8 Cyclists killed on roads so far in 2014

Muahahaha

Seems 2014 has been a very dangerous year for cyclist deaths. There's been more killed on the roads in six months this year than there was from 2009-2012. The last very bad year for cyclists deaths was 2008 when 13 died on the roads. It already looks like this years deaths are likely to surpass the 2008 total.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/eight-cyclists-killed-on-irish-roads-this-year-30426417.html

Zyzz

Your username though..

tomasrojo

“Numbers are so small it is hard to say what the cause of the increase is,” he [Mike McKillen] told The Irish Times

That's the thing about small-number events. They can swing all over the place in percentage terms, because you only need a handful of extra cases to dee a doubling.

There was that awful spate of deaths in London recently, and, as predicted, it's now reverted to the mean and there are have been few fatalities since then.

Nevertheless, increased truck numbers sounds plausible enough for an upward trend, if that is what we're looking at.

(Incidentally, during the boom thirteen deaths in a year would have been fairly normal, and that was with much fewer cyclists around.)

Beasty

If I remember correctly there were perhaps 3 deaths over a couple of weeks back in January. Extrapolate that and you get to an annualised rate of 150 or so. Exclude those 2 weeks from the stats and the annualised rate is nearer 10.

Lies, damn lies and statistics as the saying goes....

The one thing that is clear is that the trend has been downwards in recent years. As I pointed out in another thread though it's simply not possible for the numbers to fall each and every year - if it was at some stage you would eventually reach zero. When the figures are so low there are bound to be years when it drops, years when it increases, and years when it stays the same.

BofaDeezNuhtz

73.47% of all statistics on the net are made up I heard...

sonandheir

As a daily cycle commuter this makes me shudder at the thought. Are there any stats on the type of crashes / accidents these were? I'm very aware that left turning lorries & buses pose greatest risk. What are the other major types of cyclist collisions.

My heart goes out to the families. Cyclists please be cautious and conscientious out on the roads.

Cookie_Monster

I wonder how much the increasing hostility towards cyclists is impacting the figures. In the past 12-18 months it seems that is suddenly much more ok for everyone to rag on cyclists non stop and the general attitude shift will reflect what happens on the roads.
With incidents like those scumbags pushing the kid into the ditch we're lucky it's not higher for the year tbh.

Cait87

The country should cater to the needs and safety of cyclists. and create roads like they have in Amsterdam!

dubhthach

Cait87 wrote: »

The country should cater to the needs and safety of cyclists. and create roads like they have in Amsterdam!

Sure, just remember the Dutch have been building proper infrastructure for 30-50years. It didn't just appear overnight.

purple cow

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I wonder how much the increasing hostility towards cyclists is impacting the figures. In the past 12-18 months it seems that is suddenly much more ok for everyone to rag on cyclists non stop and the general attitude shift will reflect what happens on the roads.
With incidents like those scumbags pushing the kid into the ditch we're lucky it's not higher for the year tbh.

Is hostility towards cyclists really increasing? I'm not so sure.

I remarked to myself yesterday that almost every car that overtook me indicated out and gave me at least 3 metres clearance. This was over the course of a 60km spin around Lucan, Newcastle, Straffan, Maynooth, Clonsilla.

Personally, I think the RSA ads have had a significant impact in educating drivers.

iwillhtfu

To play the devils advocate a bit.

There's an awful lot of gob****es on 2 wheels aswell. It can't all be the truck drivers fault.

If you're cycling in the city you need to be road wise and cycle defensively,You won't win an arguement with a car or truck and it won't make a difference how right you were once you're under one.

Hopefully these new plans for the traffic lights are positive but they need to start clamping down on cars/trucks/buses encroaching on cycle lanes and trying to intimidate cyclists also.

An interesting video showing why you should never place yourself on the inside of a truck turning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

beauf

Some of the trash papers have been pursuing an anti cycling agenda. Which doesn't help.

You do see cyclists going up the inside b of trucks and buses. The RSA might do an advert on that. People see a cycle lane and ignore common sense.

iamtony

As a cyclist and a taxi driver I can see both sides of this and in general cyclists are the worst road users but anyway I think these figures were inevitable as the amount of cyclist on the road has definitely doubled and maybe tripled in the last few years. Unfortunately the infrastructure isn't keeping up.
I wonder has anyone died while cycling a dublin bike? They are usually the worse cyclists out there!

Jawgap

Cait87 wrote: »

The country should cater to the needs and safety of cyclists. and create roads like they have in Amsterdam!

I think that's an engineering solution to a behavioural / cultural problem.

Perhaps more effort focused on educating road users (including cyclists) to encourage a bit more respect all round would help - combined with a vigorous and relentless programme of enforcement.

Finding some way to incorporate cycling / road use into the school curriculum at an early stage might help.

They should also vary the message depending on the time of the year - focus on the casual cyclist coming into the good weather, lighting up in autumn, maintaining visibility in winter etc.

A few stickers like this (but obviously reversed to account for the fact we drive on the correct side of the road)......

Jawgap

iamtony wrote: »

As a cyclist and a taxi driver I can see both sides of this and in general cyclists are the worst road users but anyway I think these figures were inevitable as the amount of cyclist on the road has definitely doubled and maybe tripled in the last few years. Unfortunately the infrastructure isn't keeping up.
I wonder has anyone died while cycling a dublin bike? They are usually the worse cyclists out there!

Excellent, nothing like a few problem focused general generalisations to get a debate going......well done.

BTW - if you thought they were inevitable, why didn't you contact the RSA?

iamtony

Jawgap wrote: »

Excellent, nothing like a few problem focused general generalisations to get a debate going......well done.

BTW - if you thought they were inevitable, why didn't you contact the RSA?

I'm sure the RSA are well aware of the problem. And I do hate to generalise but in general:-) it's true!

coolbeans

iamtony wrote: »

I'm sure the RSA are well aware of the problem. And I do hate to generalise but in general:-) it's true!

I hate to generalise myself but I find taxi drivers the worst road users. Hate to generalise but it's true. :-)

iamtony

coolbeans wrote: »

I hate to generalise myself but I find taxi drivers the worst road users. Hate to generalise but it's true. :-)

;-) I was waiting for that! Anyway back on topic now carry on...

ZiabR

Beasty wrote: »

The one thing that is clear is that the trend has been downwards in recent years. As I pointed out in another thread though it's simply not possible for the numbers to fall each and every year - if it was at some stage you would eventually reach zero. When the figures are so low there are bound to be years when it drops, years when it increases, and years when it stays the same.

Exactly, there will always be years when we hit new records, both on the high and the low.

monument

Jawgap wrote: »

I think that's an engineering solution to a behavioural / cultural problem.

It's an engineering solution to an engineering problem.

It's not Dutch cultural or behaviour that has bicycles segregated, nor is it our culture to have roads which are not designed with cycling in mind -- that's our engineering which started when there were more bicycles on Irish streets than there is now.

Our roads and streets are fairly highly engineered, trying to put issues with them down to just a general behavioural / cultural problem just does not compute.

Jawgap wrote: »

Perhaps more effort focused on educating road users (including cyclists) to encourage a bit more respect all round would help - combined with a vigorous and relentless programme of enforcement.

Finding some way to incorporate cycling / road use into the school curriculum at an early stage might help.

They should also vary the message depending on the time of the year - focus on the casual cyclist coming into the good weather, lighting up in autumn, maintaining visibility in winter etc.

The Dutch do:

• incorporate cycling / road use into the school curriculum at an early stage
• vary the message depending on the time of the year - lighting up in autumn, maintaining visibility in winter (see here, and here etc)

I'm told cyclists are still killed by trucks at right turns mostly where junctions have not been upgraded in 20 years or more.

Jawgap

monument wrote: »

It's an engineering solution to an engineering problem.

It's not Dutch cultural or behaviour that has bicycles segregated, nor is it our culture to have roads which are not designed with cycling in mind -- that's our engineering which started when there were more bicycles on Irish streets than there is now.

Our roads and streets are fairly highly engineered, trying to put issues with them down to just a general behavioural / cultural problem just does not compute.




The Dutch do:

• incorporate cycling / road use into the school curriculum at an early stage
• vary the message depending on the time of the year - lighting up in autumn, maintaining visibility in winter (see here, and here etc)

I'm told cyclists are still killed by trucks at right turns mostly where junctions have not been upgraded in 20 years or more.

My point was that road user behaviour can be corrected a lot quicker than infrastructure.

...and by behaviour I mean behaviour in the broadest sense.

It seems to me that the problem is reduced to infrastructure deficiencies. I wonder how many companies provide training to their drivers? Is their, for an example, an equivalent in Ireland of the 'Safer Urban Driving' course that TfL run? How many fleets in Ireland have ISO 39001 Road Traffic Safety Management certification (not just a system aligned to it)?

We recently saw the Guards and RSA run an 'Exchanging Places' scheme - getting cyclists to climb into the cab of a truck to experience the road from the driver's perspective (a good idea, and well run) - but when these run in the UK they get the drivers to go for a bit of a cycle, so they get to see the problems cyclists experience. I don't think they ran that element of the programme here?

And if the prevailing view is that engineering can make the bigger contribution, why not go for the obvious solution and require trucks over a certain size to fit a left-turn audible warning? I also see that some fleets in the UK and the continent have fitted side sensors to their HGVs that detect objects within 0.8 metres and track their location and proximity to the vehicle.

jodaw

I would be interested to know how many of the fatalities involved a Dublin Bike Scheme bicycle? Would the increase in inexperienced cyclist using bicycles in the city center have anything to do with it?

monument

Jawgap wrote: »

My point was that road user behaviour can be corrected a lot quicker than infrastructure.

...and by behaviour I mean behaviour in the broadest sense.

And your point does not seem to hold water when the Dutch have incorporated cycling / road use into the school curriculum at an early stage but where infrastructure is not right people are still killed by turning trucks.

The Port Tunnel is our own successful example of infrastructure and segregation working in reducing the volume of HGVs and bicycles mixing in the city centre.

Once installed infrastructure has a long-lasting impact on safety.

Jawgap wrote: »

It seems to me that the problem is reduced to infrastructure deficiencies. I wonder how many companies provide training to their drivers? Is their, for an example, an equivalent in Ireland of the 'Safer Urban Driving' course that TfL run? How many fleets in Ireland have ISO 39001 Road Traffic Safety Management certification (not just a system aligned to it)?

We recently saw the Guards and RSA run an 'Exchanging Places' scheme - getting cyclists to climb into the cab of a truck to experience the road from the driver's perspective (a good idea, and well run) - but when these run in the UK they get the drivers to go for a bit of a cycle, so they get to see the problems cyclists experience. I don't think they ran that element of the programme here?

And if the prevailing view is that engineering can make the bigger contribution, why not go for the obvious solution and require trucks over a certain size to fit a left-turn audible warning? I also see that some fleets in the UK and the continent have fitted side sensors to their HGVs that detect objects within 0.8 metres and track their location and proximity to the vehicle.

When on-street or on-road infrastructure is installed, it's there for years. And Dutch style segregation works for all sort of motoring-cycling conflicts not just truck-bicycle conflicts.

Things like 'Exchanging Places' schemes have a very limited reach and nowhere near a lasting impact.

Re driver training -- the focus should be on the Certificate of Professional Competence because that has a EU-wide impact and is already centralised.

bambergbike

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's the thing about small-number events. They can swing all over the place in percentage terms

Definitely. You need injury statistics as well to make sense of the figures. The difference between a collision resulting in death and a collision resulting in injury can be a tenth of a second. The RSA have made a stab at recording injuries but their data collection needs to be refined - I checked their stats for an accident I had witnessed personally that was attended by an amblance (van hitting cyclist while performing an abrupt and unsignalled U-turn) and didn't find any accident at that location. Attempts to collect near-miss statistics as well would be interesting.

As well as collecting better stats, I would also like to see far more reporting on accidents. Where there is injury - even just a grazed knee - there should be a garda presence and some sort of three-line report should go onto the garda homepage and be passed onto the local paper. If there was more reporting, some of it would probably be quite bad reporting, but that in itself can be revealing. (Yesterday I read "a cyclist collided with a truck" and instantly thought: wait a minute, cyclists don't randomly cycle into trucks unless their brake fail on a descent, they can see what they're doing and will be aware of a truck near them - isn't it much more likely that the truck collided with a cyclist? Why is the default attitude of the reporter to blame the cyclist?)

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I wonder how much the increasing hostility towards cyclists is impacting the figures. In the past 12-18 months it seems that is suddenly much more ok for everyone to rag on cyclists non stop and the general attitude shift will reflect what happens on the roads.
With incidents like those scumbags pushing the kid into the ditch we're lucky it's not higher for the year tbh.

More grumbling and moaning about cyclists suggests people are waking up to the idea that they need to watch out for cyclists. A tiny handful of people will convert their frustration over that into road rage, but most people will just drive better, I think. Slowly but surely we might actully be making progress...

sonandheir wrote: »

. What are the other major types of cyclist collisions.

John Franklin runs through some of the obvious possibilities in his book "Cyclecraft". His take is that if a driver isn't actively scanning for cyclists, cyclists will have problems being seen if they are cycling in any space where a car wouldn't drive. If a new cyclist asked me to point out likely trouble spots on a route, I would probably pay particular attention to the multi-lane roundabouts: those are places where drivers have to pay attention to several different things at once and can easily fail to notice cyclists, especially if the cyclists try and chart their own course around the roundabout (in between lanes or at the edge) rather than riding right the middle of a traffic lane. A "cautious" cyclist who trys to avoid disrupting the flow of traffic may be more at risk than a more assertive cyclist who takes up a position in the middle of a traffic lane and slows the traffic on the roundabout down to their own cyclist speed as necessary. (In that sense, I was a bit worried by your advice to be "cautious" - I think it's possibly more helpful to tell people to be "assertive on the outside, defensive on the inside." A lot of people misinterpret "be cautious" as "ride in the gutter/on the footpath/on the cycle path" and that's exactly where drivers coming out of side roads or turning left often fail to spot cyclists before proceeding.

From the point of view of an individual who is already cycling, "Cyclecraft" can help them minimize the risks (although there is an argument that being assertive might give you more protection from drivers who are simply not paying attention, but might also trigger road rage incidents - some cyclists feel as if they are cycling along with a target on their backs when they prevent following traffic from overtaking before it is safe.)

From the point of view of a parent who wants to let their six-year old cycle to school unaccompanied, the concept of a "good technique for cycling through multi-lane roundabouts" is fairly bizarre. To really make cycling inclusive for eight to a hundred-and-eight year olds, we need to reconfigure the environment and the way all vehicles negotiate it. Is the best way to do this:

Cait87 wrote: »

The country should cater to the needs and safety of cyclists. and create roads like they have in Amsterdam!

Up to a point. There is certainly a lot we could and should change. Teaching cyclists to cope with the existing environment (without improving it much) might get us to cycling making up 10% of all trips, but we would probably get stuck at that point. I was in Munich recently, and they seem to be currently stuck at 20% - I saw an awful lot of bikes, and people on bikes, but young children and old people were quite under-represented and there was definitely a perception that "you need to have your wits about you" to cope with the hazards that bad engineering and bad traffic management have placed in the way of cyclists.

BUT my needs as a cyclist in rural Ireland - and that's where I'm coming from - are often a bit different from what I would need in Amsterdam (or, for that matter, in Munich.) If I'm cycling from the community centre in Dromore West home to Sligo on an icy January night, I want approaching drivers and following drivers to dip their lights (approaching drivers so they don't blind me, following drivers so I am reassured that they have seen me). I want following drivers to refrain from overtaking when there is oncoming traffic, or where they can't see whether there might be oncoming traffic, and to give me space when they do overtake. And I want drivers not to pass me at warp speed in either direction. Most drivers do all those things, a few don't, and won't, unless the message gets out there that they really should. Which it won't, if it gets drowned out by a message of "Go Dutch, Build Dutch Stuff." In sparsely populated rural areas, especially hilly areas where cyclists need extra of wiggle room, we need to remember that the Dutch/Danish/German solution is often actually to share the road properly. There is never going to be so much demand for cycling between Sligo and Dromore West that an average woman would feel safe at night in the winter on an off-road cycle path. If I hit a hedgehog and fall into a ditch with a broken ankle in an Amsterdam suburb, the population density is such that somebody will come along and find me before I die of hypothermia. Where I live in Germany, that's simply not the case, so I often use the roads after dark even where there is some sort of touristy greenway alternative. At home in the West of Ireland, the same logic applies - there are often so few people out and about that I would feel terrifyingly isolated if modes were separated rather than space being shared. That's not an argument against building greenways, but it is an argument against assuming that infrastructure solves all problems.

Jawgap

monument wrote: »

And your point does not seem to hold water when the Dutch have incorporated cycling / road use into the school curriculum at an early stage but where infrastructure is not right people are still killed by turning trucks.

The Port Tunnel is our own successful example of infrastructure and segregation working in reducing the volume of HGVs and bicycles mixing in the city centre.

Once installed infrastructure has a long-lasting impact on safety.



When on-street or on-road infrastructure is installed, it's there for years. And Dutch style segregation works for all sort of motoring-cycling conflicts not just truck-bicycle conflicts.

Things like 'Exchanging Places' schemes have a very limited reach and nowhere near a lasting impact.

Re driver training -- the focus should be on the Certificate of Professional Competence because that has a EU-wide impact and is already centralised.

My point regarding the various schemes etc is not to highlight them as models to follow - only that as with a lot of things in this country it's done in a half-arsed way.

Take the Exchanging Places initiative - yes, it's a bit of fluffy PR with limited reach and temporary impact, but why only focus on the cyclist? Why, if you are going to run the initiative, does it only focus on one part of the problem? In my opinion, it's because the Guards and the RSA saw cyclists as the totality of the problem rather than giving some consideration that, while cyclist behaviour (going down the inside of a truck) is a significant contributing factor, drivers may also have some part to play.

And yes CPC is a move in the right direction but is there anything to stop the RSA, the Guards etc encouraging companies to go past the 'lower level paper' and take the 'honours'?

BTW - I don't see this as 'either/or' - a lot of improvements could be made to infrastructure, but it should be done in the context of a general programme to improve road safety for cyclists.

SpaceTime

The biggest issue I'm seeing is lack of education.

The more serious looking cyclists are usually fine. What I'm more concerned about is the muppets who ignore lights and cycle up the inside of large vehicles, swing into traffic without signaling etc etc etc

I had a cyclist go straight through a set of red lights in Cork on a complicated junction into traffic straight in front if me.

I've also had a cyclist cycle straight across me when I was turning right on a green fly light it was only for my fast breaking that he didn't get hit. Overtaking turning traffic on the side it's turning is nuts!

As a pedestrian I've been nearly hit by cyclists going through red lights too

There are a minority of cyclists who seem to be unaware of what drivers can see, how fast they can stop and the basic rules of the road.

I would add they're never the kitted out serious looking cyclists.

gerarda

I'm a keen cyclist (and have a car too) and like to hear both side's of the story. I was a member of a club where members that considered themselves to be 'the elite' wouldn't stop at a red light if they were paid! I got a lift home once or twice from them in their car and witnessed 2 cyclists going through a red light, then they start giving out to them for doing it!!!!???

I think its a bit of a psychological thing too - "this is my road and I dont give a damn about anyone else!!!"

The other day whilst out driving I approached a group of cyclists out training, they were kids out with a group of adults. I gave them right of way at a t junction even though I didn't have to. The last adult gave me a thumbs up and a 'thank you'.

SpaceTime

The need to enforce the lights issue.

monument

bambergbike wrote: »

As well as collecting better stats, I would also like to see far more reporting on accidents. Where there is injury - even just a grazed knee - there should be a garda presence and some sort of three-line report should go onto the garda homepage and be passed onto the local paper. If there was more reporting, some of it would probably be quite bad reporting, but that in itself can be revealing. (Yesterday I read "a cyclist collided with a truck" and instantly thought: wait a minute, cyclists don't randomly cycle into trucks unless their brake fail on a descent, they can see what they're doing and will be aware of a truck near them - isn't it much more likely that the truck collided with a cyclist? Why is the default attitude of the reporter to blame the cyclist?)

What on earth would the point be in recording grazed knees or similar?

Jawgap wrote: »

My point regarding the various schemes etc is not to highlight them as models to follow - only that as with a lot of things in this country it's done in a half-arsed way.

Take the Exchanging Places initiative - yes, it's a bit of fluffy PR with limited reach and temporary impact, but why only focus on the cyclist? Why, if you are going to run the initiative, does it only focus on one part of the problem? In my opinion, it's because the Guards and the RSA saw cyclists as the totality of the problem rather than giving some consideration that, while cyclist behaviour (going down the inside of a truck) is a significant contributing factor, drivers may also have some part to play.

And yes CPC is a move in the right direction but is there anything to stop the RSA, the Guards etc encouraging companies to go past the 'lower level paper' and take the 'honours'?

BTW - I don't see this as 'either/or' - a lot of improvements could be made to infrastructure, but it should be done in the context of a general programme to improve road safety for cyclists.

You're drawing it as an either/or thing.

The reality is that there has been improved driver training, extra training for bus drivers, more road-side truck checks, more advertising and campaigns aimed at drivers -- and those things can continue and be built on.

Jawgap

monument wrote: »

You're drawing it as an either/or thing.

Sorry, not my intention to.

I see as things we can do now - education, enforcement, information, training. There is nothing stopping, for example, the Office of Government Procurement from saying that from 1/1/15 we will not place contracts with organisations not certified to ISO 39001 Road Traffic Safety Management certification.

The relevant ministers are also the largest shareholders in two of the companies who must operate two of the largest fleets in the country - ESB and BGE - nothing to stop them as shareholders requiring the same certification for those fleets.

Medium term - some infrastructure changes / modification, technology (audible left turning signal)

Longer terms - new infrastructure, integrated technologies (vehicle sensors)

monument wrote: »

The reality is that there has been improved driver training, extra training for bus drivers, more road-side truck checks, more advertising and campaigns aimed at drivers -- and those things can continue and be built on.

They can, but that doesn't mean we should stop there.

As for the roadside checks - yes there are more, but it's more enforcement that's needed too - as an example, Garda Traffic tweeted a photo recently of a driver they'd stopped with an unsafe load (a digger!) - they let him secure the load then carry on!!!

No ticket, no prosecution? They regularly seize vehicles for no tax, but it seems you can drive down the road with a dangerous load and just get a "G'wan".

bambergbike

monument wrote: »

What on earth would the point be in recording grazed knees or similar?

Let me work through an example which I think is fairly typical - I've nearly had this particular accident myself quite often and I've read endless reports describing something rather similar:

Accident 1: Wrong-way cyclist on cycle path collides with right-way cyclist on cycle path (there is a problem with sightlines, they didn't see each other in time, perhaps the wrong-way cyclist was there illegally.)
Outcome: Both cyclists fall, one is knocked into the road, there is no traffic on the road at the time. Total damage: 1 grazed knee.

Accident 2: Same place, same speeds, same accident, but one cyclist is 75 and only moving at 25 km/h because she has a heavy-ish electric bike.
Outcome: Broken hip, permanent disability.

Accident 3: Same place, same speeds, same accident - but with a car in the roadway going too fast to stop.
Outcome: 1 dead cyclist.

You might be able to avoid Accident 2 or Accident 3 if
a) thousands of people have read a three-line report about Accident 1 (the grazed knee) in their Sligo Champion or their Limerick Leader and realized that the location is hazardous even though it is subjectively "traffic-free" and safe
b) the Accident 1 report had made it onto the desk of whoever is responsible for sorting out the awful sightlines on the cycle path, or making sure people don't use it in the wrong direction, or calming the traffic on the road, or whatever needs to be done to stop this same "minor" (but sometimes not so minor) accident happening regularly.

Jawgap wrote: »

BTW - I don't see this as 'either/or' - a lot of improvements could be made to infrastructure, but it should be done in the context of a general programme to improve road safety for cyclists.

Totally. I agree that it's not an either/or and that you haven't been depicting it as an either/or. Improving infrastructure will take time but the fact that it's a long-term investment is all the more reason not to kick the can too far down the road. I would, though, love to see a temporary either/or: infrastructure projects suspended for one year only (while the manuals are being rewritten to incorporate much more of what Dutch, Danish and German engineers have slowly learned by trial and error over decades) and the infrastructure/engineering budgets just for that one single year being blown entirely on enforcement (mainly on catching drivers who overtake cyclists badly, prosecuting the worst of them and providing optional training courses instead of penalty points to the rest of them). I realize resources are limited, but even just knowing that there are garda bikes out on the roads that are equipped with distance sensors and cameras would modify the way some people drive (and I think we would ultimately get more bang for our buck on infra anyway if we took a "timeout" to reflect, shore up our design guidance, and send people on study trips.)

Lorries are a very specific problem that we won't solve purely on a national level, but any lorry designed for use in residential areas (bin lorries, deliveries to corner shops) should have a cab like that of a bus - low windscreen, glass doors etc. Electronic warning systems (visual and acoustic) are needed. Absolutely massive lorries may need co-pilots/banksmen in urban areas, or Dutch-style systems might need to be put in place for unloading goods from these behemoths into smaller vehicles before the goods are delivered within urban areas. Pay for lorry drivers needs to be sorted out so they don't make more money by driving faster - and, literally - cutting corners. Technical systems (tyres, brakes, lights) need to be inspected regularly and fairly strict penalties put in place for problems with them or for drivers not having taken proper breaks. Lorry drivers shouldn't be allowed make phone calls from a moving lorry - with or without hands-free systems. Saying that cyclists should be careful just isn't good enough, the danger needs to be sorted out at source and lorries need to meet the same sort of safety standards that would apply to factory machinery in an industrial setting. "G*wan now, be off with you" isn't good enough.

NeedMoreGears

I've mentioned this before but I think it is important to collect data on
injuries, especially life altering injuries, as well as fatalities.

Lesser events can provide essential insights into more serious ones. It can be a matter of luck or timing that someone gets away with injury rather than death. My experience of construction leads me to believe that focus on "near misses" is critical in reducing injury.

Of course once you figure out what happened and how to avoid it, you have to be willing to take actual action.

Tenzor07

I got sore eyes/head trying to read the rather detailed posts above, so I'll give my 2 cents...

Basic issue is there are a lot of new bike users out on the roads this summer, most think you can buy a bicycle, and hey... you're a cyclist!....But that's far from the case!

Mix the numbers of inexperienced bike users with the motorist who is not used to the numbers of wobbly wheelers on the road and it can only lead to increased incidents and worse on our roads...

Increased basic education for all types of road users will save lives!

...Also, based on my Cross-town commute last Friday... Cyclists and drivers can be just as bad as each other for observing traffic signals! Amber seems to mean Speed Up!?

tomasrojo

jodaw wrote: »

I would be interested to know how many of the fatalities involved a Dublin Bike Scheme bicycle? Would the increase in inexperienced cyclist using bicycles in the city center have anything to do with it?

As far as I know, there has been one fatality on a dublinbike, a Brazilian student in his early twenties, I think.

The record for dublinbikes has been very good overall. There may be more incidents once the quays become a more important route, as people use dublinbikes to get to Heuston Station. Then again, maybe there won't be much more.

monument

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Basic issue is there are a lot of new bike users out on the roads this summer, most think you can buy a bicycle, and hey... you're a cyclist!....But that's far from the case!

Mix the numbers of inexperienced bike users with the motorist who is not used to the numbers of wobbly wheelers on the road and it can only lead to increased incidents and worse on our roads...

The data does not support your theory.

The trend overall is lower death and injury with the increase in cycling. Where the most new cyclists are in Dublin City the death rate has dropped and has been stable at ~0-1 each year. Thankfully so-far there's no increase.

Nationally while some cyclists killed in recent years have been new cyclists, there's little to suggest most or even a notable amount have been new cycling and more so very little to suggest that they were "wobbly wheelers" (sic).

bambergbike wrote: »

Let me work through an example which I think is fairly typical - I've nearly had this particular accident myself quite often and I've read endless reports describing something rather similar:

Accident 1: Wrong-way cyclist on cycle path collides with right-way cyclist on cycle path (there is a problem with sightlines, they didn't see each other in time, perhaps the wrong-way cyclist was there illegally.)
Outcome: Both cyclists fall, one is knocked into the road, there is no traffic on the road at the time. Total damage: 1 grazed knee.

Accident 2: Same place, same speeds, same accident, but one cyclist is 75 and only moving at 25 km/h because she has a heavy-ish electric bike.
Outcome: Broken hip, permanent disability.

Accident 3: Same place, same speeds, same accident - but with a car in the roadway going too fast to stop.
Outcome: 1 dead cyclist.

You might be able to avoid Accident 2 or Accident 3 if
a) thousands of people have read a three-line report about Accident 1 (the grazed knee) in their Sligo Champion or their Limerick Leader and realized that the location is hazardous even though it is subjectively "traffic-free" and safe
b) the Accident 1 report had made it onto the desk of whoever is responsible for sorting out the awful sightlines on the cycle path, or making sure people don't use it in the wrong direction, or calming the traffic on the road, or whatever needs to be done to stop this same "minor" (but sometimes not so minor) accident happening regularly.

A few points:

Every time somebody gets a grazed knee it won't be reported on by the local newspapers. It's as simple as that.

Sightlines issues can be detected without incidents happening.

If the roadway has issues with cars speeding, you focus on that and not harder issues to enforce or design out. A grazed knee report won't push changes in this regard.

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

I've mentioned this before but I think it is important to collect data on
injuries, especially life altering injuries, as well as fatalities.

Lesser events can provide essential insights into more serious ones. It can be a matter of luck or timing that someone gets away with injury rather than death. My experience of construction leads me to believe that focus on "near misses" is critical in reducing injury.

Of course once you figure out what happened and how to avoid it, you have to be willing to take actual action.

I'd agree.

And a chain of near misses with trucks and cars is more likely to be an indicator of an issue more so than a grazed knee.

donkey balls

[QUOTE=bambergbike;

Lorries are a very specific problem that we won't solve purely on a national level, but any lorry designed for use in residential areas (bin lorries, deliveries to corner shops) should have a cab like that of a bus - low windscreen, glass doors etc. Electronic warning systems (visual and acoustic) are needed. Absolutely massive lorries may need co-pilots/banksmen in urban areas, or Dutch-style systems might need to be put in place for unloading goods from these behemoths into smaller vehicles before the goods are delivered within urban areas. Pay for lorry drivers needs to be sorted out so they don't make more money by driving faster - and, literally - cutting corners. Technical systems (tyres, brakes, lights) need to be inspected regularly and fairly strict penalties put in place for problems with them or for drivers not having taken proper breaks. Lorry drivers shouldn't be allowed make phone calls from a moving lorry - with or without hands-free systems. Saying that cyclists should be careful just isn't good enough, the danger needs to be sorted out at source and lorries need to meet the same sort of safety standards that would apply to factory machinery in an industrial setting. "G*wan now, be off with you" isn't good enough.[/QUOTE]

You do know that the majority of goods delivered throughout Ireland are done by these so called behemoths/trucks, As a cyclist who has worked in transport for the best part of 20 yrs both as a driver and manager using smaller vehicles to make deliveries makes no sense what so ever.
A 45 ft trailer can typically carry 24/26 pallets so if a company was to use smaller vehicles it would cost them a lot more money to get the product to the shelves which would be passed on to the customer,As for a drivers helper apart from furniture/white goods deliveries they are a thing of the past.
Also all commercial vehicles over 3500kgs are subject to a DOE/CVRT on a yearly basis regardless of the year of registration these are tests like the NCT but more stringent,The RSA along with the Gardai traffic corp also over see the hours drove by drivers as for pay and one of the reasons why a lot of drivers are leaving the profession is the lack of it along with more rules & regs etc.
As for truck designs like the bin trucks they also have blind spots,All trucks since 2005 must have 6 mirrors in place 2 on each wing 1 looking down across the front of the truck and 1 known as the kerb side mirror on the passenger door.

recedite

I noticed when the TDF finished in London, at one point a few riders got into a cycle lane by mistake. There was a fairly high concrete kerb separating it from the road, and they had to stop and unclip from the pedals to get back onto the main part of road.
Seems to be a fairly new idea there, at least I haven't seen them before, but they must be very safe for cyclists normally.