specifically saved 15 people (kids, motorists of all sorts etc) and cost the life of 1 (who happened to be a biker), for a net gain of 14 lifes saved per year, then it would be an acceptable tradeoff. To simply "not do it" as it disimproves the lot of one small subset is far too human a reaction to be the correct one.

KamiKazi and you do not infact share the same viewpoint IMO, his view is that the RSA are not counting bikers at all and for the 14 saved lifes there are 15 or more dead bikers, for a net loss. Which I think is simply an OTT viewpoint without data.

JoeySully

Im fully in support of DRL's. I always have my lights on day and night. In the last 2 years I have changed only one headlight bulb and I bought the car second hand as well so god knows how old it was before it was replaced.
I do about 13K miles a year.

I don't see how they are going to work though? Are the Gardai going to police it?
If so what will the penalty be? A fixed on the spot fine would be the best way I think rather than adding the expense of paperwork and sending out fines. Penalty points would just be too much.

So if there is going to be a fine/penalty points for not using your DLR's/dipped headlights then is there also going to be a fine for broken lights both front and back as broken lights to me would be the same as not using your DLR's.
In the NRA report they say that Foggy lights/spot lights will not be allowed to be used as DLR's will these now finally be outlawed and enforced.

I really don't see the Gardai pulling someone over cause their DLR's are not on when the don't seem to care when someone has broken front or rear lights. I have never heard of anyone getting fined or prosecuted for not turning on their lights even though its something I see quite regularly around town.

KamiKazi

KamiKazi wrote: »

I'd argue that DRL will cost more bikers their lives than it will save car drivers, making the biking community the majority.

I dont understand your point of view. You will see the light of the bike the same regardless of cars using their lights or not. A lot of bikers need to sort out some of their own crazy manouvers before blaming cars using their lights for causing accidents involving bikes.

seamus

Matt Simis wrote: »

KamiKazi and you do not infact share the same viewpoint IMO, his view is that the RSA are not counting bikers at all and for the 14 saved lifes there are 15 or more dead bikers, for a net loss. Which I think is simply an OTT viewpoint without data.

Actually, I'm looking at it from the POV of - is it better to do nothing and 20 people die, or to risk doing something and specifically cause the death of 6 people who wouldn't otherwise have died? That's really the question behind any change in the way our roads operate.

I also think that road deaths are only one part of the equation which is why I used the words "safer" and "more dangerous". What I mean is that let's say this measures leaves 14 more people alive on the roads, but results in an additional 40 bikers being severly crippled after accidents. Are we better off? From a utilititarian POV we're not, because now we have a net 40 people who have to be taken care of instead of 14 people who are gone.

KamiKazi

Matt Simis wrote: »

So you are just ommiting the "bikes traveling fast towards a car they cant see vs bike rider seeing a car due to DRL" side of the argument. Right oh.

Missed that point actually, must have skipped over it. IMO it's far far far more common that a car misses the bike , but feel free to disagree with me.

galwaytt

Alanna Quick Turbojet wrote: »

I dont understand your point of view. You will see the light of the bike the same regardless of cars using their lights or not. A lot of bikers need to sort out some of their own crazy manouvers before blaming cars using their lights for causing accidents involving bikes.

Populist tosh. The RSA themselves will tell you that 60%+ of all accidents with bikes........are caused by cars. Bikes doing everything perfect won't change that.

KamiKazi

Alanna Quick Turbojet wrote: »

A lot of bikers need to sort out some of their own crazy manouvers before blaming cars using their lights for causing accidents involving bikes.

If I had a camera I'd mount it on the bike and film my commute to work every morning, by your logic I'd never see any dangerous from car drivers right? :rolleyes:

peasant

Bikers don't get seen because nobody looks for them.

Your average motorist quickly scans the road for anything resembling the pattern "car", "bus", "truck" and when that pattern isn't recognised the road is deemed to be free of traffic.

Only on slow turns inside built-up areas will the patterns "pedestrian" and "cyclist" sometimes also cover the recognition of bikers.

Alun

galwaytt wrote: »

Populist tosh. The RSA themselves will tell you that 60%+ of all accidents with bikes........are caused by cars. Bikes doing everything perfect won't change that.

Well, statistically, what do you expect them to be caused by, considering the relative numbers of bikes and cars on the roads?

KamiKazi

Alun wrote: »

Well, statistically, what do you expect them to be caused by, considering the relative numbers of bikes and cars on the roads?

Gravel on the roads.
Spilt diesel / oil.
Muck & sh1te kindly left on the road by farmers.
Smooth topped manhole covers conveniently located on street corners, which give as much grip as a patch of sheet ice.
Rutted roads.
Potholes big enough to swallow bike + rider whole.

I can keep going if you like?

Tragedy

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Yes, actually, I would. €3mil isn't a lot, for a life.

Anyway, I'd love to know how the RSA came up with the figure of €41million to implement DLRs.

Surely "Switch on your lights" doesn't cost €41million!

No doubt, they'll cock it, and with expenses and the like, it'll come closer to the €70mil mark.

EDIT: Just saw there. Don't know how I missed a whole paragraph.

€3 million per life is €13.5 trillion for every life in the state, or 74 years of GDP at the 2008 rate.

That's a lot for a life.

seamus

Alun wrote: »

Well, statistically, what do you expect them to be caused by, considering the relative numbers of bikes and cars on the roads?

He means "caused by" as in "fault of". That is, 60%+ of biking accidents are found to have had the car driver at fault. If you ignore single vehicle accidents and bike + bike accidents (v. rare), the figure is closer to 75% of bike + <other vehicle> accidents where the biker is not at fault.

All other things being equal, you would expect the biker to be at fault 50% of the time.

high heels

Last year I was in Czech where you have to be on dipped beems at all times... Alot of people were flashing me until someone told me I had to have lights on all the time..

If they make it law just like the new drink laws we will change.. No need to go updating car systems...

langdang

peasant wrote: »

Bikers don't get seen because nobody looks for them.

Your average motorist quickly scans the road for anything resembling the pattern "car", "bus", "truck" and when that pattern isn't recognised the road is deemed to be free of traffic.

Only on slow turns inside built-up areas will the patterns "pedestrian" and "cyclist" sometimes also cover the recognition of bikers.

And if we're talking about scanning and pattern recognition, let's face it not everybody's driving brain is being clocked at the same rate as frequent visitors (car/bike enthusiasts) to this forum!
We've all had days where the head was not right, after exams, sleep deprivation, really bad news/shock - and we've realised how hard it is to drive properly.
Some people are only capable of giving driving that much attention at the best of times!
Couple that with "oh I lost my glasses/ don't like my glasses/ I don't need glasses"... DRLs definitely help the hard of driving/seeing/thinking make out other vehicles, but I agree that bikers will lose out in heavy traffic (assuming more people even semi-actively look for them)

Remember - half the population are below average (yes, blatant mis-use of stats but this is an RSA related thread)

Gregor Samsa

galwaytt wrote: »

Populist tosh. The RSA themselves will tell you that 60%+ of all accidents with bikes........are caused by cars. Bikes doing everything perfect won't change that.

seamus wrote:

If you ignore single vehicle accidents and bike + bike accidents (v. rare), the figure is closer to 75% of bike + <other vehicle> accidents where the biker is not at fault.

Where are you getting these statistics from?

The RSA's Motorcyclist Road Collision Casualties
1997 - 2006 report (http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/Motorcycle%20Report%2097%20-%2006.pdf) breaks down the accident type of fatalities and serious injuries suffered by riders, but it doesn't assign blame.

26% of bike accidents are single vehicle, 3% are with a pedestrian. So 71% involve another vehicle (or vehicles, and not necessarily cars) - but nowhere does it say that the vast majority of these are caused by cars.

KamiKazi

KamiKazi wrote: »

If I had a camera I'd mount it on the bike and film my commute to work every morning, by your logic I'd never see any dangerous from car drivers right? :rolleyes:

But you would encounter 100's of cars on your way to work and maybe not any bikes. For the small number of bikes I see on the roads a high percentage are driven in a way that I would consider at the least risky.

I'm no angel in the car but the margin for error is much bigger for a car. i.e you have some hope if you crash rather than almost none.

I'm not anti-bike by any means I wouldn't even be against owning one but I would kill myself if I had one so I will keep clear of them.

Matt Simis

KamiKazi wrote: »

Missed that point actually, must have skipped over it. IMO it's far far far more common that a car misses the bike , but feel free to disagree with me.

Woops sorry, for some reason I was thinking "missed" was referring to "not hitting" as opposed "not seeing"!

I think you would like me as a car driver (:) ), I really like looking at bikes zoom by and always give them loads of room, watch out for them all the time, generally indicate, nice and visible (;) ) thanks my installation of 21w bulbs inplace of the standard 5w parks etc. But I just disagree with you (completely actually) on DRLs having such a huge negative impact on bikers.

If you can find some hard stats to back up your theory, Im all ears.

KamiKazi

Alanna Quick Turbojet wrote: »

But you would encounter 100's of cars on your way to work and maybe not any bikes. For the small number of bikes I see on the roads a high percentage are driven in a way that I would consider at the least risky.

I'm no angel in the car but the margin for error is much bigger for a car. i.e you have some hope if you crash rather than almost none.

All comes down to what you would deem to be risky then I suppose.

seamus

phutyle wrote: »

Where are you getting these statistics from?

Hibernian issued a report on Motorcycle insurance (back when they used to be insurers for bikes) which gave this figure. The report was issued in 2003, but I can't seem to find it anywhere now, this is the closest I could find is http://www.magireland.org/node/24

Here's another admittedly weird looking page:
http://www.accident-claims-ireland.info/motorcycle_accidents.html

There was also another report called "MAIDS" which had similar figures listed.