Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

monument

RayCun wrote: »

Because if you're in a car with the engine running and the windows rolled up, your sense of hearing is not going to do you a lot of good anyway :rolleyes:

(next question: so should deaf cyclists be banned? :rolleyes: )

Or:

Why isn't the sound proofing removed from cabs of cars and trucks?

RayCun

monument wrote: »

Or:

Why isn't the sound proofing removed from cabs of cars and trucks?

Because that would only let drivers hear their engines better?

monument

RayCun wrote: »

Because that would only let drivers hear their engines better?

And there begs the question why not more sound proofing around engines?

Also I don't think you directly answered the question another poster asked: If vision is good enough for motorists, why isn't it good enough for cyclists?

RayCun

monument wrote: »

And there begs the question why not more sound proofing around engines?

Because then pedestrian accidents go up (the electric car effect)

I do love the optimism of boards posters though. "I know, why don't we take the soundproofing away from the drivers areas and put it around the engine?! How come no-one ever thought of this before?"

monument wrote: »

Also I don't think you directly answered the question another poster asked: If vision is good enough for motorists, why isn't it good enough for cyclists?

He answered his question himself - motorists have mirrors, cyclists don't.

donkey balls

What cyclists and other road users need to build up is spatial and situation awareness when out and about on the roads,When I am out for a cycle or even in my car I use the skills that I attained while driving on the road plus flying.
The amount of times that I see cyclists & pedestrians just cross a road without even looking left or right is unreal,Also with these accidents/incidents involving HGV/Car against cyclists has there ever been a report in who was at fault?

monument

RayCun wrote: »

Because then pedestrian accidents go up (the electric car effect)

I do love the optimism of boards posters though. "I know, why don't we take the soundproofing away from the drivers areas and put it around the engine?! How come no-one ever thought of this before?"

I'm not even half serious about changing the sound proofing, it's a silly example because visuals are far, far more important and because the concept that you need your full hearing or that it is somehow vital is just not supported.

RayCun wrote: »

He answered his question himself - motorists have mirrors, cyclists don't.

Err and cyclists can look behind themselves! Or they can get mirror if they want.

monument

RT @peterwalker99: Test shows headphone-wearing cyclists hear more road noise than many drivers http://t.co/QBudld9GtT (via @BillBuffalo )

RayCun

monument wrote: »

Err and cyclists can look behind themselves!

The problem being that the cyclist has to think "I am about to perform a major manoeuvre, I had better look over my shoulder", but they don't have to think "I am am about to perform a major manoeuvre, I had better turn on my ears".
Motorists are told to check their mirrors before turning, yes, but also to check their mirrors constantly as they drive.

monument wrote: »

Or they can get mirror if they want.

Sure, they could. But if they don't, and they have earphones in, then they only know what's happening behind them when they turn and look over their shoulders.

monument

RayCun wrote: »

Sure, they could. But if they don't, and they have earphones in, then they only know what's happening behind them when they turn and look over their shoulders.

Just like motorists only know what's happening behind them when they look in their mirror.

So, what?

RayCun

But motorists can check their mirrors with a glance and are told to do so regularly, as I said above. Cyclists don't check over their shoulders regularly as they cycle, so if their hearing is impaired they have no peripheral awareness.

donkey balls

donkey balls wrote: »

The amount of times that I see cyclists & pedestrians just cross a road without even looking left or right is unreal,Also with these accidents/incidents involving HGV/Car against cyclists has there ever been a report in who was at fault?

I'd say this one is pretty clear cut:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/18/lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-hangover

Jawgap

I think the fundamental question is......in Irish cities and town centres, especially the older ones, are HGVs appropriate? And if so under what circumstances?

The more these debates drag on, the more I become convinced that large articulated HGVs have no place in city centres.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the fundamental question is......in Irish cities and town centres, especially the older ones, are HGVs appropriate? And if so under what circumstances?

The more these debates drag on, the more I become convinced that large articulated HGVs have no place in city centres.

agree 100%

bottom line is, it isn't the cyclists who are driving killing machines around city centres where tourists, families, cyclists etc are milling around.

let's focus on the actual problem

droidus

This is good: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matt-glass/london-cyclist-deaths_b_4298701.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

"If you need a barometer of just how much a bunch of utter bastards humankind can be, look no further than a story about a cyclist dying on the roads of London.

Tragically, you won't need to look far - six in the last fortnight should give you plenty of ammunition - and it seems everybody has a little bit of hatred reserved for the people who leave home in the morning and end up lying in a morgue rather than sitting at a desk.

Even Boris Johnson threw his barely-used bike helmet in the ring this week, stating that there could be "no question of blame or finger pointing," before finger pointing and laying the blame squarely at the feet of the cyclists who ended up beneath the wheels of heavy goods vehicles and buses on the capital's roads.

The internet swiftly - and predictably - erupted in outrage that humans could be so rude as to meet their maker instead of turning up to work in the morning.

Over on the Daily Mail, the nattily named 'bornfreetaxedtodeath' posed the reasonable question: "How many car drivers have been killed by trying to avoid these lycra two aside idiots & come face to death with a lorry?", before heading over to another forum to complain that the erratic nature of whales could be putting the lives of harpooners in danger.

'Rickz_88' literally misunderstood what the word literally means by suggesting that all cyclists "literally have a death wish", while 'Louisa-Jane' decided that the only reasonable solution is that "cyclists should be banned from the centre of London. They'll never be safe on those roads. If they ARE going to insist on riding their bikes then they should have to pay road tax." More on that later..."

enas

How to remove dangerous interactions between cyclists and HGVs: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/cycling-and-trucks-dutch-way/

And how to remove HGVs altogether from city centres: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/because-we-dont-want-large-trucks-in-the-city-center/

So the "it is not possible" argument isn't one. It's all a matter of the choices we make.

Cookie_Monster

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the fundamental question is......in Irish cities and town centres, especially the older ones, are HGVs appropriate? And if so under what circumstances?

they are for delivery / service purposes though restricted hours or days on when this occur is probably required along with removing as many as possible that are simply passing through. you will also never remove buses from city centres so even if trucks do get restricted you will still have hundreds of buses to contend with.

Jawgap wrote: »

The more these debates drag on, the more I become convinced that large articulated HGVs have no place in city centres.

the hundreds/thousands of private cars clogging up cities are a far bigger problem IMO both directly and indirectly by making CCs unfriendly for pedestrians & cyclists.

Mint Sauce

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

Did you even read the article? It clearly states that the cyclist was hit from behind by the truck. No amount of awareness on the cyclist behalf would prevent an overtaking truck from running them over.

Stollaire wrote: »

Did you even attempt to read past the headline!?

My comment about awareness was not in relation to this incident, but in general. I'm not having a go at cyclists, am one my self and used to do a regular commute in south london. But there are alot who take risks and continue to do so, as there is drivers who also take risks, and continue to do so.

monument

RayCun wrote: »

But motorists can check their mirrors with a glance and are told to do so regularly, as I said above. Cyclists don't check over their shoulders regularly as they cycle, so if their hearing is impaired they have no peripheral awareness.

Sure motorists can check their mirrors with a glance and are told do so, but the fact of a matter is that a huge bulk of motorist don't use their mirrors near as often as they are instructed to.

And cyclists CAN also glance over their shoulders regularly.

As for "so if their hearing is impaired they have no peripheral awareness" -- a few points:

(1) listening to music or the radio does not automatically mean your hearing is fully impaired (earbud in just one ear and/or the volume lower enough that you can hear traffic).

(2) I don't know why you think without your hearing you don't have peripheral awareness: You eyes alone can give you peripheral awareness of up to 180 degrees without even slightly turning your head. That kind of peripheral awareness is generally more important than awareness of what's behind you.

AugustusMinimus

AnotherView wrote: »

5 cyclists dead in London in 9 days ......

Imagine if that was a gunman or a terrorist ....it would be headline news around the world

If this is some of the stuff cyclists are doing in London then I'm not surprised.

Jawgap

Cyclists lie outside Transport for London (TfL) headquarters to protest road deaths

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445924/Cyclists-lie-outside-Transport-for-London-TfL-headquarters-to-protest-road-deaths

Spook_ie

Is the amount of construction traffic involved in producing the segregated traffic lanes not just as likely to temporarily increase accident rates until they're built? So not the sole answer even if it's a requisite outcome.

"We have brought the battle to TfL's headquarters because these are the people making the decisions. We want representations and we want real funding. We want £600 million a year spent on safer cycling in London.

"We believe that we need a separate, segregated modern cycle network that is at least two metres wide. We can do that in London, there is plenty of space to do it."

The majority of accidents thus far appear to be related to a massive construction project for cross rail. Also given the Luas building works in Dublin are we also on the cusp of a spike in cyclist injuries and deaths?

Spook_ie

AnotherView wrote: »

5 cyclists dead in London in 9 days ......

Imagine if that was a gunman or a terrorist ....it would be headline news around the world

Maybe if it was 5 in one go or something similar, but when you consider that the UK had in 2011/12 44 murders involving guns they didn't make headlines around the world

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

Road accidents, unless they involve major disruption or multiple deaths just don't make world headlines