Piece on Cyclists on Prime Time RTE 1 9.35PM - Mod warning see OP/post 102

tipparetops

CramCycle wrote: »

Any chance you could explain that statement, wouldn't do what? Cycle to work and get in quicker? Stay generally healthier than those who commute by car? Reduce traffic volume for those who do travel by car and bus?

Genetics have not been kind to me in terms of metabolic state and life expectancy, if I gave up cycling, it would be the equivalent of giving up about 25 years of my life if I live as long as predicted, with the last few years, statistically, being not the most pleasant.

Could I get my exercise somewhere else, sure, but then I would have less time with my family and friends and my mental health would suffer. The few times I have drove in or got the bus, I am less awake and for all intents and purposes, cost my company money as it takes me awhile to hit full speed.

what is with posters here and quoting parts of posts.
I am specifically speaking about safety.
your comment regarding your life expectancy is good, so you would agree with me that all cyclists should have safety equipment, insurance and safety course.

tomasrojo

tipparetops wrote: »

what is with posters here and quoting parts of posts.
I am specifically speaking about safety.

I wasn't sure what you were saying either. "If cyclists were to really think about what they were doing, they wouldnt." That easily could mean: if cyclists were to think about cycling, they wouldn't cycle. I assume now you mean: if cyclists were to reflect on their irresponsible behaviour, they would stop behaving irresponsibly.

Have you looked at the mega-threads yet, by the way? You're still finger-wagging about certain topics.

CramCycle

tipparetops wrote: »

There is no talking to ye, maybe to be a cyclist you have to be confident.
If cyclists were to really think about what they were doing, they wouldnt.

This is your full post

tipparetops wrote: »

what is with posters here and quoting parts of posts.

It is a waste of time to quote full posts when they are not related to what someone is responding too.

I am specifically speaking about safety.
your comment regarding your life expectancy is good, so you would agree with me that all cyclists should have safety equipment, insurance and safety course.

I am not sure of your view points but I am guessing they are pro all of the above, so no, I would not agree in the slightest.

safety equipment - Aside from good brakes, good lights, good tyres and a well maintained bike, thats all the safety equipment a cyclist needs IMO but if you are referring to any other type that some people are convinced act as safety equipment, that conversation should be taken to the appropriate thread, linked to already.

insurance - the cost of implementation, licensing, administration for something that has minimal cost to society at the minute, no, it would be a terrible idea. If only for the black hole of money in government expenditure, then for the numbers of people it would turn off cycling, be it through cost or perceived risk. It is an idiotic idea. Car insurance is only there for risk that has been well documented and to reduce the cost to the public exchequer and the innocent party in a collision. My co worker was pushed off his bike and broke his elbow the other day, should we have mandatory pedestrian insurance for this one incident?!?!?!?

safety course - road safety training, for all users, pedestrians, cyclists etc. should be part of the national and secondary school education, a minimum requirement for a course before getting out of national school and another as part of the Junior Cert cycle.

tipparetops

tomasrojo wrote: »

I wasn't sure what you were saying either. "If cyclists were to really think about what they were doing, they wouldnt." That easily could mean: if cyclists were to think about cycling, they wouldn't cycle. I assume now you mean: if cyclists were to reflect on their irresponsible behaviour, they would stop behaving irresponsibly.

I meant if cyclists were to really think about being on a road with trucks, cars, they would not do it.
Cyclists must have to be super confident people to share road space with machines that weigh tonnes while they sit atop metal bars.

Alf Veedersane

tipparetops wrote: »

There is no talking to ye, maybe to be a cyclist you have to be confident.
If cyclists were to really think about what they were doing, they wouldnt.

Half of my life I've been eligible to drive and for 99% of that time I've been cycling in Dublin City. In all that time, I've been in one accident.

I was in a car and was hit by a driver who ran a light.

If I was to really think about what I was doing, maybe I wouldn't get into a car...

back2basicsdub

People forget that some cyclists, like me, do pay Road Tax as I'm also a car owner. I find the best form defence is expecting and accepting that everyone else on the road is trying to kill you and that nobody in a vehicle can see you.

That said in the 5 months I've been cycling to work I've found the worst people are other cyclists and pedestrians; they're the people that have walked out in front of me or nearly caused me to crash.

Drivers, of which I am also one, should be thankful for cyclists because if we/they all drove to work the roads would be jammed, like they are when it rains due to more people opting to drive in to town.

Alf Veedersane

tipparetops wrote: »

I meant if cyclists were to really think about being on a road with trucks, cars, they would not do it.
Cyclists must have to be super confident people to share road space with machines that weigh tonnes while they sit atop metal bars.

It's not about being confident. It's about avoiding situations, as much as possible, where you're at risk of coming into contact with one of the 'machines'.

back2basicsdub

tipparetops wrote: »

I meant if cyclists were to really think about being on a road with trucks, cars, they would not do it.
Cyclists must have to be super confident people to share road space with machines that weigh tonnes while they sit atop metal bars.

Thankfully most of the time in town the trucks and cars are separated from the cyclists by a bus lane. If find the bus drivers in general very conscious of cyclists.

niceonetom

tipparetops wrote: »

I meant if cyclists were to really think about being on a road with trucks, cars, they would not do it.
Cyclists must have to be super confident people to share road space with machines that weigh tonnes while they sit atop metal bars.

Or maybe they have first hand experience - something you clearly lack though apparently that is no impediment to you forming and espousing an opinion.

Or maybe they're aware of the statistics of cycling, and know, for a fact that it is actually quite safe, and that in a broader context is likely to extend their lives rather than end them prematurely.

But please, don't let anyone's well informed-positions get in the way of your soapboxing. You have so much to teach us.

tipparetops

CramCycle wrote: »

This is your full post

It is a waste of time to quote full posts when they are not related to what someone is responding too.



I am not sure of your view points but I am guessing they are pro all of the above, so no, I would not agree in the slightest.

safety equipment - Aside from good brakes, good lights, good tyres and a well maintained bike, thats all the safety equipment a cyclist needs IMO but if you are referring to any other type that some people are convinced act as safety equipment, that conversation should be taken to the appropriate thread, linked to already.

insurance - the cost of implementation, licensing, administration for something that has minimal cost to society at the minute, no, it would be a terrible idea. If only for the black hole of money in government expenditure, then for the numbers of people it would turn off cycling, be it through cost or perceived risk. It is an idiotic idea. Car insurance is only there for risk that has been well documented and to reduce the cost to the public exchequer and the innocent party in a collision. My co worker was pushed off his bike and broke his elbow the other day, should we have mandatory pedestrian insurance for this one incident?!?!?!?

safety course - road safety training, for all users, pedestrians, cyclists etc. should be part of the national and secondary school education, a minimum requirement for a course before getting out of national school and another as part of the Junior Cert cycle.

But what about your life expectancy.
You must admit I have you there.
Cyclists at a min. should have working lights, always on, hi - vis, helmet.
And cyclists should be the ones pushing for this.

Macy0161

On my commute, which is pretty much the same whether in the car or bike, I genuinely see more cars breaking laws than cyclists. Cars routinely jump red lights, are in bus lanes when they shouldn't be, illegal u turns, speeding, cars pulled into mandatory (and often grade separated) cycle lanes are all a daily occurence.

In my experience most cyclists do obey red lights, out in the suburbs where most of my commute is these days at least, and where they don't it's pretty much the equivalent of jay walking through stopped traffic or rolling through with the pedestrian lights rather than ploughing straight through a red (i.e. technically an offence, but not a danger to themselves or others).

Any road traffic offences could be dealt with now, under existing laws. The costs are disproportionate without fixed penalties, but they could be enforced nonetheless. Talk of introducing new requirements is quite frankly bollox, whilst so little enforcement is done on what we have, which would tackle the things motorists give out about. But then so many motorist offences go unpunished, I'm not sure why there should be a particular focus on cyclists (every junction should have red light cameras that can capture motorists, and identify problem areas for subsequent enforcement of cyclists).

As for safety, well I have been knocked off once, when a car decided to u turn out of traffic as I overtook on the right. It wasn't dark, but I had two lights on my bike (including a cree that many consider too bright for city traffic). My other near misses have involved cars and taxis going into grade separated cycle lanes, or doing emergency stops into bus stops to pick up people.

Chips Lovell

If cycling really were as dangerous as some people make it out to be, nobody would do it.

The contention isn't borne out by accident statistics.

Chips Lovell

tipparetops wrote: »

Cyclists at a min. should have working lights, always on, hi - vis, helmet.
And cyclists should be the ones pushing for this.

You've been warned already that if you want to discuss helmets and high viz, take it to the relevant threads. These issued have already been discussed extensively.

tipparetops

Ok I am in the wrong place, you are so pro yourselves, no one can dare question ye.
Have a good cycle.

Beasty

tipparetops wrote: »

I meant if cyclists were to really think about being on a road with trucks, cars, they would not do it.
Cyclists must have to be super confident people to share road space with machines that weigh tonnes while they sit atop metal bars.

Have you ever walked across a road? Or along one where there is no pavement?

Have you looked at the cyclist fatality figures already quoted within this thread? Just to add, there have been 6 times as many pedestrian as cyclist fatalities on Irish roads so far this year. 3.5 times as many motorcyclist deaths. Over 13 times as many motorist deaths. As highlighted in the programme last night cycling within Dublin has doubled over the past few years, but serious accidents, and in particular fatalities are at an all-time low.

You may be obsessed with trying to highlight your own perception of the dangers of cycling, but the actual facts do not seem to support that perception

tipparetops

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You've been warned already that if you want to discuss helmets and high viz, take it to the relevant threads. These issued have already been discussed extensively.

I thought we were discussing cycling safety and behaviour, which is what Prime Time show was about.

Beasty

tipparetops wrote: »

But what about your life expectancy.
You must admit I have you there.

I think there was a study we discussed on here some time ago which suggested the life expectancy of an active cyclist (ie one who uses cycling as a way to keep fit, rather simply as a convenience) is about 7 years longer than that of someone with a sedentary lifestyle

tipparetops

Beasty wrote: »

Have you ever walked across a road? Or along one where there is no pavement?

Have you looked at the cyclist fatality figures already quoted within this thread? Just to add, there have been 6 times as many pedestrian as cyclist fatalities on Irish roads so far this year. 3.5 times as many motorcyclist deaths. Over 13 times as many motorist deaths. As highlighted in the programme last night cycling within Dublin has doubled over the past few years, but serious accidents, and in particular fatalities are at an all-time low.

You may be obsessed with trying to highlight your own perception of the dangers of cycling, but the actual facts do not seem to support that perception

those figure are skewed, I would like to see those figures just for Dublin.
Cycling in the sticks does not really exist compared to Dublin.

tipparetops

Beasty wrote: »

I think there was a study we discussed on here some time ago which suggested the life expectancy of an active cyclist (ie one who uses cycling as a way to keep fit, rather simply as a convenience) is about 7 years longer than that of someone with a sedentary lifestyle

And he could increase it more by using safety equipment, make that 7 into an 8.

54and56

Beasty wrote: »

Have you ever walked across a road? Or along one where there is no pavement?

Have you looked at the cyclist fatality figures already quoted within this thread? Just to add, there have been 6 times as many pedestrian as cyclist fatalities on Irish roads so far this year. 3.5 times as many motorcyclist deaths. Over 13 times as many motorist deaths. As highlighted in the programme last night cycling within Dublin has doubled over the past few years, but serious accidents, and in particular fatalities are at an all-time low.

You may be obsessed with trying to highlight your own perception of the dangers of cycling, but the actual facts do not seem to support that perception

In fairness whilst the absolute numbers you quote may be correct they don't reflect the relative risk.

10 pedestrian fatalities out of 2,000,000 pedestrian journeys every day or 10 motorcycle fatalities out of 200,000 motorcycle journeys is a lot less dangerous than 10 cyclist fatalities out of 50,000 cyclist journeys every day*

* made up figures to illustrate the point - feel free to substitute the real figures to get the real relative risk.

CramCycle

tipparetops wrote: »

But what about your life expectancy.
You must admit I have you there.

?!? Because I cycle, I will statistically live longer than if I didn't, this is borne out by countless studies and common sense.

tipparetops wrote: »

Ok I am in the wrong place, you are so pro yourselves, no one can dare question ye.
Have a good cycle.

Not a question of questioning "us". I have no more affiliation to other posters here than you have to the person in the car beside you on the road.

You have made comments which seem to perpetrate cycling as wreckless and dangerous behaviour. This is not agreed with by countless peer reviewed studies. Make statements all you want but be prepared to back them up with something more concrete than your opinion of something I presume you have not taken part in for quite sometime.

Carawaystick

tipparetops wrote: »

Ok I am in the wrong place, you are so pro yourselves, no one can dare question ye.
Have a good cycle.

You didn't answer my questions about insurance or bike ids for children. Would you like to develop your plan a bit more?

CramCycle

tipparetops wrote: »

And he could increase it more by using safety equipment, make that 7 into an 8.

You are correct, lights (from readers dusk until the light of morning, although I leave mine on as DRLs) and good brakes are essential, as well as good tyres although I am unaware of studies into them, they are all important for cycling.

tipparetops

CramCycle wrote: »

?!? Because I cycle, I will statistically live longer than if I didn't, this is borne out by countless studies and common sense.



Not a question of questioning "us". I have no more affiliation to other posters here than you have to the person in the car beside you on the road.

You have made comments which seem to perpetrate cycling as wreckless and dangerous behaviour. This is not agreed with by countless peer reviewed studies. Make statements all you want but be prepared to back them up with something more concrete than your opinion of something I presume you have not taken part in for quite sometime.

Forget about that now,
We all agree you cycle for your health,
Would you not be pro - safety gear, for your health.
It is your conundrum, Have you an answer.

Alf Veedersane

tipparetops wrote: »

Would you not be pro - safety gear, for your health.

Where have you seen the anti-safety gear sentiment here?

tipparetops

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Where have you seen the anti-safety gear sentiment here?

Read all previous posts, Enjoy.

Alf Veedersane

tipparetops wrote: »

Read all previous posts, Enjoy.

I have. There's no anti-safety gear sentiment.

seamus

tipparetops wrote: »

Would you not be pro - safety gear, for your health.

Not on a compulsory basis. Because things aren't that simple. Without debating whether or not specific types of safety gear are actually effective, the international evidence shows that compulsory enforcement of safety equipment actually results in a relative increase in risk.

This is primarily down to the fact that compulsion creates a reduction in cyclists and therefore an increase in risk. But also that safety equipment has the effect of causing people to be more complacent about safety.

There's a difference between equipment which protects you from an accident and equipment which protects you in an accident. So lights are the former and an airbag is the latter.

But in people's minds they tend not to distinguish these things. Thus when you tell people they're protected from injury in a crash, they have a tendency to think they're protected from a crash.

Likewise, the disconnect can run the other way too - because you're wearing equipment that helps you avoid accidents, the person thinks it will save them from injury too, and so are more likely to take risks.

Roads are complicated places because they're so reliant on the human factor. Whole careers are made out of studying traffic dynamics, thousands of hours spent attempting to create models that will accurately predict traffic flow.
Likewise, safety is not a simple matter of telling people to whack on some safety gear and off you go. You can end up having the exact opposite effect because you forgot to take the human factor into account.

morana

missed it. might look at it back on the player.

Its great to have all the motorists over for a chat isnt it.

PS Well done Gambrella on last week!

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Cards are getting handed out now.
Helmet thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93902308
Hi Vis thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88491882

Leave these topics out of this thread, I don't think they were even mentioned but if they were, you can bring it up in the above threads. PM me if there is any confusion about this, no discussion in thread.