Have a care if you cycle to work

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

More context for you

Irish Population 4.589 million

Assuming the cycling habits and infrastructure are similar then you could expect approx 7.2% of any UK results to apply in Ireland or 7 serious injuries per year based on a UK figure of 99 and a death on average every 6 years or so based on 2 deaths a year in the UK

So I think we can dispense with any arguments from people who say that cyclists don't cause injuries or deaths, unless of course people want to put an acceptable figure to injury and deaths

So you're more likely to die hanging wallpaper

SilverLiningOK

Cienciano wrote: »

I don't understand this attitude, it happens in every cyclists thread. We all know all road users break the rules of the road. But this thread is about cyclists.
In a thread about motorists not using roundabouts properly would you come in and say "please remember that lots of cyclists break red lights". People would think you're mental.
But for some reason there has never been a boards thread criticising cyclists road behaviour without this response.

Doing great work for the establishment backed car lobby ?

ixoy

Gatling wrote: »

This time last year while crossing on a pedestrian green light at the corner of George st and dame st my youngest buggy was clipped by a cyclist over taking several cars and ran the red light ,
He came off the bike and jumped up calling for witnesses to back his story of the dad who walked out infront of traffic with a buggy

That junction is quite hazardous. Regularly see cyclists cutting through green lights there - too many seem to think that the lights turning red means it's a clear signal for them to take a right or left. Nearly got clipped by a courier there while crossing with the green man.

Days 298

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's a lot to ponder in this discussion.

Firstly, with regard to the general safety of cycling, it should be remembered that the hospital admission figures for injuries to cyclists far outweigh the collision statistics recorded by AGS. I'm not aware of any database which compiles details of the circumstances in which those injuries occurred.

That said, the fatality and serious injury statistics are likely to be more accurate, since there are standard operating procedures for investigating such collisions.

The RSA's records show that very few pedestrian casualties have been caused by cyclists.

It is more likely that cyclists are putting themselves at risk rather than endangering others. However, in my view it is unfair on other road users (all of them) for cyclists to break red lights in a reckless manner.

I frequently encounter cyclist RLJs on the morning school run, for example. I have had occasion to stop cyclists in their tracks while my child was trying to cross on the green man. The fact remains that motorists breaking red lights, among other offences, pose far more of a risk. There's a particular junction I pass through on the way to school every morning, and without fail at each change of the lights two or three motorists will try to scoot through the red light, ignoring the green man for pedestrians. They are often livid at being made to stop in order to let children cross the road on the way to school.

I know where the real danger lies. Personally I hate red light jumping and footpath cycling, which often go together, but at some stage I have to acknowledge that there are degrees of risk.

I've never seen a scenario where 2-3 cars deliberately break red lights with people crossing. I have on the other hand been hit by a cyclist who broke a red light while I crossed with the green man.


That said most cyclists are grand as are most motorists. But in my experience I've had more close calls with cyclists not yielding than cars. As I said an idiot went right into my side. I have never had a car go into my side or cut me off when I crossed the road thankfully.

There are serious accidents waiting to happen. The degree of risk is still there and serious injuries could be caused.

We should be proactive not reactive.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

the level of under-reporting is reckoned to be about 1:10 - for every RTC involving a cyclist recorded by the RSA, there are 10 hospital admissions of injured cyclists.

The HSE HIPE database records injuries resulting from pedestrian / cyclist collisions.



the system for recording RTC data in Irish hospitals is every bit as sophisticated as any other country and is coded according to the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD)10 data standard, but they may have updated it.

The data is internationally comparable.

Pedestrian injured by cyclist is coded as V01 or V01.10 depending on the exact circumstances - the reason there's no reports of pedestrians being injured by cyclists is not for the want of a system on which they can be recorded.

If they're happening they're being recorded.

And if 90% of RTCs involving cyclists are unreported, how many of them are cyclist/pedestrian, if there's a 1:10 level then it stands to reason that there is also likely a 1:10 under reporting of pedestrians being injured by cyclists

A completely unknown variable, yet you just want to ignore the fact that it does happen which was the OP in this thread ( shockingly that 3 incidents cited in the thread so far involved blind people )

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

And if 90% of RTCs involving cyclists are unreported, how many of them are cyclist/pedestrian, if there's a 1:10 level then it stands to reason that there is also likely a 1:10 under reporting of pedestrians being injured by cyclists

A completely unknown variable, yet you just want to ignore the fact that it does happen which was the OP in this thread ( shockingly that 3 incidents cited in the thread so far involved blind people )

There are literally dozens of papers published each year using the HIPE data as well as it being used to populate the Health Atlas.

I've look at papers over the last 12/18 months and poked about in the Health Atlas - nothing is coded for pedestrian injury caused by cyclist.

So either the HSE are choosing to ignore such incidents and code them as something else or no such incidents are taking place or incidents are taking place but are so trivial they are not resulting in people seeking or requiring hospital treatment.

In other words the most likely and second most likely explanations all suggest it is a problem that is trivial at worst.

Can I suggest that if you think otherwise you interrogate the significant body of data available and produce something (anything) to back up what you are suggesting.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

There are literally dozens of papers published each year using the HIPE data as well as it being used to populate the Health Atlas.

I've look at papers over the last 12/18 months and poked about in the Health Atlas - nothing is coded for pedestrian injury caused by cyclist.

So either the HSE are choosing to ignore such incidents and code them as something else or no such incidents are taking place or incidents are taking place but are so trivial they are not resulting in people seeking or requiring hospital treatment.

In other words the most likely and second most likely explanations all suggest it is a problem that is trivial at worst.

Can I suggest that if you think otherwise you interrogate the significant body of data available and produce something (anything) to back up what you are suggesting.

Just because it's not recorded doesn't mean it's not happening, but too many people like to have a head in the sand approach, if it can't be seen it can't be happening where as every one else knows that it is happening.

BTW Can't find anything on the http://www.esri.ie/__uuid/2f0dffd2-286c-4ba7-8c85-4d63e5f42d7f/HIPE-Data-Dictionary-2013-Version-5.0.pdf that actually seems to correlate to cause and just to clarify does HIPE ( Hospital In Patient Enquiry ) cover casualty wards where you might just be getting a stitch and tetenus booster?

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just because it's not recorded doesn't mean it's not happening, but too many people like to have a head in the sand approach, if it can't be seen it can't be happening where as every one else knows that it is happening.

BTW Can't find anything on the http://www.esri.ie/__uuid/2f0dffd2-286c-4ba7-8c85-4d63e5f42d7f/HIPE-Data-Dictionary-2013-Version-5.0.pdf that actually seems to correlate to cause and just to clarify does HIPE ( Hospital In Patient Enquiry ) cover casualty wards where you might just be getting a stitch and tetenus booster?

A point I acknowledged in my post - which goes to show that it is just a trivial issue. If there were more serious incidents (even one) people would be getting hospitalised. They're not. But I suppose you'll now suggest that the complete lack of data doesn't mean that there aren't loads being injured and not reporting it or heroically denying themselves hospital treatment.

Good luck with that.

Iwannahurl

Jawgap wrote: »

the level of under-reporting is reckoned to be about 1:10 - for every RTC involving a cyclist recorded by the RSA, there are 10 hospital admissions of injured cyclists.

The HSE HIPE database records injuries resulting from pedestrian / cyclist collisions.

the system for recording RTC data in Irish hospitals is every bit as sophisticated as any other country and is coded according to the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD)10 data standard, but they may have updated it.

The data is internationally comparable.

Pedestrian injured by cyclist is coded as V01 or V01.10 depending on the exact circumstances - the reason there's no reports of pedestrians being injured by cyclists is not for the want of a system on which they can be recorded.

If they're happening they're being recorded.

Are reports being published though?

Here's an excerpt from a HSE report published a few years ago, concerning admissions to acute hospitals for road traffic injuries (emphasis added by me):

Using HIPE, all discharges from acute hospitals in the Republic of Ireland for the years 2005-2009, and who had been admitted as an emergency and assigned any diagnosis codes V01-V89 (land transport accidents) using ICD-10-AM were extracted. All non-traffic collisions were excluded, that is those accidents that occurred entirely in any place other than a public highway, for example, V01.0 ‘Pedestrian injured in collision with pedal cycle, nontraffic accident’, as were unspecified collisions.

I'm not sure what such exclusions might mean in practice.

Iwannahurl

Days 298 wrote: »

I've never seen a scenario where 2-3 cars deliberately break red lights with people crossing. I have on the other hand been hit by a cyclist who broke a red light while I crossed with the green man.

It's routine at some junctions in Galway.

My child and I have often encountered cyclist RLJs. The level of danger is very different.

Jawgap

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are reports being published though?

Here's an excerpt from a HSE report published a few years ago, concerning admissions to acute hospitals for road traffic injuries (emphasis added by me):

Using HIPE, all discharges from acute hospitals in the Republic of Ireland for the years 2005-2009, and who had been admitted as an emergency and assigned any diagnosis codes V01-V89 (land transport accidents) using ICD-10-AM were extracted. All non-traffic collisions were excluded, that is those accidents that occurred entirely in any place other than a public highway, for example, V01.0 ‘Pedestrian injured in collision with pedal cycle, nontraffic accident’, as were unspecified collisions.

I'm not sure what such exclusions might mean in practice.

I'm working off a phone at the moment but you can interrogate the Health Atlas to get V01 data.

Spook_ie

Picked up from the same broadcast as this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057103463

19 minutes in Broken Pelvis from cyclist/pedestrian incident of course if it's not entered onto HIPE then it didn't happen did it?

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Picked up from the same broadcast as this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057103463

19 minutes in Broken Pelvis from cyclist/pedestrian incident of course if it's not entered onto HIPE then it didn't happen did it?

Sorry, is that the Joe Duffy Liveline show

Because that's a truly objective and comprehensive source of information on Irish society.

Anything a bit more objective - even a hysterical Daily Mail report of a single court case?

Days 298

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's routine at some junctions in Galway.

My child and I have often encountered cyclist RLJs. The level of danger is very different.

You have examples which is good but where I am RLJ cars is non existant and I say that as a pedestrian using busy crossing, suburban pedestrian lights and a motorist. To me a small coheart cyclists are the bigger danger. No need to focus on the motorist. Cars contain a higher momentum no doubt but the offence is the same, you also have the safety of the cyclist too to consider.

A cyclist breaking a RL is the same as a motorist breaking a RL. Dangerous, unnecessary, selfish and benefits no one.

Help could be given especially like your example, such as signs warning motorists of crossings around corner (not saying innocence is the reason for your example). But I have turned left with the lights in my favour to find pedestrians sprinting across. As I knew the crossing existed from prior experience I was prepared, but a tired motorist/cyclist in a town they didn't know could be a different story.

Iwannahurl

Days 298 wrote: »

You have examples which is good but where I am RLJ cars is non existant and I say that as a pedestrian using busy crossing, suburban pedestrian lights and a motorist. To me a small coheart cyclists are the bigger danger. No need to focus on the motorist. Cars contain a higher momentum no doubt but the offence is the same, you also have the safety of the cyclist too to consider.

A cyclist breaking a RL is the same as a motorist breaking a RL. Dangerous, unnecessary, selfish and benefits no one.

Help could be given especially like your example, such as signs warning motorists of crossings around corner (not saying innocence is the reason for your example). But I have turned left with the lights in my favour to find pedestrians sprinting across. As I knew the crossing existed from prior experience I was prepared, but a tired motorist/cyclist in a town they didn't know could be a different story.

A cyclist breaking a red light is demonstrably not the same as a motorised vehicle doing so. The clear differences are speed and mass, and these inescapable realities are inevitably reflected in both the road casualty and hospital admission statistics.

Technically the RLJ offence is the same, because bicycles are vehicles and cyclists are drivers under legislation dating back to the 1960s.

However, it is self-evident that the offence is not being treated the same in terms of law enforcement and the administration of justice. There are very good reasons for that difference, which have to do with pragmatism, practicality and common sense.

I recall a Garda saying several years ago that he would get short shrift in court if he were to start prosecuting significant numbers of law-breaking cyclists for offences such as not being lit up at night.

Personally I am p:ssed off with the lack of enforcement, but since I see AGS blithely ignore other road traffic offences every day, some of them serious, what can I do?

Where do we start in this country with ensuring better compliance with the RoTR? Obviously road deaths have been greatly reduced over the last few decades, and driving standards have markedly improved, but from my perspective travelling on the roads often has me gritting my teeth because of the constant muppetry displayed by all classes of road user.

The vast majority of road users, even tired visitors, know a red light or a green man when they see one. Equally, Irish roads engineers are, I suspect, fully aware of what they are doing when they configure traffic signals in a manner that entirely ignores cyclists. An alternative possibility is an appalling vista in which Irish roads engineers are clueless in this regard.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

So I think we can dispense with any arguments from people who say that cyclists don't cause injuries or deaths, unless of course people want to put an acceptable figure to injury and deaths

Did somebody here claim cyclists don't cause injuries or deaths?

Days 298

Iwannahurl wrote:

A cyclist breaking .....

You obviously have a passion for road safety. Is there any country you could visit and not grit your teeth.

How would you react if a moped or motorcycle broke a red light. The masses are not totally incomparable. The person breaking a red light is breaking a red light whether on a bike or in an artic truck. Same offence, being on a lighter mode of transportation doesn't make you less immune to the RoTR.

People must take responsibility for their actions. If a cyclist breaks a red light they shouldnt have any complaints if they hear blue and twos behind them, same with any other road user.

Id rather not be hit by a car or a cyclist tbh. So when I am a pedestrian I would like the gards to threat both infringements of my right of way and endangerment of my person the same.

You missed my point on the pedestrian crossing not being signalled.

Iwannahurl

I found Copenhagen, Stockholm and a number of cities in the Netherlands to be very relaxing.

Now that I think of it, however, in the Netherlands mopeds were allowed on the cycle paths. Unlike the cyclists they were annoying and occasionally dangerous. I recall one teenage gobshyte deliberately passing between us from behind at high speed (compared to a cyclist).

Do you really believe the two situations below are potentially equivalent and deserve the same amount of police attention? (Random clips found in a hurry -- there may be better examples of each).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tp5KNzWxSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9eeCbWzQI

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, is that the Joe Duffy Liveline show

Because that's a truly objective and comprehensive source of information on Irish society.

Anything a bit more objective - even a hysterical Daily Mail report of a single court case?

It is provided by Monument in t'other thread, you think I should just diss the guy because he rang into Joe?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Copenhagen

One of only two cities I've been hit by a light jumping cyclist (the other being Dublin) co-incidentally.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9eeCbWzQI

Like many other cyclists, I'm fed up with red light jumping cyclists and find that so annoying!

MYOB wrote: »

One of only two cities I've been hit by a light jumping cyclist (the other being Dublin) co-incidentally.

I heard from one-two people that Copenhagen and Amsterdam cyclists can be poor, but when cycling and walking in those cities it really seemed like a tiny minor (far, far, far less so than in Dublin) who were breaking lights.

Jawgap

monument wrote: »

Like many other cyclists, I'm fed up with red light jumping cyclists and find that so annoying!

I'd agree with that 100% - they were to bring in Regs allowing the Guards to issue FPNs for RLJing, cycling on the footpath and 'dangerous overtaking' - but no sign of them yet.

How long does it take to sign a set of regulations?

monument wrote: »

I heard from one-two people that Copenhagen and Amsterdam cyclists can be poor, but when cycling and walking in those cities it really seemed like a tiny minor (far, far, far less so than in Dublin) who were breaking lights.

Not sure about Amsterdam, but in Copenhagen the fact that the cyclists get priority at a lot of junctions probably helps. On the other hand I found the quickest way to lose your life or suffer serious injury there is to walk in a cycle lane! The Danes don't take many prisoners if you're a trespasser

Days 298

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you really believe the two situations below are potentially equivalent and deserve the same amount of police attention? (Random clips found in a hurry -- there may be better examples of each).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tp5KNzWxSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Youve posted a a car crash vs 100 incidences of RLJ by bikes.

If one of those cyclist was hit by a car. Who would be at fault?

I could as easily go out and video myself safely braking a red light in a car. (I wont). Then find a video of a cyclist near crash like number 100 in your video. Should both be taken as the same by the guards?

No one should brake red lights. I dont. And Id like to see these few cyclists breaking them tackled too. No one gets to break a red light on the basis they are on two wheels and dont have an engine.

Iwannahurl wrote:

A cyclist breaking a red light is demonstrably not the same as a motorised vehicle doing so. The clear differences are speed and mass.....

By the logic of using momentum (mass x velocity) as a basis for deciding the degree of an offence, youd have a very weird police attitude to RLJ

For example
Smart Car @ 30kmh = 6800kg/ms
Range Rover @ 10kmh = 6800kg/ms
Rigid Lorry with 32tonne load @ 0.8kmh = 6800kg/ms

Either the police pull all RLJ's or none.


If a motorist has a green light they shouldnt have to worry about RLJs the same way a cyclist shouldnt have to worry about RLJs when they cross a junction when they have a green light.

Also this is thread on cyclists. What do motorists have to do with it? As said earlier.

Cienciano wrote: »

I don't understand this attitude, it happens in every cyclists thread. We all know all road users break the rules of the road. But this thread is about cyclists.
In a thread about motorists not using roundabouts properly would you come in and say "please remember that lots of cyclists break red lights". People would think you're mental.
But for some reason there has never been a boards thread criticising cyclists road behaviour without this response.

I dont understand this attitude either.

patrickbrophy18

Jawgap wrote: »

If anything, the RLJ'er is more of a danger to him or herself than to other road users......

Injured cyclist gets driving ban for breaking red light

This is absolutely ridiculous. Getting a driving ban for RLJ cycling?

I can't help but feel quite sorry for the bloke being badly injured and ridiculed by the paper.

Aside from wheels and breaks, they are entirely different methods of getting from A to B.

Anyway, there are self-righteous, ignorant members in every road user group. NOT JUST CYCLISTS.

I've seen a lot of annoying motorists and pedestrians as well. The amount of times I see drivers with phones up to their ears on a daily basis is shocking. Some drivers are absolutely appalling whether it is an inability to gauge the width of their car or breaking the speed limit. I've even seen motorists taking the continental approach to roundabouts i.e going the wrong way around them.

On the other hand, I often see pedestrians who walk out on to the road without seeing if it is safe to do so.

There have been a few occasions in the last 2 years where I've witnessed some bus drivers using their phones while in motion.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

If anything, the RLJ'er is more of a danger to him or herself than to other road users......

Injured cyclist gets driving ban for breaking red light

Hmmm the following quote from the article sticks out to me

"I couldn't possibly have run the red light. I was cycling in rush-hour traffic and if I ran the red light I would have been squashed by on-coming traffic," he added.

Iwannahurl

Days 298 wrote: »

By the logic of using momentum (mass x velocity) as a basis for deciding the degree of an offence, youd have a very weird police attitude to RLJ.

AGS are already using a key variable in the equation KE = ½ mv².

Do you know which one?

Days 298

Iwannahurl wrote: »

AGS are already using a key variable in the equation KE = ½ mv².

Do you know which one?

Hmm a variable in the above formula. I do know yes. Don't see how its relevant on a thread about cyclist RLJs though.

Days 298

Days 298 wrote: »

I've never seen a scenario where 2-3 cars deliberately break red lights with people crossing. I have on the other hand been hit by a cyclist who broke a red light while I crossed with the green man.

That said most cyclists are grand as are most motorists. But in my experience I've had more close calls with cyclists not yielding than cars. As I said an idiot went right into my side. I have never had a car go into my side or cut me off when I crossed the road thankfully.

There are serious accidents waiting to happen. The degree of risk is still there and serious injuries could be caused.

We should be proactive not reactive.

With the greatest will in the world, 'your experience' doesn't count for much when compared with the actual data, which tells us that cars kill far, far, far more pedestrians than cyclists do.

A lot of pedestrians have had cars "go into their side" and are dead as a result.

By all means moan about cyclists if it makes you feel good, but please don't spout denial about the actual killers on our roads.

thanks.

Iwannahurl

Days 298 wrote: »

Hmm a variable in the above formula. I do know yes. Don't see how its relevant on a thread about cyclist RLJs though.

It's relevant to this:

Days 298 wrote: »

The person breaking a red light is breaking a red light whether on a bike or in an artic truck. Same offence, being on a lighter mode of transportation doesn't make you less immune to the RoTR.

You're claiming that when it comes to red light jumping there is no difference between bikes and HGVs for example.

That is demonstrably untrue.

The police prioritise their allocation of resources. There isn't near enough enforcement as it is, imo, so I can't imagine a situation in which AGS treats all instances of the same offence with equal seriousness.

In my neck of the woods there is routine red light jumping by cars, trucks and bikes (and pedestrians, ntitoi) every morning on a particular junction. AGS know it's happening, yet they're never there. There is only one source of real danger, which is motorised vehicles, for obvious reasons. It would be bizarre if AGS were to suddenly appear and start pulling everybody in chronological sequence, regardless of the level of danger they pose to other road users. While they're getting the details of one cyclist, another twenty cars will have broken the lights and put pedestrians at risk.



EDIT: maybe AGS are treating all RLJs the same, by ignoring everybody who does it...

Days 298

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With the greatest will in the world, 'your experience' doesn't count for much when compared with the actual data, which tells us that cars kill far, far, far more pedestrians than cyclists do.

A lot of pedestrians have had cars "go into their side" and are dead as a result.

By all means moan about cyclists if it makes you feel good, but please don't spout denial about the actual killers on our roads.

thanks.

Forget it. Can't discuss cyclists on this forum without bashing "the real killer". I'm out.

Yah I feel really good now.

Feck break red lights away. Just don't moan about motorists when your caught.

Every single cyclist related thread on here.