Cyclist near miss discussion

MarkAnthony

huggs2 wrote: »

This guy was lucky this time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFDGBa6p8W0

RainyDay wrote: »

I cycle most of the time, and I get very frustrated when I see cyclists doing this crap too.

But remember, every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour not spent reducing the 200+ deaths and thousands of injuries caused by motorists on the road each year. Be careful what you wish for.

Tragedy wrote: »

There is no evidence that Garda 'enforcement' has any positive effect on road injuries/deaths.

I'd much rather speed vans (as that's all Garda enforcement ever amounted to) at known accident black spots and Gardaí get back to actual policing.

RainyDay wrote: »

It comes down to priorities. Where do you want to focus your resources - on saving lives or avoiding annoyance?

You are again making the assumption that enforcement = lives saved. If we make the resources argument then why are we spending money on cycle lanes - clearly they're not needed.

It's not an annoyance to the innocent motorist that goes through a green light after checking the way is clear, even waiting for pedestrians as in the above clip and ends up with a cyclist plastered over their front windscreen. That person has to live with that for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore for all the 'Irish Driving' slagging off - its amazing to me more people aren't killed. It's not the cyclists protecting themselves it's them relying on drivers to avoid them which, statistically, they do for the most part. Noting of course we're talking about fatalities here and not what the cost is to the health service in injuries due to negligent cyclists. The problem with that is that it's clearly generating a culture of contempt amongst cyclists in relation to the dangers of the roads which will only have knock on effect in injuries and deaths.

Sorry I've not pulled everything out but general gist - I think it's an interesting discussion but it's derailing the Dashcam thread.

RainyDay

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You are again making the assumption that enforcement = lives saved. If we make the resources argument then why are we spending money on cycle lanes - clearly they're not needed.

You said "The guards need to enforce the correct road usage by all parties." That requires resources - either existing Garda resources or extra Garda resources. One way or other, it involves some Gardai spending time stopping cyclists who break red lights (including the majority of cyclists who break red lights while looking out for the own safety, and the minority of cyclists who break red lights recklessly) and Gardai spending time stopping cyclists who don't have bells on their bikes and Gardai spending time stopping jaywalking pedestrians. Every hour spent on these activities in an hour not spent on motorists who kill 200+ people each year on the roads and maim thousands of others.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's not an annoyance to the innocent motorist that goes through a green light after checking the way is clear, even waiting for pedestrians as in the above clip and ends up with a cyclist plastered over their front windscreen. That person has to live with that for the rest of their lives.

Yes, that theoretical situation would be very difficult for the driver to live with. As a fairly keen observer of cycle safety matters, I'm fairly sure that the theoretical situation that you outline hasn't happened in living memory here in Ireland.

So again, do you want to focus your resources on dealing with your theoretical risk, or on dealing with the 200+ people killed each year by motorists and the thousands maimed.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Furthermore for all the 'Irish Driving' slagging off - its amazing to me more people aren't killed. It's not the cyclists protecting themselves it's them relying on drivers to avoid them which, statistically, they do for the most part. Noting of course we're talking about fatalities here and not what the cost is to the health service in injuries due to negligent cyclists. The problem with that is that it's clearly generating a culture of contempt amongst cyclists in relation to the dangers of the roads which will only have knock on effect in injuries and deaths.

Yes, there is a culture issue, and I'd love to see it addressed and fixed. I'd love to see improvements in the standard of cycling for lots of reasons.

The fact remains that if you want the Gardai to address this issue, they will be diverted from other activities such as the, well, you know yourself by now.

MarkAnthony

RainyDay wrote: »

You said "The guards need to enforce the correct road usage by all parties." That requires resources - either existing Garda resources or extra Garda resources. One way or other, it involves some Gardai spending time stopping cyclists who break red lights (including the majority of cyclists who break red lights while looking out for the own safety, and the minority of cyclists who break red lights recklessly) and Gardai spending time stopping cyclists who don't have bells on their bikes and Gardai spending time stopping jaywalking pedestrians. Every hour spent on these activities in an hour not spent on motorists who kill 200+ people each year on the roads and maim thousands of others.

It's not. Many road deaths are nothing to do with lack of enforcement they're to do with physics. The fact that less cyclists are killed is again, for the most part to do with the speed and types of accidents involved.

The only reason guards do not enforce in relation to cyclists more is the fact that it requires a mandatory court appearance. This is very easily solved as it was with learner drivers.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, that theoretical situation would be very difficult for the driver to live with. As a fairly keen observer of cycle safety matters, I'm fairly sure that the theoretical situation that you outline hasn't happened in living memory here in Ireland.

Demonstrating my point in relation to sheer contempt on the part of cyclists - it's hasn't happened so it won't - when we don't even know that it hasn't.

RainyDay wrote: »

So again, do you want to focus your resources on dealing with your theoretical risk, or on dealing with the 200+ people killed each year by motorists and the thousands maimed.

So again you ignore the actual monetary cost in relation to injuries and property damage and focus on fatalities only.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, there is a culture issue, and I'd love to see it addressed and fixed. I'd love to see improvements in the standard of cycling for lots of reasons.

That will never happen without enforcement.

RainyDay wrote: »

The fact remains that if you want the Gardai to address this issue, they will be diverted from other activities such as the, well, you know yourself by now.

Again, it's very unlikely that the type of enforcement needed would require much manpower on behalf of the guards. A simple operation at a single checkpoint in Dublin would generate enough press to get people to start copping on. The rest would be down to simple stops that happen in perhaps 0.001% of cases as it does with motorists.

corktina

cycling forum >>>>>>>>

ardmacha

The only reason guards do not enforce in relation to cyclists more is the fact that it requires a mandatory court appearance. This is very easily solved as it was with learner drivers.

It isn't, Cyclists are not required to have licences nor do their vehicles have identifying numbers. They can do what they like, and do.

MarkAnthony

ardmacha wrote: »

It isn't, Cyclists are not required to have licences nor do their vehicles have identifying numbers. They can do what they like, and do.

That's not an issue per se. Guards can be empowered to ask for ID, which if refused would give them the power to arrest until they were satisfied as to the ID of the person. Then a fixed fine can go out.

I actually don't have an issue with cyclists breaking lights - I'd rather they were out of the way. There is a difference between taking a cheeky left and barrelling through a junction though.

seamus

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The only reason guards do not enforce in relation to cyclists more is the fact that it requires a mandatory court appearance. This is very easily solved as it was with learner drivers.

I think you'll find most cyclists (certainly most who do it on a regular basis) are big fans of introducing FPNs. Like you say, it'll allow for only ten minutes of Garda time to be spent rather than a day in court.
It's a resources issue.

So again you ignore the actual monetary cost in relation to injuries and property damage and focus on fatalities only.

Well no, the point is that the "actual monetary cost" you talk about, is in fact theoretical. There doesn't appear to be any large cost (financial or social) associated with poor cycling discipline - it's not big enough that anyone has attempted to quantify it. But there is a known large cost of poor driving discipline.
So from a simplistic point of view, focussing on dealing with cycling discipline is using big resources to deal with a small problem.

I don't agree that we should ignore poor cycling until driving is "fixed", but logically driving offences should receive the lion's share of focus, because that's where the danger is.

Again, it's very unlikely that the type of enforcement needed would require much manpower on behalf of the guards. A simple operation at a single checkpoint in Dublin would generate enough press to get people to start copping on.

I don't think it would. What it might do is cut down on light-breaking at those lights, but the same behaviours would continue elsewhere. If there was a very real chance that anyone actually gave a crap that a cyclist had broken a light (e.g. by issuing an FPN), then people might reconsider it. As it is, you could break a light right in front of a Garda and the odds are 50:50 that they'll bother going after you.

MarkAnthony

seamus wrote: »

Well no, the point is that the "actual monetary cost" you talk about, is in fact theoretical. There doesn't appear to be any large cost (financial or social) associated with poor cycling discipline - it's not big enough that anyone has attempted to quantify it.

Granted in relation to it being theoretical. However anecdotally if someone is knocked off you've the cost of healthcare plus the cost of lost days at work. I can't imagine it would be outweighed by the cost of a guard issuing a fixed penalty notice at the same frequency as they do for motorists.

We're also ignoring the cost of cyclist v pedestrian accidents where the cyclist has potential to do serious damage. I've had a few near misses where the cyclist has broken the lights only to barrel through a pedestrian crossing.

seamus wrote: »

I don't think it would. What it might do is cut down on light-breaking at those lights, but the same behaviours would continue elsewhere. If there was a very real chance that anyone actually gave a crap that a cyclist had broken a light (e.g. by issuing an FPN), then people might reconsider it. As it is, you could break a light right in front of a Garda and the odds are 50:50 that they'll bother going after you.

I take your point - but for the cost of running the operation - it's a small outlay that would generate significant press and perhaps remove some of the umbridge some drivers take where some cyclists simply don't give a crap because they know nothing will happen. There are also only limited behaviours which are dangerous rather than simply inconsiderate. Lights would be one such area and a move in this area alone would be welcome.

seamus

MarkAnthony wrote: »

We're also ignoring the cost of cyclist v pedestrian accidents where the cyclist has potential to do serious damage. I've had a few near misses where the cyclist has broken the lights only to barrel through a pedestrian crossing.

Potential -v- actual; near misses don't really count. If we're talking potentially, then we've all potentially died hundreds of times over due to poor behaviours by ourselves and other road users. Every day I see drivers breaking red lights, barrelling through pedestrian crossings with a green man, potentially killing people.
We ignore potential cost because it's not actual cost. Cyclists could potentially cause a lot of injuries to pedestrians. In actuality, they don't. Just like potentially cars could kill 10,000 pedestrians ever year. In actuality, they don't.

it's a small outlay that would generate significant press

They do it all the time. In reality, it doesn't generate any kind of press. As much as some drivers foam at the mouth about cyclists breaking lights, in reality nobody cares enough about it for it to make the press.

Chimaera

Looking at the video in the OP, I've seen far more drivers do that at traffic lights than cyclists. There's a general culture of ignorance around traffic signals in this country: IMO the money spent on GoSafe would be much better invested in red-light cameras.

Cycling accidents don't cost the state as much as motoring accidents because they are less common, and more likely to be fatal to the cyclist. It's well established that serious injury accidents cost far more than fatal accidents in the long run, and you stand a higher chance of surviving an accident enough in a vehicle to end up in the serious injury category rather than fatality.

Cycling standards are low enough here but little or nothing is done to educate people either. The Rules of the Road pay lip service to cycling. Kids are reliant on their parents to teach them, and most parents don't know any better than the kids what the rules are. Add to that the ever changing design and layout of cycle lanes and it's a mess.

Chimaera

seamus wrote: »

Potential -v- actual; near misses don't really count. If we're talking potentially, then we've all potentially died hundreds of times over due to poor behaviours by ourselves and other road users. Every day I see drivers breaking red lights, barrelling through pedestrian crossings with a green man, potentially killing people.

Actually, near misses do count. In industrial health and safety, it's been shown that there's a relationship between numbers of near misses, minor accidents, major accidents and fatalities, and I would imagine that easily carries over to road safety, given the human factors involved.

Near miss reporting is what alerts you to potential accidents and allows action to be taken before someone is injured or killed.

MarkAnthony

seamus wrote: »

Potential -v- actual; near misses don't really count. If we're talking potentially, then we've all potentially died hundreds of times over due to poor behaviours by ourselves and other road users. Every day I see drivers breaking red lights, barrelling through pedestrian crossings with a green man, potentially killing people.
We ignore potential cost because it's not actual cost. Cyclists could potentially cause a lot of injuries to pedestrians. In actuality, they don't. Just like potentially cars could kill 10,000 pedestrians ever year. In actuality, they don't.

Sorry perhaps you misunderstood. I'm also talking about actual cost. You've taken one point out of context there. There is an actual cost where someone is injured.

seamus wrote: »

They do it all the time. In reality, it doesn't generate any kind of press. As much as some drivers foam at the mouth about cyclists breaking lights, in reality nobody cares enough about it for it to make the press.

If you think that an operation of this nature would not generate huge publicity - in the words of Bruno Gianelli - you are out of your mind. Tabloids would have a field day with it.

RainyDay

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If you think that an operation of this nature would not generate huge publicity - in the words of Bruno Gianelli - you are out of your mind. Tabloids would have a field day with it.

I'll come back on the rest later, but the Gardai do this kind of thing every year. It gets a small bit of press coverage, but it really doesn't result in people changing behaviour.

http://garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=4489
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=4753&Lang=1
http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-casualty-roads-617881-Oct2012/
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/476851028823113728
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_UUc4v8XehoJ:https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/476851028823113728+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie


If you want to change any culture, you need to work a bit harder than that.

MarkAnthony

While I appreciate the correction on the press coverage, there seems to be enough of a concern to run these operations and taking the press coverage at face value, enough of a cost/benefit to it as well.

You don't really need to work that hard at all though - let's be honest here, if there was a proper scheme of enforcement, culture would change. For example, get caught in Thames Valley with no lights on your bike you can expect someone to have a word with you. Fewer people cycle around with no lights on.

RainyDay

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's not. Many road deaths are nothing to do with lack of enforcement they're to do with physics. The fact that less cyclists are killed is again, for the most part to do with the speed and types of accidents involved.

I'm a bit confused now. You brought up the issue of Garda enforcement, not me. And now you seem to be suggesting that it's not relevant. So which is it? Are you asking the Gardai to change what they do?

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The only reason guards do not enforce in relation to cyclists more is the fact that it requires a mandatory court appearance. This is very easily solved as it was with learner drivers.

Yes, that is indeed an issue, though the solution is not as simple as you might suggest. There may well be constitutional issues around requiring people to carry ID just to cycle to the shops. Most people agree with the principle of fixed penalty notices, but I’m not sure at all it is going to fix your problem. For a start, it takes a certain amount of time for each FPN to be written up by the Garda and processed. And every Garda hour spent on these FPNs is an hour not spent dealing with motorists who kill 200+ people each year.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Demonstrating my point in relation to sheer contempt on the part of cyclists - it's hasn't happened so it won't - when we don't even know that it hasn't.

Can I make a suggestion? Stop treating cyclsists as some kind of homogenous group with some kind agenda. Cyclists are different, they have different views and opinions, different styles of cycling, and (shock horror) on some days of the week, some of them are even drivers. So it is not ‘cyclists’ who have sheer contempt – it’s just me.
And as for the ‘we don’t even know that it hasn’t’ – is that how sensible debate works now? You bring up some kind of theoretical scenario and I have to prove you wrong? Perhaps the onus would be on you to make your own proposal stand up?

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So again you ignore the actual monetary cost in relation to injuries and property damage and focus on fatalities only.

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m suggesting that the people who know a bit about traffic safety, like the Gardai, the RSA, the A&E consultants never come out with concerns about injuries caused by cyclists. We have enough problems dealing with the real injuries on the road caused by motorists, so we don’t really need to go making up other problems.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

That will never happen without enforcement.

I agree it will never happen, but there’s that confusion again, over whether you need enforcement or not.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The only reason guards do not enforce in relation to cyclists more is the fact that it requires a mandatory court appearance. This is very easily solved as it was with learner drivers.



Demonstrating my point in relation to sheer contempt on the part of cyclists - it's hasn't happened so it won't - when we don't even know that it hasn't.



So again you ignore the actual monetary cost in relation to injuries and property damage and focus on fatalities only.




That will never happen without enforcement.



Again, it's very unlikely that the type of enforcement needed would require much manpower on behalf of the guards. A simple operation at a single checkpoint in Dublin would generate enough press to get people to start copping on. The rest would be down to simple stops that happen in perhaps 0.001% of cases as it does with motorists.

ardmacha wrote: »

It isn't, Cyclists are not required to have licences nor do their vehicles have identifying numbers. They can do what they like, and do.

Yes, because the car licensing systems works just oh so well at stopping car drivers from breaking the law;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92995770&postcount=6122

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Granted in relation to it being theoretical. However anecdotally if someone is knocked off you've the cost of healthcare plus the cost of lost days at work. I can't imagine it would be outweighed by the cost of a guard issuing a fixed penalty notice at the same frequency as they do for motorists.

We're also ignoring the cost of cyclist v pedestrian accidents where the cyclist has potential to do serious damage. I've had a few near misses where the cyclist has broken the lights only to barrel through a pedestrian crossing.

Indeed, there are costs involved in such accidents, and cycle accidents do occur. But the size of the problem is tiny compared to the problem of the 200+ fatalities and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I take your point - but for the cost of running the operation - it's a small outlay that would generate significant press and perhaps remove some of the umbridge some drivers take where some cyclists simply don't give a crap because they know nothing will happen. There are also only limited behaviours which are dangerous rather than simply inconsiderate. Lights would be one such area and a move in this area alone would be welcome.

There are existing operations, and they make very little difference in changing the culture.

J Mysterio

As far as i'm concerned, the cycling discussion in terms of cars vs. bIkes is at its most presient in Dublin.

I'm from Limerick but i've spent a total of about three years in Dublin off and on over the years.

Before people from beyond the pale complain, consider this: the Dublin Bike scheme is just now being considered for Limerick, Cork and Galway - but is it warranted in these cities? Probably not.

Anyway, I don't drive around Dublin a hell of a lot but in the last year or so i've been extremely checky on all sides of my car driving in Dublin. A couple of months ago after driving up here, I almost cleaned out a cyclist when passing on the left of a car waiting to turn right. It was scarey close though i'm hyper aware now.

I'd love to see Dublin Council create bike lanes in the way of Amsterdam. I Imagine it would make a massive difference for motorists and cyclists alike.

beauf

I think you're seeing a cultural shift.
45% more cyclists than 2006. With up to 11% in some areas getting to work by bicycle.
Look at Dublin Bikes

Date Long Term Total Journeys (Cumulative)
18/Apr/2010[16] 21,134 556,497
May/2011[17] 33,643 2,003,105
20/Apr/2012[18] 3,500,000
12/Jan/2013[19] 4,674,277
27/Nov/2013[20] 36,636 6,037,199
13/Sept/2014[21] 46,695 7,951,866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublinbikes#Progress

MarkAnthony

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm a bit confused now. You brought up the issue of Garda enforcement, not me. And now you seem to be suggesting that it's not relevant. So which is it? Are you asking the Gardai to change what they do?

Sorry to have confused you - you keep talking about fatalities, I keep bringing you back to injuries; this doesn;t support your argument so you keep trying to ignore it but as covered in the press you linked it's an issue.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, that is indeed an issue, though the solution is not as simple as you might suggest. There may well be constitutional issues around requiring people to carry ID just to cycle to the shops. Most people agree with the principle of fixed penalty notices, but I’m not sure at all it is going to fix your problem. For a start, it takes a certain amount of time for each FPN to be written up by the Garda and processed. And every Garda hour spent on these FPNs is an hour not spent dealing with motorists who kill 200+ people each year.

I doubt it - but it's something that can be worked out by the legislator. Taking your next point I'm sorry but that argument has been debunked by your own links. You use the fatality figures like some sort of mantra - it's not the only concern, again your own links.

RainyDay wrote: »

Can I make a suggestion? Stop treating cyclsists as some kind of homogenous group with some kind agenda. Cyclists are different, they have different views and opinions, different styles of cycling, and (shock horror) on some days of the week, some of them are even drivers. So it is not ‘cyclists’ who have sheer contempt – it’s just me.

I'm well aware there are different types of cyclists. Some are sensible, considerate people. Some are complete arseholes, I suspect roughly the same number fall into the categories as drivers. The same can be said for clueless idiots - probably a similar breakdown in numbers drivers v cyclists again. Therefore it would seem to make sense to treat them in a similar fashion and provide enforcement.

RainyDay wrote: »

And as for the ‘we don’t even know that it hasn’t’ – is that how sensible debate works now? You bring up some kind of theoretical scenario and I have to prove you wrong? Perhaps the onus would be on you to make your own proposal stand up?

My proposal stands up quite nicely. You seem to have some sort of agenda to ensure that there is no enforcement for cyclists full stop. Odd that you say the resources aren't required then refuse to engage on the point of why, then, do we need cycle lanes?

RainyDay wrote: »

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m suggesting that the people who know a bit about traffic safety, like the Gardai, the RSA, the A&E consultants never come out with concerns about injuries caused by cyclists. We have enough problems dealing with the real injuries on the road caused by motorists, so we don’t really need to go making up other problems.

That was almost mantra use no.2. See your own links for a refutation on the above point.

RainyDay wrote: »

I agree it will never happen, but there’s that confusion again, over whether you need enforcement or not.

No confusion over enforcement, sorry to have confused you again, I will try and be clearer; a change in attitudes, amongst cyclists that need their attitudes changed, will not happen without enforcement.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, because the car licensing systems works just oh so well at stopping car drivers from breaking the law;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92995770&postcount=6122

Spurious argument - you know what would happen if we removed enforcement. People would be, almost unanimously, behind that person getting a FPN and ideally a large fine.

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, there are costs involved in such accidents, and cycle accidents do occur. But the size of the problem is tiny compared to the problem of the 200+ fatalities and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.

Mantra again, again debunked by your own links. I'm curious to your solutions to cycling enforcement? Clearly there is enough of a cost to warrant various schemes out there and a cost in relation to injuries.

RainyDay wrote: »

There are existing operations, and they make very little difference in changing the culture.

On this we agree. Clearly something of a more random nature is needed, such as FPNs.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

I think you're seeing a cultural shift.
45% more cyclists than 2006. With up to 11% in some areas getting to work by bicycle.
Look at Dublin Bikes

Date Long Term Total Journeys (Cumulative)
18/Apr/2010[16] 21,134 556,497
May/2011[17] 33,643 2,003,105
20/Apr/2012[18] 3,500,000
12/Jan/2013[19] 4,674,277
27/Nov/2013[20] 36,636 6,037,199
13/Sept/2014[21] 46,695 7,951,866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublinbikes#Progress

Let me be clear, I'm not anti-bike. More people, including myself should be taking journeys by bike. The problem is as more cyclists take to the roads the chances of injury and death increase.

Comparing cycling around Dublin to cycling around London though, having done both, it's a hell of a lot less scary cycling around London - why? Enforcement. Yes people still break lights etc but the instance of nutters barrelling through red rights onto busy junctions and through pedestrian crossings is substantially less than it is here.

One thing that struck me there was that drivers seemed a lot more patient with people as well. I think that's why drivers are more patient with each other to some degree. If someone is driving like a d!ck you know that, eventually, they're going to get their comeuppance.

just driving on my way to work this morning and this fooking eejit comes up a long side the left of me, then glances over his shoulder and swerves right across me, I had to jam on, then goes up on the path and flyes off. didn't even hold his hand out to give me an idea what he was doing.

id have took pleasure in and felt zero guilt if he'd av ended up on the roof.!!!

a few weeks ago my wife walking and was crossing the lights in town, they were green and some lad flyies thru them and nearly takes the nose off her face, a grown man in his 40's too. she shouted at him and got the finger!! again, love to catch that clown!!!

beauf

What do you you mean by chance of injury or death. The % fall as the numbers increase. The actual number increases. That means its getting statistically less dangerous.

Also cycling injuries and deaths statistics often don't differentiate between on road and off road. So someone injuring themselves on a mountain are often included.

Enforcement for cyclists is too low. But then its also to low for drivers also. Compared to the uk. Which is why you see such a difference in attitudes in driving and cycling between here and there.

beauf

What do you you mean by chance of injury or death. The % fall as the numbers increase. The actual number increases. That means its getting statistically less dangerous.

Also cycling injuries and deaths statistics often don't differentiate between on road and off road. So someone injuring themselves on a mountain are often included.

Enforcement for cyclists is too low. But then its also to low for drivers also. Compared to the uk. Which is why you see such a difference in attitudes in driving and cycling between here and there.

dr.fuzzenstein

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, that is indeed an issue, though the solution is not as simple as you might suggest. There may well be constitutional issues around requiring people to carry ID just to cycle to the shops. Most people agree with the principle of fixed penalty notices, but I’m not sure at all it is going to fix your problem. For a start, it takes a certain amount of time for each FPN to be written up by the Garda and processed. And every Garda hour spent on these FPNs is an hour not spent dealing with motorists who kill 200+ people each year.

I can't find any rules as per the need to ID yourself. One would assume that in a proper, civilised country "Shure, 'tis me, Sean O'Flaherty!" won't suffice with any police force. It is my personal opinion that the law should be, if you can't ID yourself, you will be detained until you can.
I think FPN's are a great idea, as a motorist I will be fined if I do something wrong and I'm caught, the same should apply to cylcists. The fact that cyclists are so upset by the idea translates into "But I'm SPECIAL! I should be ALLOWED to break the rules!"

Can I make a suggestion? Stop treating cyclsists as some kind of homogenous group with some kind agenda. Cyclists are different, they have different views and opinions, different styles of cycling, and (shock horror) on some days of the week, some of them are even drivers. So it is not ‘cyclists’ who have sheer contempt – it’s just me.
And as for the ‘we don’t even know that it hasn’t’ – is that how sensible debate works now? You bring up some kind of theoretical scenario and I have to prove you wrong? Perhaps the onus would be on you to make your own proposal stand up?

So are motorists. We still need to abide by the rules. So do cyclists. Again, you're not special.

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m suggesting that the people who know a bit about traffic safety, like the Gardai, the RSA, the A&E consultants never come out with concerns about injuries caused by cyclists. We have enough problems dealing with the real injuries on the road caused by motorists, so we don’t really need to go making up other problems.

I agree it will never happen, but there’s that confusion again, over whether you need enforcement or not.

There's that pesky rules business again. They're not optional you know?

Yes, because the car licensing systems works just oh so well at stopping car drivers from breaking the law;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92995770&postcount=6122


Indeed, there are costs involved in such accidents, and cycle accidents do occur. But the size of the problem is tiny compared to the problem of the 200+ fatalities and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.

There are existing operations, and they make very little difference in changing the culture.

So it would seem the existing operations are not enough and need to be widened.
You know, the whole rule business again. They did not make them up in the pub for fun.

It's not that we want Gards out there singling out cyclists, they should nab everyone, there's the whol;e business of the rules again and the fact that they don't exist as a joke and apply to everyone.
So cyclists say "I broke a red light, but so do the cars!". By that logic I can burgle one measly house or stick up a granny at knifepoint if I only do it a little, and anyway there are people FAR worse than me, so it's alright I I do it.
Everyone thinks they're special in this country, they're not. A civilised society depends on a framework of rules that everyone has to follow.
There are people who disagree, usually criminals and crackpots. That's where enforcement comes in. Again, rules, not a joke.
And since this is a free country, anyone who absolutely cannot bring himself to agree with it can protest or move to Somalia, where you can do pretty much whatever you want to. Of course others are also free to do whatever they want to you, but hey, swings and roundabouts.

RainyDay

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry to have confused you - you keep talking about fatalities, I keep bringing you back to injuries; this doesn;t support your argument so you keep trying to ignore it but as covered in the press you linked it's an issue.

I doubt it - but it's something that can be worked out by the legislator. Taking your next point I'm sorry but that argument has been debunked by your own links. You use the fatality figures like some sort of mantra - it's not the only concern, again your own links.

I'm well aware there are different types of cyclists. Some are sensible, considerate people. Some are complete arseholes, I suspect roughly the same number fall into the categories as drivers. The same can be said for clueless idiots - probably a similar breakdown in numbers drivers v cyclists again. Therefore it would seem to make sense to treat them in a similar fashion and provide enforcement.

My proposal stands up quite nicely. You seem to have some sort of agenda to ensure that there is no enforcement for cyclists full stop. Odd that you say the resources aren't required then refuse to engage on the point of why, then, do we need cycle lanes?

That was almost mantra use no.2. See your own links for a refutation on the above point.

No confusion over enforcement, sorry to have confused you again, I will try and be clearer; a change in attitudes, amongst cyclists that need their attitudes changed, will not happen without enforcement.

Spurious argument - you know what would happen if we removed enforcement. People would be, almost unanimously, behind that person getting a FPN and ideally a large fine.

Mantra again, again debunked by your own links. I'm curious to your solutions to cycling enforcement? Clearly there is enough of a cost to warrant various schemes out there and a cost in relation to injuries.

On this we agree. Clearly something of a more random nature is needed, such as FPNs.

We're really not getting very far, are we? This is getting more and more confusing. You accuse me of 'ignoring injuries' and then of 'having a mantra' (200+ people killed and thousands of others injured). You are contradicting yourself.

You tell me that "a change in attitudes, amongst cyclists that need their attitudes changed, will not happen without enforcement". Then you tell me that enforcement isn’t the issue “It's not. Many road deaths are nothing to do with lack of enforcement they're to do with physics.”. Again, you are contradicting yourself.
So let’s be clear. I’m not suggesting that there should be no enforcement of traffic law for cyclists or for motorists. I’m not suggesting that there are no injuries to cyclists, or no injuries caused by cyclists.
What I am suggesting, which backed up by every scrap of data and utterance from the Gardai, Road Safety Authority and any other source that you care to mention, is that the cost of injuries to or by cyclists is minimal in the overall scheme of things.
What I am suggesting, which is a simple hard fact, is that every hour of enforcement resources spent dealing with cyclists is an hour not spent dealing with lowering the 200+ fatalities and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.
You say that “Therefore it would seem to make sense to treat them in a similar fashion and provide enforcement” which is, of course, nonsense. Any enforcement activity is not about ‘treating them in a similar fashion’. Revenue do not treat Apple or Denis O’Brien in a similar fashion to how they treat me, an ordinary PAYE worker. The EPA do not treat a chemical plant in the same way they treat me, a bloke with a garden. The Gardai do not treat Nidge and Fran and the other drug dealers in the same way they treat me.
Enforcement is about risk management. You look at where the risks arise, and you focus your resources there, to reduce the risk. Each and every proposal that suggests diverting Garda resources to deal with cyclists reduces the resources available to a low risk area. The only problem it solves is addressing the annoyance caused to some uptight motorists who don’t like to see cyclists breaking lights.
That’s not my opinion. It may or may not be what I’d like to see happening (despite all the amateur psychologists on the thread who seem to know my motives, though we haven’t discussed them at all). It’s a matter of fact.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I can't find any rules as per the need to ID yourself. One would assume that in a proper, civilised country "Shure, 'tis me, Sean O'Flaherty!" won't suffice with any police force. It is my personal opinion that the law should be, if you can't ID yourself, you will be detained until you can.
I think FPN's are a great idea, as a motorist I will be fined if I do something wrong and I'm caught, the same should apply to cylcists. The fact that cyclists are so upset by the idea translates into "But I'm SPECIAL! I should be ALLOWED to break the rules!"



So are motorists. We still need to abide by the rules. So do cyclists. Again, you're not special.



There's that pesky rules business again. They're not optional you know?



So it would seem the existing operations are not enough and need to be widened.
You know, the whole rule business again. They did not make them up in the pub for fun.

It's not that we want Gards out there singling out cyclists, they should nab everyone, there's the whol;e business of the rules again and the fact that they don't exist as a joke and apply to everyone.
So cyclists say "I broke a red light, but so do the cars!". By that logic I can burgle one measly house or stick up a granny at knifepoint if I only do it a little, and anyway there are people FAR worse than me, so it's alright I I do it.
Everyone thinks they're special in this country, they're not. A civilised society depends on a framework of rules that everyone has to follow.
There are people who disagree, usually criminals and crackpots. That's where enforcement comes in. Again, rules, not a joke.
And since this is a free country, anyone who absolutely cannot bring himself to agree with it can protest or move to Somalia, where you can do pretty much whatever you want to. Of course others are also free to do whatever they want to you, but hey, swings and roundabouts.

Please stop questioning my motives. I haven’t said that I want cyclists to have free rein. I haven’t said that ‘cyclists are special’. What I’ve said, which is a matter of fact, is that every hour spent dealing with cyclists who break red lights is an hour not spent on reducing the death toll on our roads.
And let’s not get into the topic of ID cards and identity checking. It’s a bit too big of an issue to cover on this thread. Needless to say, your opinion is not the only valid opinion on that topic.

dr.fuzzenstein

More enforcement is needed. Penalties need to be handed out. This goes for motorists and cyclists. The rules are there for a reason.
If anyone disagrees with this, just quote yourself and paste this as a reply, because that's the answer your getting to every "but! but! but!..." reply.

seamus

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Let me be clear, I'm not anti-bike. More people, including myself should be taking journeys by bike. The problem is as more cyclists take to the roads the chances of injury and death increase.

Believe it or not, all of the evidence shows that as the numbers of cyclists on the road increase, the chances of injury and death for cyclists drop (though obviously the discrete values may rise).

This is generally believed to be down to general consciousness - more cyclists means that people are aware of cyclists. And cyclists too are less likely to be erratic simply because they are surrounded by other cyclists - herd mentality; when I stop at lights, other cyclists will stop too. In the same way that many if not most pedestrians will blindly follow other pedestrians onto the road without checking, the same principle appears to apply to cyclists.

Anecdotally I've seen this shift in the last six years I've been cycling in Dublin. Whereas at the beginning I was usually the only cyclists to stop at most lights, nowadays I see a much larger volume of cyclists stopping at lights. Certainly the amount of light-breaking is still huge, and some lights are way worse than others. But definitely the amount "ah sure **** it I'll just go" stuff like in the OP, has in my experience gone way down.

beauf

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

....The rules are there for a reason....

Just for devilment.

Oddly enough the rules aren't always the same. So are the reasons different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cycling-past-red-lights-its-legal-in-the-netherlands/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-free-zone-The-German-town-scrapped-traffic-lights-road-signs.html

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/248215469679448064/german-town-abolishes-traffic-lights-and-codes-accidents-are-now-almost-non-existent

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/02/16/study-finds-red-light-cameras-cause-accidents/

http://coursethreads.berkeley.edu/%E2%80%9Cnaked-streets%E2%80%9D-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety

MarkAnthony

RainyDay wrote: »

We're really not getting very far, are we? This is getting more and more confusing. You accuse me of 'ignoring injuries' and then of 'having a mantra' (200+ people killed and thousands of others injured). You are contradicting yourself.

You tell me that "a change in attitudes, amongst cyclists that need their attitudes changed, will not happen without enforcement". Then you tell me that enforcement isn’t the issue “It's not. Many road deaths are nothing to do with lack of enforcement they're to do with physics.”. Again, you are contradicting yourself.
So let’s be clear. I’m not suggesting that there should be no enforcement of traffic law for cyclists or for motorists. I’m not suggesting that there are no injuries to cyclists, or no injuries caused by cyclists.
What I am suggesting, which backed up by every scrap of data and utterance from the Gardai, Road Safety Authority and any other source that you care to mention, is that the cost of injuries to or by cyclists is minimal in the overall scheme of things.
What I am suggesting, which is a simple hard fact, is that every hour of enforcement resources spent dealing with cyclists is an hour not spent dealing with lowering the 200+ fatalities and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.
You say that “Therefore it would seem to make sense to treat them in a similar fashion and provide enforcement” which is, of course, nonsense. Any enforcement activity is not about ‘treating them in a similar fashion’. Revenue do not treat Apple or Denis O’Brien in a similar fashion to how they treat me, an ordinary PAYE worker. The EPA do not treat a chemical plant in the same way they treat me, a bloke with a garden. The Gardai do not treat Nidge and Fran and the other drug dealers in the same way they treat me.
Enforcement is about risk management. You look at where the risks arise, and you focus your resources there, to reduce the risk. Each and every proposal that suggests diverting Garda resources to deal with cyclists reduces the resources available to a low risk area. The only problem it solves is addressing the annoyance caused to some uptight motorists who don’t like to see cyclists breaking lights.
That’s not my opinion. It may or may not be what I’d like to see happening (despite all the amateur psychologists on the thread who seem to know my motives, though we haven’t discussed them at all). It’s a matter of fact.

Sorry you've lost me completely I've not really been following love hate - what ever that has to do with anything. The argument from both of us in multifaceted but if you want to ignore that: You've confused me even more above by saying enforcement doesn't help but enforcing motorist will.

Bottom line is, for whatever reason you are anti-enforcement in relation to cyclists. You claim some sort of utilitarian motive which simply doesn't wash, sorry.

RainyDay wrote: »

Please stop questioning my motives. I haven’t said that I want cyclists to have free rein. I haven’t said that ‘cyclists are special’. What I’ve said, which is a matter of fact, is that every hour spent dealing with cyclists who break red lights is an hour not spent on reducing the death toll on our roads.
And let’s not get into the topic of ID cards and identity checking. It’s a bit too big of an issue to cover on this thread. Needless to say, your opinion is not the only valid opinion on that topic.

Personally I think your motives are very much in question.

I'm more than happy to be corrected and where you do I'll thank you for it. The fact is though that common sense tells us there is a cost in relation to injuries and that should be reduced.

dr.fuzzenstein

beauf wrote: »

Just for devilment.

Oddly enough the rules aren't always the same. So are the reasons different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cycling-past-red-lights-its-legal-in-the-netherlands/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-free-zone-The-German-town-scrapped-traffic-lights-road-signs.html

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/248215469679448064/german-town-abolishes-traffic-lights-and-codes-accidents-are-now-almost-non-existent

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/02/16/study-finds-red-light-cameras-cause-accidents/

http://coursethreads.berkeley.edu/%E2%80%9Cnaked-streets%E2%80%9D-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety

All fine by me. The issue to my mind is the very special way in which the Irish interpret them. Some may like the German model, some the Dutch and so on. So everyone goes by their own rulebook, which leads to chaos.

MarkAnthony

seamus wrote: »

Believe it or not, all of the evidence shows that as the numbers of cyclists on the road increase, the chances of injury and death for cyclists drop (though obviously the discrete values may rise).

I think that's being a bit pedantic tbh. It was fairly clear what was meant. Thank you for the info though.

seamus wrote: »

This is generally believed to be down to general consciousness - more cyclists means that people are aware of cyclists. And cyclists too are less likely to be erratic simply because they are surrounded by other cyclists - herd mentality; when I stop at lights, other cyclists will stop too. In the same way that many if not most pedestrians will blindly follow other pedestrians onto the road without checking, the same principle appears to apply to cyclists.

Makes sense. However as number rise I suspect enforcement kicks in, facilities become better such as better lanes and forward cycle zones at lights - all of which I'm in faVour of. I have to admit as well as making logical sense to have enforcement is does irk me somewhat that this money is being spent and the rules then not enforced - rather having one's cake and eating it.

seamus wrote: »

Anecdotally I've seen this shift in the last six years I've been cycling in Dublin. Whereas at the beginning I was usually the only cyclists to stop at most lights, nowadays I see a much larger volume of cyclists stopping at lights. Certainly the amount of light-breaking is still huge, and some lights are way worse than others. But definitely the amount "ah sure **** it I'll just go" stuff like in the OP, has in my experience gone way down.

That's good to know. That said where I live is near a very busy junction and some of the antics that go on at any given 10 minutes staring out the window coffee break is astounding. I actually think, to be as balanced as possible it's a lack of education in many instances, I can't imagine there are that many complete arseholes out there.

I'm also, to be frank, not advocating that cyclists should behave like slow moving cars, complete muppetry though like the OP should be punished. As should riding around with no lights on in the dead of night - even in well lit areas it's difficult to see them. I know I'd be mortified if I injured anyone even if it wasn't my fault.

beauf

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

All fine by me. The issue to my mind is the very special way in which the Irish interpret them. Some may like the German model, some the Dutch and so on. So everyone goes by their own rulebook, which leads to chaos.

I think the point is the rules can be changed if appropriate.

But rules need to be enforced.

RainyDay

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

More enforcement is needed. Penalties need to be handed out. This goes for motorists and cyclists. The rules are there for a reason.
If anyone disagrees with this, just quote yourself and paste this as a reply, because that's the answer your getting to every "but! but! but!..." reply.

Could you please clarify what benefits you expect to arise from greater enforcement on and penalties for cyclists?

RainyDay

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me completely I've not really been following love hate - what ever that has to do with anything. The argument from both of us in multifaceted but if you want to ignore that:

It's interesting that you picked up that Nidge and Fran were characters from Love / Hate, but my point about the Gardai treating drug dealers differently from ordinary people went right over your head - despite the fact that I gave two other examples of how enforcement authorities treat different people or groups differently, depending on the risk. But all three examples went right over your head. I really can't explain it any simpler than that - so if you are unable or unwilling to understand, there's not much more I can do.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You've confused me even more above by saying enforcement doesn't help but enforcing motorist will.

Where did I say that 'enforcement doesn't help'? What I said was 'every hour of enforcement targeted at cyclists is an hour of enforcement not targeted at the group that kills 200+ people each year and maims thousands of others'. So yes, extra enforcement targeted at cyclists may well change cyclist behaviour to some degree, and may well even reduce injuries to cyclists or caused by cyclists to some degree.

But at what cost? You ignoring the limited resources on enforcement. You're ignoring the fact that every hour of enforcement targeted at cyclists is an hour of enforcement not targeted at the group that kills 200+ people each year and maims thousands of others. So what would the be cost of your extra enforcement on cyclists? Well of course, it would involve increases in the number of road deaths and injuries caused by motorists, because of less enforcement on motorists. Your proposal will increase deaths and injuries.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm more than happy to be corrected and where you do I'll thank you for it. The fact is though that common sense tells us there is a cost in relation to injuries and that should be reduced.

Common sense will also tell you that redirecting enforcement activity from motorists to cyclists will result in increased road deaths and injuries caused by motorists. But you seem to be holding your hands over your eyes and ears to avoid the unpalatable truth.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Bottom line is, for whatever reason you are anti-enforcement in relation to cyclists. You claim some sort of utilitarian motive which simply doesn't wash, sorry.

Personally I think your motives are very much in question.

Thanks - it is helpful that you clarified that you're not actually listening to facts or reason, but that you have come to some conclusions about my motives. It's really quite funny because I've never mentioned any motives, good or bad. But simply because you don't like what you're hearing, you've opted to come to some negative conclusions - it's a classic case of shoot the messenger.

So I'm opting out of further debate with you, given that it is 100% clear that you are not interested in facts or reason.

MarkAnthony

RainyDay wrote: »

So I'm opting out of further debate with you, given that it is 100% clear that you are not interested in facts or reason.

Grand so, I think that became clear from you also, some time back.

jackofalltrades

RainyDay wrote: »

One way or other, it involves some Gardai spending time stopping cyclists who break red lights including the majority of cyclists who break red lights while looking out for the own safety

You're going to have to explain this one to me.
Nearly every cyclists I see breaking a red light is doing it with the sole purpose of saving time.

and Gardai spending time stopping jaywalking pedestrians.

This wouldn't be a bad idea, might encourage certain pedestrians to take a bit more care on roads.

I think all bad behaviour on our roads needs to be tackled.
If the Gardí see someone breaking a rule they should be dealt with there and then.
Not doing this creates frustration and anger among road users who see themselves being punished while others flaunt the law.

beauf

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You're going to have to explain this one to me.
Nearly every cyclists I see breaking a red light is doing it with the sole purpose of saving time.
.

I think you skipped the "while" in his comment.

jackofalltrades

beauf wrote: »

I think you skipped the "while" in his comment.

Cheers, I was reading it that they were breaking lights to keep themselves safe.

MarkAnthony

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You're going to have to explain this one to me.
Nearly every cyclists I see breaking a red light is doing it with the sole purpose of saving time.
This wouldn't be a bad idea, might encourage certain pedestrians to take a bit more care on roads.

I think all bad behaviour on our roads needs to be tackled.
If the Gardí see someone breaking a rule they should be dealt with there and then.
Not doing this creates frustration and anger among road users who see themselves being punished while others flaunt the law.

To pick up on your latter point ref pedestrians - I could not agree more. Some of the behavior is utterly moronic.

You final point is also lost on some I believe - there has to be equal treatment for there to be equality. Motorists should not see cyclists as second-class road users but that requires some give on that side. Now I qualify that by saying I don't believe we need to go so far as requiring road tax etc. many jurisdictions incentive motorists with no road tax in certain cars, nor do I believe there is a need for number plates, insurance or licences.

On that final point though - is cycling taught in School here? It is/was in England way back when I were a lad.

beauf

There's a primary school program that visits our primary school. Dunno how wide spread it is.

beauf

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Cheers, I was reading it that they were breaking lights to keep themselves safe.

Kinda reads like that. But I think it was a general point about ones awareness.

RainyDay

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Cheers, I was reading it that they were breaking lights to keep themselves safe.

No, my point was that most of the break lights relatively safely, while some do so fairly recklessly. In Paris, it is legal for cyclists to break the lights when doing a right (equivalent of our left) turn. This avoids having a bunch of cyclists building up. And in several US states, it is legal for cars and bikes to turn right on red, provided there is no traffic coming.

dr.fuzzenstein

RainyDay wrote: »

Could you please clarify what benefits you expect to arise from greater enforcement on and penalties for cyclists?

It has to be also for the benefit of pedestrians, but by far the biggest reason would have to be the cyclists themselves.
It is true cyclists don't do major damage, it is the cyclists themselves that end up a 10 foot red smear on the road. Some of them have to be protected from themselves.

RainyDay

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It has to be also for the benefit of pedestrians, but by far the biggest reason would have to be the cyclists themselves.
It is true cyclists don't do major damage, it is the cyclists themselves that end up a 10 foot red smear on the road. Some of them have to be protected from themselves.

Thanks for the clarification. Research from the UK suggests that in the majority of cases where cyclists are injured, they are not at fault themselves.

Your proposal to divert enforcement resources from motorists (who kill 200+ each year and maim thousands of others) towards cyclists (who don't kill anyone else, and only injure a tiny number of themselves) will result in increased deaths and injuries overall. You're taking resources from a very real problem to solve a problem that doesn't exist. You will have blood on your hands.

Patrick2010

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. Research from the UK suggests that in the majority of cases where cyclists are injured, they are not at fault themselves.

Your proposal to divert enforcement resources from motorists (who kill 200+ each year and maim thousands of others) towards cyclists (who don't kill anyone else, and only injure a tiny number of themselves) will result in increased deaths and injuries overall. You're taking resources from a very real problem to solve a problem that doesn't exist. You will have blood on your hands.

I'm sorry but you keep making the same ridiculous point. This seems to assume that putting a guard or two at a junction checking cyclists means that these guards are being taken off traffic enforcement.
I'm sure its not an either/or situation and that they could be diverted from any other kind of garda work.
BTW traffic enforcement in Ireland generally means speed checks on main roads which are inherently safe. I drive regularly for a living and actually rarely see a checkpoint except on wide open roads.
The reason we've reduced the death toll on our roads is because of the vast improvement on them from windy N class roads to excellent straight motorways (Dublin to Galway, Limerick, Cork etc) not because we have guards out there saving us from ourselves.

MarkAnthony

From my reading around the subject it seems to be a fairly widely used manra for anti-car, or at least anti-enforcement 'us' groups. It's not just cyclists, I've found it used by bikers and even by people who are against regulation of commercial activities, this is, of course, not all in Ireland. In the cold light of day though it simply doesn't hold true and ignores several points:

- The severity of an accident with a vulnerable road user. Thankfully several factors prevent death; Speed limits, design of modern cars and enforcement, but not in the simplistic way it's looked at by some.

-Blame being attributed at best to the civil standard, which is predisposed to blaming the party with insurance/larger vehicle on (good I might add) public policy grounds. You'd really need to look at the number of drivers convicted of a criminal offence when involved in an accident IMHO.

-The fact that this isn't a wholly utilitarian issue and goes to other factors such as increasing awareness and reducing frustration.

I hate to admit it but I actually agree with Rainyday in relation to enforcement in it's current form. Of course when he's talking about enforcement on par with motorists he's talking nonsense but where it requires a mandatory court appearance the only way to do it is a concentrated operation where several people can be brought to court on the same day. Of course I suspect he's going to claim that's what he was talking about all along...

The only way to see a change would be the introduction of FPNs. The majority of responsible cyclists would agree, the majority of cyclists in general wouldn't care but there would be a few spending huge amounts of time and resources challenging it every way they could because they want to ride around like caring for no-one but themselves.

Chimaera

Patrick2010 wrote: »

The reason we've reduced the death toll on our roads is because of the vast improvement on them from windy N class roads to excellent straight motorways (Dublin to Galway, Limerick, Cork etc) not because we have guards out there saving us from ourselves.

A large part of the reduction, which no-one ever wants to acknowledge, is improved vehicle safety features. It doesn't fit with the 'Speed Kills' narrative the government want to maintain.

You're less likely to get into an accident in a given situation due to better brakes, tyres, driver aids, and if you do get into one, the accident is more survivable due to better design of the safety structure, airbags, seatbelts. An accident that would have killed you in car built 30 years ago is one you could walk away from now.

Another factor in the last 6-7 years is the reduction in traffic volumes due to the recession. Fewer cars on the road mean less accidents.

beauf

MarkAnthony wrote: »

...-The fact that this isn't a wholly utilitarian issue and goes to other factors such as increasing awareness and reducing frustration....

I think that's the main issue. The frustrations of drivers as they are stuck in traffic and/or lights.

Safety is an issue but I suspect its over stated, as its not reflected in the stats, or the experience in other countries. Hence the difference in rules. Of course the stats are not accurate, they include off road cycling.

But there is a wider issue, of adjusting to increasing numbers of cyclists. So there has to be consideration that cyclists are not motorists so the same limitations may not be appropriate. But also that drivers job is much harder when there are lots of cyclists, and consistent behaviour (following rules) allows everyone to function better.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

I think that's the main issue. The frustrations of drivers as they are stuck in traffic and/or lights.

Safety is an issue but I suspect its over stated, as its not reflected in the stats, or the experience in other countries. Hence the difference in rules. Of course the stats are not accurate, they include off road cycling.

But there is a wider issue, of adjusting to increasing numbers of cyclists. So there has to be consideration that cyclists are not motorists so the same limitations may not be appropriate. But also that drivers job is much harder when there are lots of cyclists, and consistent behaviour (following rules) allows everyone to function better.

I actually think you've nailed it there. The only thing I would say though is that I don't think the cost vs. benefits means that the safety aspect should be overlooked.

I also agree with you, absolutely, that there should be different rules. There is no reason why cyclists can't turn left on red where there is a bus lane, for example. The specifics of which should obviously be well considered.

You final point, IMHO, is irrefutable.

beauf

In the links posted earlier there was a vast reduction in accidents with removal of lights. Partly because it removed a point of conflict and the concentration of same in a small area. You'd assume there would be an associated cost saving.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

In the links posted earlier there was a vast reduction in accidents with removal of lights. Partly because it removed a point of conflict and the concentration of same in a small area. You'd assume there would be an associated cost saving.

Lights is an interesting one, I don't think it's feasible in Ireland but certainly a relaxation of lights for cyclists is a very good idea for their own safety. Left turns in particular - I prefer the guy/gal gone especially if they're in a position where it's difficult to keep them observed.

I am concerned, however, about this plan to give cyclists a head start at the lights. People already jump the lights because of the delay I think this is going to turn cyclists into the proverbial canaries at busy junctions. Interested on your and others take on this.

beauf

You need a TV campaign like the Anti Piracy ad in the IT Crowd.