Irish Times - Rag

TinyExplosions

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Ok, now can you show me the number of cyclists killed in the scenario you outline above, ie where the cyclist is stopped at a set of lights, a truck pulls up behind them, and subsequently runs them over making a left turn.... bet you can't...

Most of the left turning accidents are where the cyclist has come up the left of the truck while it was waiting, or have nothing to do with traffic lights at all.

Lets make sure we don't mislead people and tell them that statistics back up fear mongering when they clearly don't

I'm really not interested in winning an argument.

As you well know (or I hope you do), the most common cause of death or serious injury for cyclists in urban areas is getting caught under a left turning large vehicle.

Whether the cyclist moved up inside the vehicle whilst it was stopped (which isn't something I would recommend) or the vehicle moved alongside a cyclist already at the junction is irrelevant. It's also not something anyone is likely to be able to find statistics on.

My point is that left turning lorries are dangerous, and smug misguided posts on a cycling forum that 'if you are waiting at the stop line you are safe' (and the apparent belief that if you obey the law you cannot get into this type of accident) are in danger of getting someone who takes them seriously killed.

<<insert all usual caveats about cycling actually being very safe here>>

enas

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Nope, it's not the broader theme at all. It's a very specific theme that is you are in danger if a truck comes up behind you at a red light.

The video illustrates idiotic driving, there's a lot of examples of that online, none of which have to do with being stopped at lights

Idiotic driving is what scares some cyclists. In particular when you can't read the future and predict when this will happen. Without idiotic driving, it doesn't matter one bit where you choose to stop.

The point I was making is that a not-so-confident cyclist, who can't accelerate as fast as you and I can, when waiting at a red light with a lorry sitting behind him, might easily fear (whether this really happens or not) that as the light turns green, the lorry will accelerate faster than him and turn left, resulting in a situation similar to that of the video. It might be hard for you to realise this because you're probably not one of those cyclists, but it is this sort of fear that makes some cyclists choose to have an illegal head start.

Grudaire

A not rag article from the Times today?

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/rural-ireland-on-two-wheels-1.1435557

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is that left turning lorries are dangerous, and smug misguided posts on a cycling forum that 'if you are waiting at the stop line you are safe' (and the apparent belief that if you obey the law you cannot get into this type of accident) are in danger of getting someone who takes them seriously killed.

No one ever posted that "if you obey the law you cannot get into this type of accident". It is obviously perfectly possible to get into accidents whilst obeying the law.

My (and others) argument is that breaking the law is NOT NECESSARY to cycle safely. And you haven't countered that argument at all, because you haven't presented a specific scenario which stacks up.

As for the "smug misguided" accusation, get over yourself.

Dermot Illogical

enas wrote: »

The point I was making is that a not-so-confident cyclist, who can't accelerate as fast as you and I can, when waiting at a red light with a lorry sitting behind him, might easily fear (whether this really happens or not) that as the light turns green, the lorry will accelerate faster than him and turn left, resulting in a situation similar to that of the video. It might be hard for you to realise this because you're probably not one of those cyclists, but it is this sort of fear that makes some cyclists choose to have an illegal head start.

It's a fear I can understand. I will usually take a position in front of whatever vehicle is top of the queue, and move in left as I cross the junction, to prevent a left turning vehicle taking me out.
Similarly I will usually take the lane when travelling straight on if there's a popular left turn ahead.
People on bikes need to be encouraged to assert themselves tbh.

enas

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think you've missed the point a little

I did -- eventually -- get this point, and acknowledged it in an earlier post I was just noting the little hypocrisy in the "stick to the law" argument

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

No one ever posted that "if you obey the law you cannot get into this type of accident". It is obviously perfectly possible to get into accidents whilst obeying the law.

My (and others) argument is that breaking the law is NOT NECESSARY to cycle safely. And you haven't countered that argument at all, because you haven't presented a specific scenario which stacks up.

As for the "smug misguided" accusation, get over yourself.

"It is not possible to get run over by a left-turning vehicle if you are stopped behind the stop line, like any normal person would be."

I suppose if by that you meant that if you don't move you can't get run over, that's almost true. And also a pointless thing to say.

If you meant that if you wait at a red light and then proceed, you can't get run over by a left turning vehicle, that's self evidently false and if you want I can provide many newspaper articles to demonstrate that.

Which is it? I am confused.

Couple of obvious circumstances where breaking the law can make cycling safer:

• Treating a red light as a yield in order to stop the build up of cyclists in a line to the left of traffic, much of which will itself want to turn left and thus cross the line of cyclists. This happens at a lot of junctions - it is dangerous
• Going down a quiet one-way street as an alternative to negotiating a much busier two way street full of large vehicles. A no-brainer.

I understand the argument that is is not necessary to break the law. Of course it isn't. On the other hand it is often safer and more convenient.

Dermot Illogical

enas wrote: »

The point being that you happily chose to ignore a law (before 1 October 2012) because you felt it was either unsafe or inconvenient to do so. No one will blame you for that. But then, we could all keep that in mind, and in turn sympathise with someone who says he prefers to cycle a street the wrong way for his own safety or convenience (as his perceives it). Not saying we should all condone it, but the proper reaction to that is a tad more subtle than simply answering "stick to the law or don't cycle".

I never felt unsafe, and I'm not sure I was breaking any law by failing to use a cycle lane which takes me off the road I'm travelling and deposits me on one I don't wish to travel. Perhaps I was?

quozl

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose if by that you meant that if you don't move you can't get run over, that's almost true. And also a pointless thing to say.

It's not a pointless thing to say. I'm one of those newbie cyclists and if there's a truck beside me at a red-light and it's signaling left, I'll wait for it to pull off and then proceed - which seems to me to be what Lumen is suggesting. To be honest, I'll probably give it a small head-start even if not signalling in case its planning on turning but too daft to signal.

That's the legal safe alternative to the breaking the red light (often also safe) alternative.

It's a rare occurence as typically I'd be at the front blocking the lane, or just behind him again blocking the lane but I have had the odd loon still pull up beside me, halfway across the white line. I'm extra inclined to let such lunatics go first

Dermot Illogical

Deleted User wrote: »

Couple of obvious circumstances where breaking the law can make cycling safer:

• Treating a red light as a yield in order to stop the build up of cyclists in a line to the left of traffic, much of which will itself want to turn left and thus cross the line of cyclists. This happens at a lot of junctions - it is dangerous
• Going down a quiet one-way street as an alternative to negotiating a much busier two way street full of large vehicles. A no-brainer.

Are you for real? A large group of cyclists at a junction has safety in numbers. There's no need to break the light for "safety" because a vehicle might turn left. If there are a lot of cyclists there, traffic has to wait to turn left. This I see every day on my commute.

The one way street argument is fine to a point. It seems safe for the cyclist themselves, but it brings them into conflict with traffic entering the one way street legally (also possibly from side roads) which isn't expecting them to be there. I regularly have to avoid them (salmon) as I cycle around, and I find it's not so safe for me.

Jawgap

the man behind the camera......

http://bcove.me/bjgshxr7

an Irish Times video report.......

Dermot Illogical

quozl wrote: »

I'm one of those newbie cyclists and if there's a truck beside me at a red-light and it's signaling left, I'll wait for it to pull off and then proceed

Don't ever leave yourself on the inside of a left-turning truck!
Only let him go if you're behind him. Otherwise get in front and away ahead of him. But never leave yourself to his left as he's turning...

Lumen

enas wrote: »

Idiotic driving is what scares some cyclists. In particular when you can't read the future and predict when this will happen. Without idiotic driving, it doesn't matter one bit where you choose to stop.

The point I was making is that a not-so-confident cyclist, who can't accelerate as fast as you and I can, when waiting at a red light with a lorry sitting behind him, might easily fear (whether this really happens or not) that as the light turns green, the lorry will accelerate faster than him and turn left, resulting in a situation similar to that of the video. It might be hard for you to realise this because you're probably not one of those cyclists, but it is this sort of fear that makes some cyclists choose to have an illegal head start.

Your present an interesting case. I am, however, still not convinced.

I would like to disregard the "people are scared so they do this" argument. I understand that people are scared, and that makes me feel sympathetic, but this is a discussion about what's legal and what's necessary for safety. Justifying poor technique because it's well meant is a dead end.

To the specifics...

If there is an ASL, I'll put myself in mid-lane and pull left after the junction. In that case there is no risk unless a vehicle is turning left across the whole lane, which IMO is an example of homicidal driver/freak accident, and no different from the risk of someone pulling across you to turn right from the opposite lane.

If there is no ASL, and I'm first to the lights, I sit in the middle of the lane, behind the stop line, and stay there until I clear the junction, then pull left. Same effect as above, happy days.

If there is no ASL, and I'm not first to the lights, I do one of the following:

- Sit alongside (to the left) of the first vehicle at the lights, behind the stop line, and merge in behind it when they go green.

- Sit mid-way between the first and second vehicles, far enough right to present "clearance problems" to the second vehicle, and merge right as the first vehicle pulls away.

None of these approaches requires great skill or acceleration, and none of them ever cause the vehicle behind to get noticeably impatient. They are all legal, to my knowledge.

Bluefoam

I don't know why this thread has turned into an argument about cyclists breaking the rules of the road... All types of road users break the rules; the rules should be made to accommodate modern travel and road users should abide by rules that are fair and sensible.

To offer some evidence of my point, here is an example of 9 cars breaking the rules of the road within a 10 second window. These road users are lazy opportunists and are putting other road users in danger through their actions - however I don't hear a massive outcry about them.

The intense attack and vilification of cyclists has to stop. All road users need to learn to share and accommodate each other. Publications such as the Irish Times have a huge impact to make on this issue and can contribute through the tone of their 'journalism'. They can still have the debate, but should not publish articles with preconceived options, rather rationalised conclusions.

laraghrider

So anyway, on topic the Irish Times is a Rag yeah?

TinyExplosions

Deleted User wrote: »

If you meant that if you wait at a red light and then proceed, you can't get run over by a left turning vehicle, that's self evidently false and if you want I can provide many newspaper articles to demonstrate that.

Don't show me many, show me one. Just one in which the scenario was as described (ie lights on red, cyclist arrives first, vehicle comes up behind cyclist, and on the lights turning green the vehicle hits the cyclist).

Just one... bet you can't...

enas

Lumen wrote: »

None of these approaches requires great skill or acceleration, and none of them ever cause the vehicle behind to get noticeably impatient. They are all legal, to my knowledge.

Of course, it all makes sense, and this is how I ride too (and most of us here, probably). All I'm saying is that, without condoning it, I can understand those would say that they feel it's safer or more convenient for them to break the law in some instances.

Incidentally:

Lumen wrote: »

If there is an ASL, I'll put myself in mid-lane and pull left after the junction. In that case there is no risk unless a vehicle is turning left across the whole lane, which IMO is an example of homicidal driver/freak accident, and no different from the risk of someone pulling across you to turn right from the opposite lane.

I did have once an experience with someone who did exactly that. He clipped my right pedal as a result, and claimed he would complain to the gardaí for the damage I caused to his car (WTF!). Of course, I started to call the guards straight away, which quickly brought him to his senses, and agreed to fork out €100 (I could see a bent chainring, which was nothing to repair in the end, so I even made some money out of that -- not too proud of that, but I left it at that). More commonly, you get people who will engage into road rage further down the road just because you positioned yourself mid-lane at the light (latest incident a week ago with a Bus Éireann driver, who's been reported to the gardaí with video evidence).

All that is enough to put off many cyclists, and make them feel it's better to pass at a red light than to bother with all that.

enas

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Don't show me many, show me one. Just one in which the scenario was as described (ie lights on red, cyclist arrives first, vehicle comes up behind cyclist, and on the lights turning green the vehicle hits the cyclist).

Just one... bet you can't...

See my post above. I haven't died, thankfully. And it wasn't with a lorry, just a Ford Focus, so the potential for damage was pretty low. Still rather unpleasant, though.

TinyExplosions

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Don't show me many, show me one. Just one in which the scenario was as described (ie lights on red, cyclist arrives first, vehicle comes up behind cyclist, and on the lights turning green the vehicle hits the cyclist).

Just one... bet you can't...

I can't figure out what you are trying to prove. Do you think it's safe to sit inside a left-turning lorry?

This article has a decent summary of the issues and some good links. As you know, no newspaper report is going to list all the specifics of any case, the stories merely demonstrate (as I said) the dangers of being inside lorries turning left (however you ended up there): http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/cyclist-fatalities-due-to-left-turning-lorries/

dogsears

Lumen wrote: »

Your present an interesting case. I am, however, still not convinced.

I would like to disregard the "people are scared so they do this" argument. I understand that people are scared, and that makes me feel sympathetic, but this is a discussion about what's legal and what's necessary for safety. Justifying poor technique because it's well meant is a dead end.

To the specifics...

If there is an ASL, I'll put myself in mid-lane and pull left after the junction. In that case there is no risk unless a vehicle is turning left across the whole lane, which IMO is an example of homicidal driver/freak accident, and no different from the risk of someone pulling across you to turn right from the opposite lane.

If there is no ASL, and I'm first to the lights, I sit in the middle of the lane, behind the stop line, and stay there until I clear the junction, then pull left. Same effect as above, happy days.

If there is no ASL, and I'm not first to the lights, I do one of the following:

- Sit alongside (to the left) of the first vehicle at the lights, behind the stop line, and merge in behind it when they go green.

- Sit mid-way between the first and second vehicles, far enough right to present "clearance problems" to the second vehicle, and merge right as the first vehicle pulls away.

None of these approaches requires great skill or acceleration, and none of them ever cause the vehicle behind to get noticeably impatient. They are all legal, to my knowledge.

+1 on all the above.

And just to add that in a scenario where you are not first to the lights and there is no ASL, so that you end up alongside another vehicle or between a couple of them, and if we assume that none of them is a lorry because I think everyone agrees it would be stupid to go alongside a lorry, then there isn't a way a lorry can come alongside you. So you've avoided the danger without having to run the lights.

I just think its not difficult to avoid running lights, if you're minded to. And you can stay safe at the same time. And I can't help shake the feeling that a lot of the justifications based on safety are the kinds of reasons that would be given by the cyclists who go through every red light they encounter unless there's actually a vehicle driving right across their path at that exact time.

I'm not suggesting that's the case with the posters here who are supportive of rule-breaking in certain scenarios, but I think those who care less, and maybe think about this less, will use the same arguments to justify their own behaviour, when in truth safety is not a significant factor in their thinking at all.

And I don't think there is much more injurious to the perception of cylists than this kind of behaviour. So I favour cycling safely, and legally, at the same time, all the time. And I've not yet seen anything to convince me that its not possible to both at the same time in such a way that the only safe course of action is to jump lights (or go the wrong way up a one-way street).

buffalo

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't figure out what you are trying to prove. Do you think it's safe to sit inside a left-turning lorry?

I don't think anyone has said that. I think the general point is that you don't have to break the rules of the road to avoid sitting inside of a left-turning lorry. Either be assertive and take the lane while in front, or wait behind.

If the driver is completely incompetent, then yes, bad things could happen. But one can say that about any and every situation.

Jawgap

laraghrider wrote: »

So anyway, on topic the Irish Times is a Rag yeah?

All I can say is that none of this would have happened if Major McDowell & Douglas Gageby were still in charge........

CramCycle

laraghrider wrote: »

So anyway, on topic the Irish Times is a Rag yeah?

Rag probably isn't the right word, I just think that they went from a paper whom I would read every day, trust in their reporting, to a paper that while for the most part is still acceptable, a few (very small minority) of the papers editors and journalists seem to be either lacking in journalistic integrity or a backbone to stand over what they printed.

This was a good enough reason for me not to buy it again and until they apologise for their treatment of persons and people who cannot defend themselves, then that will continue, a small, most likely ineffectual protest.

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

See my post above. I haven't died, thankfully. And it wasn't with a lorry, just a Ford Focus, so the potential for damage was pretty low. Still rather unpleasant, though.

Absolutely, but as you say, it's not a HGV, and you didn't die (thankfully), so it's a freak accident that could happen in any situation.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't figure out what you are trying to prove. Do you think it's safe to sit inside a left-turning lorry?

I'm not trying to prove anything other than the fact that

If a lorry pulls up alongside you and is turning left, wherever you are in relation to the 'stop line' - take evasive action. If that means breaking a red light I won't blame you.

is over cautious bullshit, and that

THIS IS HOW CYCLISTS DIE.

is much the same.

Fair enough - I don't think it's over cautious bull****, but opinions vary. I do think there's no benefit in hyping the dangers of cycling but in this particular case it is a genuine danger and shouldn't be dismissed as not an issue for the sake of an argument on an internet forum

Fortunately in Dublin at least it doesn't arise so much any more since the port tunnel.

CramCycle

If you are at the front before the lorry arrives and you hold the lane, then,he should a) see you and b) be in a position that he cannot overtake you to turn left on you. he could of course run you over straight through the back but if he does that, chances are he would hit any othere vehicle as he has no road awareness.

If you arrive after him, either wait behind or if going forward, keep in the lane beside him, if available or again, wait behind the lorry.

Moral of the story, if your at the front of the queue and you have reason to believe that the driver behind you may left hook you, hold the lane until the light goes green and then cross the junction in the dominant position, removing the possibility.

John_C

I was reading the Times today. Its use of pronouns jumped out at me and I thought of this thread.

Jawgap

Today's editorial is pretty well balanced - it sums things up nicely!.......

With apologies in advance to the late Bill Shankly:
“Some people believe cycling is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”

Of course the sharp-tongued Liverpool FC manager never uttered those words – at least not all of them. His much-abused quote related instead to the importance of soccer which, for obvious reasons, endeared itself to him. But, allowing for a degree of licence, it seems to sum up the depth of feeling that cycling has generated on print and web pages over the last 10 days.
In a precursor to National Bike Week (which concludes tomorrow), the tone was set – at least in part – by Fintan O’Toole. Rising to a hyperbolic height that is a polemicist’s stock in trade, he denounced cyclists as the spawn of the devil. What rendered his views most cutting was the core truth – however uncomfortable on the approach to a week intended to promote bike use – that some cyclists show little regard for pedestrians (not to mention their own safety). At last count, O’Toole’s column had attracted more than 400 comments on irishtimes.com. A parallel series “On Your Bike” evoked a negative response from some in cyberspace because it was deemed (unfairly) to be pursuing an anti-cycling agenda.

......I wonder who they might be referring to?:)

Bluefoam

I love the way people speak about cyber space as if it is some strange place occupied by weird reclusives who don't interact with wider society... well I can assure you that while I have this conversation on boards, I also have the same dialogue in the pub, at work and during my cycles at the weekend... its just more public here and some people are threatened by the openness of the online medium, particularly those who don't fully understand or interact with it...

humbert

Jawgap wrote: »

Today's editorial is pretty well balanced - it sums things up nicely!.......

With apologies in advance to the late Bill Shankly:
“Some people believe cycling is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”

Of course the sharp-tongued Liverpool FC manager never uttered those words – at least not all of them. His much-abused quote related instead to the importance of soccer which, for obvious reasons, endeared itself to him. But, allowing for a degree of licence, it seems to sum up the depth of feeling that cycling has generated on print and web pages over the last 10 days.
In a precursor to National Bike Week (which concludes tomorrow), the tone was set – at least in part – by Fintan O’Toole. Rising to a hyperbolic height that is a polemicist’s stock in trade, he denounced cyclists as the spawn of the devil. What rendered his views most cutting was the core truth – however uncomfortable on the approach to a week intended to promote bike use – that some cyclists show little regard for pedestrians (not to mention their own safety). At last count, O’Toole’s column had attracted more than 400 comments on irishtimes.com. A parallel series “On Your Bike” evoked a negative response from some in cyberspace because it was deemed (unfairly) to be pursuing an anti-cycling agenda.

......I wonder who they might be referring to?:)

My sweaty ball-sack it was.