RSA & Cycling

Muahahaha

Article by the new head of the RSA Liz o'Donnell in todays Indo. Cyclist deaths in 2014 were 7 more than in 2013
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/liz-odonnell/drivers-and-cyclists-need-to-make-new-years-resolution-to-share-the-road-and-obey-the-rules-30874679.html

Here we have another small change which can transform consequences. A pedestrian hit by a car at 50km/h has just a 50/50 chance of living. Hit at 30km/h, nine of 10 pedestrians will survive. Speed kills.

Twelve cyclists died in 2014, that's up seven. We have tracked a rise in cyclist injuries of similar proportions over the last few years. This suggests the deterioration is a longer-term trend. We all know just by looking around us that there has been an explosion in cycling for travelling to work and recreation. This is a wonderful development for our collective health and for the environment. But perhaps our driver behaviour has not changed accordingly.

Drivers' behaviour towards cyclists and cyclists' behaviour towards drivers and other cyclists have not evolved as they should have.

Many motorists begrudge the space on the road to cyclists and complain about cyclists' behaviour. Cyclists too are frustrated by what they see as drivers' intolerance. Both need to make a New Year's resolution to share the road and obey the rules. Motorists must commit to share road space with cyclists with courtesy.

Good to see there is a recognition of the problem. Not sure what their solution will be but I guess the first part of solving any problem is admitting it exists in the first place.

seamus

Muahahaha wrote: »

Good to see there is a recognition of the problem. Not sure what their solution will be but I guess the first part of solving any problem is admitting it exists in the first place.

Actually the first part of solving a problem is identifying that one exists at all.

The RSA have made an assumption that a problem exists and then jumped to theorise the cause of that assumed problem. Attempting to apply a fix to an unproven cause (never mind an unproven problem), can cause more problems than the one you were attempting to fix.

Par for the course with the RSA really.

godtabh

Its a cultural thing. Culture is one of the hardest things to change

tomasrojo

Cyclists too are frustrated by what they see as drivers' intolerance.

I'm not sure how this is contributing to excess mortality among cyclists.

Also, the two aren't really equivalent. Cyclists generally blow a gasket at motorists because their life or bodily integrity has been threatened. Motorists usually blow a gasket at cyclists because they've been inconvenienced.

blobbie

....Twelve cyclists died in 2014, that's up seven. We have tracked a rise in cyclist injuries of similar proportions over the last few years. This suggests the deterioration is a longer-term trend.

And what has been done by the RSA to address this ? NA - DA

Macy0161

blobbie wrote: »

And what has been done by the RSA to address this ? NA - DA

Not fair, they give out Hi Vis...

tomasrojo

The point is that such campaigns are almost the only approach to road safety that is used in the UK; there isn’t much enforcement or infrastructure, certainly not compared to continental countries. But it’s unfair to criticise such “let’s all be nice to each other” campaigns as such, because they could really make society a better place if used comprehensively. For example:

– To reduce crime rates, don’t bother with police, but spend the money on promoting a voluntary pledge not to break into anybody’s house, and not kill anybody without a good reason.

– A lot of money can be saved on tax inspectors if we had an annual “Tax Honesty Week” asking people politely that they could try to be honest when filing their return.

– Do we really need checks on restaurant hygiene if we can instead tell customers to bring a portable microwave and sterilise their food before eating? Food safety charities could have websites with stories of people who got killed because they didn’t bring their food steriliser to a dinner date.

After all, everybody is responsible for their own life, and if only one person might possibly be helped by these suggestions, then we should devote all resources we have to promote them.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/11/12/road-safety-week-whats-wrong-with-it/#comments

Good sark about let's-play-nice campaigns.

blobbie

Very fair.

Search their Website for HiViz and see what comes back

Their last national HiViz campaign was in 2010 (according to their website).

I know you can get HiViz from them but there is nothing prominent on their website to indicate this and thus many people are not aware.

Lusk_Doyle

godtabh wrote: »

Its a cultural thing. Culture is one of the hardest things to change

That's what the American war machine is for.

tomasrojo

Their response to a spike in child road deaths was a hiviz campaign. Lots of media images of hivized kids. Not a word about driver restraint. That was about their lowest point in recent years.

tritium

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not sure how this is contributing to excess mortality among cyclists.

Also, the two aren't really equivalent. Cyclists generally blow a gasket at motorists because their life or bodily integrity has been threatened. Motorists usually blow a gasket at cyclists because they've been inconvenienced.

As both a cyclist and a motorist I'd suggest your second statement is wrong. While cyclists do blow a gasket due to dangerous behaviour by motorists, in general its dangerous behaviour by cyclists that's often most frustrating for motorists- breaking red lights into incoming traffic, cycling wrong way against traffic on the road, lack of working lights etc. Much as I realise that cyclists are far more vulnerable I also realise that there's a significant portion of cyclists who don't exactly help their chances of arriving at their destination safely. It's all well and good expecting motorists to take care but given that the cyclists safety is on the line it would seem foolish to make that more difficult than is necessary.

tomasrojo

Actually the big two causes of cyclist injuries, apart from simple falls, are probably doorings and left/right hooks (since they're mostly minor injuries, they go unrecorded). The big cause of KSIs is left turns by HGVs or buses.

Bike salmon don't help, but driver frustration doesn't cause those accidents either. That's a genuine case of not seeing the cyclist in time.

(Cyclists should, of course, comply with the law, but I don't think any regular here disagrees with that.)

Jawgap

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not fair, they give out Hi Vis...

....and the lights, let's not forget the lights :rolleyes:

I think the RSA have done a pretty decent job, but let's face it the road safety record of this country meant there was a lot of 'low hanging fruit' for them to pick.

Now that we're into a situation where there's only marginal gains to be made, I think the limitations of the organisation have been run up against.

Patronising ads and throwing tokens at the natives won't cut it - I think the next step change in road safety will have to be enforcement driven, and bringing in the FPNs for cyclists would be a good start along with more vigorous enforcement of the passing legislation.

They should also be working with the Guards to bring in whatever legal, systematic or organisational changes are needed so dashcam and helmet cam footage can be accepted by the Guards and used as the basis for formal action.

As an aside, on that final point, speaking to a couple of family members over Christmas who are also Garda, they see no reason why cam footage can't be used - there just isn't the system in place to accept and process such reports.

Macy0161

@blobbie - Sorry, I'm in work, and so I am grumpy and trying to be sarcastic. They do give out Hi viz every year to schools though - everything is focused on the vulnerable road user, rather than the motorist...

Best thing they could do is make it a condition of everyone having a motor licence to spend at least one day on a bike. I think/ hope I was alright to cyclists before I was cycling regularly again (both on rural roads and commuting). However, I'm much more mindful of giving plenty of space now than I probably was, and more aware of why a cyclist might be taking a certain position on the road.

The standard excuse from motorists is that all cyclists ignore red lights, so they've no right to expect any respect in return. Ignoring the fact that 100% of cyclists don't jump lights. And of those that do it's definitely not 100% of the time they are putting themselves or anyone else in danger, even if it is illegal. As was said earlier - a pedestrian or cyclists does something that may inconvenience a motorist, a motorist does something that could kill a pedestrian or a cyclist. This needs to be hammered home, especially to counter act the usual media mouthpieces stoking up anger at cyclists.

seamus

Jawgap wrote: »

Patronising ads and throwing tokens at the natives won't cut it - I think the next step change in road safety will have to be enforcement driven, and bringing in the FPNs for cyclists would be a good start along with more vigorous enforcement of the passing legislation.

Indeed, part of the problem is that the RSA have the word "authority" in their title, but no power to do anything. They're a road safety PR machine and little else.

Hence why we stick people like Gaybo and Liz O'Donnell in charge of it - because they're good PR people.

The next evolution of the RSA needs to give it the ability to do something - for example, with stakeholder sign-off on road projects and road safety legislation and the ability to instruct the NRA or county councils to make changes to road infrastructure where such changes would remove dangers.
Of course, in line with this the entire head of the organisation would need to be replaced with suitably qualified individuals.

Jawgap

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, part of the problem is that the RSA have the word "authority" in their title, but no power to do anything. They're a road safety PR machine and little else.

.....

I think in their defence, they've also done (and funded) some decent research - but you're right, they are a very 'soft' authority.

The HSA, EPA etc can issue directions to local authorities, it would be useful if the RSA could do likewise or if, at least, they could be given some scrutiny powers over local authority road programmes to ensure that improvements are being planned using safety as a basis rather than political meddling.

Might be better if they stuck a retired Garda of senior rank in there as chair instead of the PR lightweights.

Lusk_Doyle

Jawgap wrote: »

....and the lights, let's not forget the lights :rolleyes:

I think the RSA have done a pretty decent job, but let's face it the road safety record of this country meant there was a lot of 'low hanging fruit' for them to pick.

Now that we're into a situation where there's only marginal gains to be made, I think the limitations of the organisation have been run up against.

Patronising ads and throwing tokens at the natives won't cut it - I think the next step change in road safety will have to be enforcement driven, and bringing in the FPNs for cyclists would be a good start along with more vigorous enforcement of the passing legislation.

They should also be working with the Guards to bring in whatever legal, systematic or organisational changes are needed so dashcam and helmet cam footage can be accepted by the Guards and used as the basis for formal action.

As an aside, on that final point, speaking to a couple of family members over Christmas who are also Garda, they see no reason why cam footage can't be used - there just isn't the system in place to accept and process such reports.

What system is required exactly? Connect device to computer. Upload info from device to computer. Watch same. Take stills where necessary. Write report. Bring laptop to court with video file or give to DPP. Hardly rocket science.

Johnny Jukebox

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What system is required exactly? Connect device to computer. Upload info from device to computer. Watch same. Take stills where necessary. Write report. Bring laptop to court with video file or give to DPP. Hardly rocket science.

And a lot of effort to bulletproof the process from cute hoor legal/constitutional challenges. Look at the hoops the lawyers have jumped through challenging drink driving legislation and procedures....

Jawgap

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What system is required exactly? Connect device to computer. Upload info from device to computer. Watch same. Take stills where necessary. Write report. Bring laptop to court with video file or give to DPP. Hardly rocket science.

that's the bones of it. The main obstacles are likely to procedural and legal, rather than technical.

Someone just needs to decide how much of the file needs to be submitted, what other info the person reporting has to provide (in the form of a pro-forma witness statement), what to do in the event the person reporting decides not to attend court, whether the imagery needs forensic examination, who receives, vets and allocates the files (and who decides to prosecute) etc.

I don't doubt that without too much effort such a system could be established in a matter of weeks.

seamus

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What system is required exactly? Connect device to computer. Upload info from device to computer. Watch same. Take stills where necessary. Write report. Bring laptop to court with video file or give to DPP. Hardly rocket science.

Yeah, sounds easy, but not in legalese.
So much of the process of road traffic prosecution rests on the authority of the Garda's word. Even speeding fines, while we have printouts and pictures and all the rest, ultimately in court the reliability of the evidence comes down to the fact that a Garda is the one who witnessed it.

The little bit of noise that was made in the last few weeks about a "loophole" in road traffic legislation (link), was from what I heard, down to the fact that the notices were being issued by a private company and not by the Gardai. Hence, the reliability of the "evidence" of speeding was effectively one private citizen's word against another and as such was not a solid basis for a prosecution.

Cam footage is the same. Even though the Gardai may review it, ultimately nobody can certify that it is what it says it is, so if the date/time/location/quality of the footage is called into question, the only person who can stand behind it, is the person who shot it. Which means it becomes one person's word against another's.

Where you get down to minor infringements like breaking a light, if the person challenged it, then you're looking at dragging 3rd party witnesses into court, testifying, possibly being cross-examined, etc etc. Just a big damn headache for a minor issue.

smacl

[naval gazing]

I sometimes wonder whether one of the principal problems with cycling in this country is that not enough kids use bikes as a principal form of transport. When I was growing up most kids either walked or cycled to school, and similarly to meet up with their mates after school. Now its yummy mummies in SUVs doing the school run and taxi service to and from play dates. Take the yummy mummies of the roads at rush hour and everyone else's commute becomes easier. Take kids out of cars and put them on bikes and you also help the childhood obesity crisis. Drivers will also be much more careful of cyclists in general when they know their own nearest and dearest are out there on two wheels.

Problems and possible solutions in achieving this;

- Have a cycle to work scheme like the bike to work scheme so that kids could get half decent bikes rather than converted bed frames.
- Use android tablets instead of schoolbooks (which have got ridiculously heavy over the years, and work out much more expensive than low end tablets).
- Teach safe road cycling as part of the PE curriculum in primary and secondary schools.
- Get over the whole helmets are a necessity for kids cycling. Both for my own kids and nephews and nieces, the helmet thing is a major impediment to cycling. While helmets may provide some safety benefits in some accidents, if they're the main blocking factor in a huge cohort from cycling regularly, an alternative solution needs to be found. IMO this is would be a combination of safety education and better policing of road traffic.

[/naval gazing]

Macy0161

To be honest, I don't think it really needs prosecutions. It just needs the Gardai to use cam footage as enough to have a "chat" with the road user about their behaviour. Enforcement doesn't have to mean prosecution, in my opinion at least.

Jawgap

One of the other issues as regards cycling to school is the facilities at the school.

My kids to a brand new secondary school opened in the last 5 years. It has over 600 students and about 8 to 12 bike racks (in which I've never seen more than about 4 bikes!) - they'd be screwed if even 10% of the students decided to cycle.

Jawgap

Macy0161 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think it really needs prosecutions. It just needs the Gardai to use cam footage as enough to have a "chat" with the road user about their behaviour. Enforcement doesn't have to mean prosecution, in my opinion at least.

Nope, it doesn't.

In the UK it's written all over the submission page that any decision as to action is solely within the discretion of the police.

I'd imagine if the Guards received footage they could have the same 'disclaimer.' Once reviewed the material could be passed to the local traffic corps for action (as they deem appropriate). That could range from no action, through "verbal warning" - offer of an FPN - or court. The annoying thing for the Guards, I reckon, would be getting the case to court only to have the person who shot the footage not show.

The Guards could also issue guidelines on how cameras should be positioned / used, minimum resolution etc.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, sounds easy, but not in legalese.
So much of the process of road traffic prosecution rests on the authority of the Garda's word. Even speeding fines, while we have printouts and pictures and all the rest, ultimately in court the reliability of the evidence comes down to the fact that a Garda is the one who witnessed it.

The little bit of noise that was made in the last few weeks about a "loophole" in road traffic legislation (link), was from what I heard, down to the fact that the notices were being issued by a private company and not by the Gardai. Hence, the reliability of the "evidence" of speeding was effectively one private citizen's word against another and as such was not a solid basis for a prosecution.

Cam footage is the same. Even though the Gardai may review it, ultimately nobody can certify that it is what it says it is, so if the date/time/location/quality of the footage is called into question, the only person who can stand behind it, is the person who shot it. Which means it becomes one person's word against another's.

Where you get down to minor infringements like breaking a light, if the person challenged it, then you're looking at dragging 3rd party witnesses into court, testifying, possibly being cross-examined, etc etc. Just a big damn headache for a minor issue.

If that picture you have painted is accurate it appears our legal system is broken.

seamus

ronoc wrote: »

If that picture you have painted is accurate it appears our legal system is broken.

Well, yes and no. Innocent until proven guilty, "beyond a reasonable doubt", and all that.

The defence could raise a reasonable question over the authenticity of the video* and whether the date/time on it is correct (many cameras won't be).

How does an ordinary Joe prove that the footage hasn't been tampered with and that the camera is configured correctly (and verified)? He probably can't.

This is why it actually takes a while to get this technology into Garda cars and onto body cameras for Gardai - because the technology has to be verifiably reliable and tamperproof in order to make it usable in a prosecution.
It's obviously not as hard and fast as this - if I'm an ordinary Joe with no particular reason to falsify this video, then that's a hard defence to make. But ultimately it adds complexity and cost into the process of prosecuting someone for what may be a minor offence.

*I could take a HD video of a car performing a dangerous manouver, find another car of the same make/model and superimpose the number plate, and it suddenly appears like the second car did the manouver. If I reduce the quality of the resulting video to SD, the numberplate will probably still be legible, but it will impossible to tell that it's been tampered with

CatFromHue

blobbie wrote: »

And what has been done by the RSA to address this ? NA - DA

They'd ads on TV, and youtube, about cyclists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB9d-c-M7D0

listermint

Macy0161 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think it really needs prosecutions. It just needs the Gardai to use cam footage as enough to have a "chat" with the road user about their behaviour. Enforcement doesn't have to mean prosecution, in my opinion at least.

Shortterm Impounding for Offences should be an option. The inconvience for most would be enough deterrent.

Red Light Broke - No Bike for a week, pick it up at the pound in a week.

etc etc

Macy0161

listermint wrote: »

Shortterm Impounding for Offences should be an option. The inconvience for most would be enough deterrent.

Red Light Broke - No Bike for a week, pick it up at the pound in a week.

etc etc

Not sure why the evidence standard would be less for that than for court tbh. If Cam footage isn't enough to go to court, how would it stand up being used for a confiscation?

listermint

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not sure why the evidence standard would be less for that than for court tbh. If Cam footage isn't enough to go to court, how would it stand up being used for a confiscation?

Well there is not license structure for bikes, so penalty points cant apply. So the existing system of what fines ?

Any suggestions for alternatives ?

Macy0161

listermint wrote: »

Well there is not license structure for bikes, so penalty points cant apply. So the existing system of what fines ?

Any suggestions for alternatives ?

The discussion on here was about using helmet/ dashboard cam footage as the basis for court cases?

Fixed Penalty Notices should be brought in for cycling offences, and then it's down to enforcement (same as for motorised vehicles). There's little enforcement for either cyclists or motorised vehicles of red light offences.

Muahahaha

Jawgap wrote: »

One of the other issues as regards cycling to school is the facilities at the school.

My kids to a brand new secondary school opened in the last 5 years. It has over 600 students and about 8 to 12 bike racks (in which I've never seen more than about 4 bikes!) - they'd be screwed if even 10% of the students decided to cycle.

wow thats some shift from my own secondary which built a brand new school in 1995 with bike racks for approx 80 bikes, which was largely full up most days. School had approx 600 students too. It also had a pretty big hill to get up it, not all kids could make it up the hill but it was never something that deterred anyone, I'd say around 20% of students in my time cycled daily and more if the weather was better.

listermint

Macy0161 wrote: »

The discussion on here was about using helmet/ dashboard cam footage as the basis for court cases?

Fixed Penalty Notices should be brought in for cycling offences, and then it's down to enforcement (same as for motorised vehicles). There's little enforcement for either cyclists or motorised vehicles of red light offences.

Well no thats not what is being discussed here, Please read the start of the thread before making statements which a question mark cant hide.

Jawgap

Macy0161 wrote: »

The discussion on here was about using helmet/ dashboard cam footage as the basis for court cases?

Fixed Penalty Notices should be brought in for cycling offences, and then it's down to enforcement (same as for motorised vehicles). There's little enforcement for either cyclists or motorised vehicles of red light offences.

The legislation is done, it just needs de Minister's signature.

magicbastarder

just a general comment about road behaviour, not necessarily directly related to cycling - the penalty points & fine system is an inadequate and unfair penalty - unfair in that the fine is a far greater penalty on a minimum wage worker than it would be on someone well off.

a much fairer system, and i suspect more of a deterrent, would be that whatever points you get, you would have to surrender the car for the same number of days within a week of getting the notification.
so if you're caught speeding, you have to surrender the car for two days - and it doesn't matter if the person driving was not the owner, it might make the owner a bit more shy about letting them use the car...

Muahahaha

magicbastarder wrote: »

just a general comment about road behaviour, not necessarily directly related to cycling - the penalty points & fine system is an inadequate and unfair penalty - unfair in that the fine is a far greater penalty on a minimum wage worker than it would be on someone well off.

a much fairer system, and i suspect more of a deterrent, would be that whatever points you get, you would have to surrender the car for the same number of days within a week of getting the notification.
so if you're caught speeding, you have to surrender the car for two days - and it doesn't matter if the person driving was not the owner, it might make the owner a bit more shy about letting them use the car...

AFAIK in Finland your fine for speeding is calculated as a percentage of your yearly net salary. The police there once caught a Nokia executive speeding in Helsinki city center. At the time Nokia was dominant in the mobile phone market and their top management team were on huge salaries so once the calculation was done on his wages his speeding fine came to somewhere in the region of €120,000. I think there is some wealthy Swede who got a speeding fine of €400,000 for doing 180mph, fines like that ensure that even the rich can't afford to get caught speeding.

Macy0161

listermint wrote: »

Well no thats not what is being discussed here, Please read the start of the thread before making statements which a question mark cant hide.

The post of mine quoted related to action/ dash cam footage and its use as evidence. Anyway, I still say fpn's are the appropriate response to cycling offences, rather than confiscation.