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

CramCycle

There was a spike in accidents after seat belts were made mandatory in the UK if I remember right, don't be shocked at some of the counter intuitive things that happen when changes are made.

Kaisr Sose

Chimichangas wrote: »

eh...no link? :rolleyes:

That's right - there is no link

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the RDRF (linked-to above) has argued that insurance can increase the likelihood of unsafe driving, as the driver doesn't have to worry about being pauperised by his or her actions.

well, if i found out my car was uninsured, and i had to drive to the insurance company HQ to sort it out, i suspect i'd do it as slowly as possible...

Rubberchikken

i've no experience of driving in dublin but can only imagine the quality of some drivers and cyclists. but fron=m driving in cork i've seen a big increase in the number of cyclists and think it's great.
ok there will always be some who think they're in the Tour but there are plenty of drivers who also think there in Le Mans, so it kinda equals out.

councils haven't really thought out the cycle lanes. a whole lot more and better could be done to improve and increase them.

how to convince some drivers that cyclists, even the kamikasi ones, are allowed on the roads is difficult. probably down to individual personalities, most drivers and cyclists are fine - some are not:(

mcgratheoin

tipparetops wrote: »

But always remember you sit on a light steel bar, surrounded by danger.

Excuse me, but all my bars are either carbon fibre or aluminium.

And I eat danger for breakfast :cool:

JamJamJamJam

CramCycle wrote: »

There was a spike in accidents after seat belts were made mandatory in the UK if I remember right, don't be shocked at some of the counter intuitive things that happen when changes are made.

This is a question more than a specific point I'm making:

I read somewhere that the thinking is that everybody thought they were suddenly invincible and became careless on the roads, as we've mentioned. However after a couple of years, the 'novelty' of wearing a seatbelt wore off, and as it became the standard, people lost that sense of excessive comfort and careless driving was reduced. And then, the value of seatbelts became clear. Obviously there are other safe driving campaigns, etc that contributed to safer driving, so the overall improvement in safety can't be put down to seatbelts alone, but they have contributed. A short term spike in collisions may have misguided people into thinking that this would continue, however, which it did not.

I hope I've explained that concept in an understandable way.

So now, if you take cycling, I wonder would the careful introduction of mandatory (whatever) still result in greater safety in the long run? If it was introduced carefully, gradually at first, and became 'normal' or 'standard' behaviour (be it helmets, high vis, insurance, flashing lights - whatever)

I recognise that with cycling part of its safety comes from increasing numbers of people doing it. Then introducing some mandatory thing may be a barrier to that. However, improved safety may add to the appeal for others, and the number of cyclists may not be affected, or could even increase.


Edit- just to add, I'm not suggesting that any of those SHOULD be introduced. Rather, if the concept held true for cyclists, that they COULD be introduced. Just that the paradoxical decrease in safety upon introduction of (whatever) may not be a real barrier in the long run. There are other reasons why these things may be pointless!!

tomasrojo

Better to take that question to the Helmet thread, I think. (Sorry, mods, if that sounds like back-seat modding.)

If one is to look at the seat belt aspect in isolation from the bike safety gear question, I personally can't get a clear picture of what the safety benefit has been in the long term, because the legend of the extraordinary success of the seat belt law in the UK keeps getting in the way of analysis. John Adams has been writing about the unintended consequences of the law for years, but I don't know how reliable his analysis is.

This for example:
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/

I think he establishes convincingly that the concrete numbers given for lives saved are a fiction of received wisdom, but he doesn't establish what they actually are.

I think some members of the PACTS committee that pushed the seat belt law did concede in a statistical journal recently (last few years) that there had been a rise in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities immediately after the law. The picture is murky after that anyway, because the rates of walking and cycling starting dropping quite rapidly (probably independently of the law) which brings down total numbers of fatalities for those modes.

sarkozy

funnights74 wrote: »

I thought it was fair enough, obviously the camera doesn't lie and there was wrong on both sides in the clips they featured. What was shown will come as no surprise to regular commuters, I'm quite used to being "cut up" on my trip to work.
I must agree with what the guard said awareness of your surroundings and anticipation can go a long way to saving injuries and lives. Part of the problem was the influx of cyclists, partly due to the ctw scheme and the infrastructure simply wasn't in place. So no quick fix in place.

The camera does lie, all the time. And editing lies even more.

My take on this Prime Time piece: it was unbalanced and misrepresentative of the cyclists' own experience commuting giving an overall negative view.

Firstly, the Dublin Cycling Campaign was not invited to comment, with the only voices coming from officialdom, which colours the perspective.

More importantly, it left viewers with the impression that, sure, the roads and drivers are bad, but cyclists are worse.

When did a cyclist kill a driver or pedestrian? When has a driver killed a cyclist or pedestrian?

The simple fact is the laws of physics applies in all cases: one ton of metal will crush human bones.

If Prime Time spent just a little more time training their cameras on the cars ploughing through red lights and pedestrian crossings, they'd see the real problem is drivers breaking the rules of the road. I mean, their cameras were in those locations.

Every morning, as a pedestrian, I encounter this. Just yesterday evening, walking home, I was nearly run over at Baggot St. Bridge by a car and a motorbike speeding through the pedestrian crossing as I and others stepped out at the green man.

Where's the enforcement? Where's the balance in Prime Time's reporting the other night?

tomasrojo

Indeed, if they wanted to train their cameras on the scandal of the flouting of pedestrian lights (as opposed to all-traffic traffic lights) by users of motorised transport, it would be shooting fish in a barrel.

mcgratheoin

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Edit- just to add, I'm not suggesting that any of those SHOULD be introduced. Rather, if the concept held true for cyclists, that they COULD be introduced. Just that the paradoxical decrease in safety upon introduction of (whatever) may not be a real barrier in the long run. There are other reasons why these things may be pointless!!

Interesting question, however one important point is that cycling for many people is a chosen rather than an enforced mode of transport. Making anything compulsory for car users (licence/insurance/seatbelt/sobriety) will not result in anybody saying "I have to wear a seatbelt? Screw that, I'll take the bike", however afaik, the reverse has not been true - people won't take a dublin bike if the law has compulsory requirements for cyclists (licence/helmet/hi-vis/sobriety )

Tenzor07

sarkozy wrote: »

If Prime Time spent just a little more time training their cameras on the cars ploughing through red lights and pedestrian crossings, they'd see the real problem is drivers breaking the rules of the road. I mean, their cameras were in those locations.

Where's the enforcement? Where's the balance in Prime Time's reporting the other night?

Definitely no balance in the report, they could have quite easily shown some of this video...

check_six

Got stuck waiting to turn right at a junction this morning. I had shuffled into the middle of the junction to wait for the opportunity to go and there was a car trying the same thing from the opposite direction. Best practice is to wait for a gap, or wait till the lights change and then clear the junction. This morning I had to wait all the way to the red (as did the car). The lights went red and I prepared to clear the junction, but a car was accelerating through the red, followed by another, and another, and finally a fourth car burst through the junction to block me on my bike from clearing it.

Would be a bit alarming if something similar didn't happen every morning. Although I will admit that four cars is more than the usual three.

Remember that all the while I'm dangling in the junction waiting to turn right, I'm directly in their line of sight, and I'm about to get stranded in the middle of the traffic coming from the other edge of the junction. It's not a great advertisement for considerate road use.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

one response to the argument that cyclists should be licenced - i wonder how many drivers out there are driving on full licences without having passed the test, because of the amnesty in 1979. over 60,000 licences were handed out.
my mother has a full licence and never passed a test.

My mother in law has that, her poor clutch. My own mother failed her first, was told by my aunt to glam up a bit and put on a nice skirt, passed handy enough the second time.

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I read somewhere that the thinking is that everybody thought they were suddenly invincible and became careless on the roads, as we've mentioned. However after a couple of years, the 'novelty' of wearing a seatbelt wore off, and as it became the standard, people lost that sense of excessive comfort and careless driving was reduced. And then, the value of seatbelts became clear. Obviously there are other safe driving campaigns, etc that contributed to safer driving, so the overall improvement in safety can't be put down to seatbelts alone, but they have contributed. A short term spike in collisions may have misguided people into thinking that this would continue, however, which it did not.

Kind of my point, people immediately think the danger would disappear, so drove, maybe subconciously, more wrecklessly, they then realigned their views and everything returned to where it should have been heading.

So now, if you take cycling, I wonder would the careful introduction of mandatory (whatever) still result in greater safety in the long run? If it was introduced carefully, gradually at first, and became 'normal' or 'standard' behaviour (be it helmets, high vis, insurance, flashing lights - whatever)

Leaving the helmets and hi vis to their relevant threads (please read the threads for a greater overview on the pluses and minuses), insurance cannot be implemented the way suggested earlier in the thread because a flat fee for riding a bike is a tax, not an insurance, there is no reward for cycling safer but there is less concern with minor accidents. It also may potentially put off people cycling in the first place, imagine a small child being asked to cough up 100euro to ride their bike, or the person who only rides twice a week to his local shop 2 minutes away, these people will just stop cycling, some will walk but the rest will start driving or getting lifts. As for lights, they are a legal requirement, no need for them to be flashing, just have lights on your bike and use them, although as many of who cycle or rode motorbikes know, sometimes you could have fireworks shooting out of your arse and into the air and you still know that person pulling out of the junction, still hasn't noticed you.

I recognise that with cycling part of its safety comes from increasing numbers of people doing it. Then introducing some mandatory thing may be a barrier to that. However, improved safety may add to the appeal for others, and the number of cyclists may not be affected, or could even increase.

You tell people they need insurance, they need the other things, the majority of parents who do not cycle regularly now will not let their kids

Me: Why don't you let your kids cycle to school or to their mates house?
Parent: Too risky
Me: really, we all done it
Parent: but times have changed, traffic is more dangerous etc.
Me: Evidence would indicate that it really isn't
Parent: Don't be stupid, if it wasn't that dangerous, why would they have brought out mandatory insurance (replace with the list of things above)?

tomasrojo wrote: »

Better to take that question to the Helmet thread, I think. (Sorry, mods, if that sounds like back-seat modding.)

It should be, there are enough warnings in the thread already

I think some members of the PACTS committee that pushed the seat belt law did concede in a statistical journal recently (last few years) that there had been a rise in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities immediately after the law. The picture is murky after that anyway, because the rates of walking and cycling starting dropping quite rapidly (probably independently of the law) which brings down total numbers of fatalities for those modes.

That would indicate that seatbelts made it worse for everyone outside a car, correct, would prefer to see the data before making such wild leaps though.

sarkozy wrote: »

The camera does lie, all the time. And editing lies even more.

Indeed, one of the reasons camera footage is not accepted as forensic evidence, in the uK it has to be determined as forensically sound. A camera pointed in one direction can be incredibly misleading.

My take on this Prime Time piece: it was unbalanced and misrepresentative of the cyclists' own experience commuting giving an overall negative view.

I though the fact that they kept reinforcing the "minority" bit was a good start, made it more tolerable, but you are right in that visually, they kept looking for the worst bits they could find.

When did a cyclist kill a driver or pedestrian?

Baggot St. a few years ago, only one on memory.

When has a driver killed a cyclist or pedestrian?

This year, last year, the year before, and so on

Where's the enforcement? Where's the balance in Prime Time's reporting the other night?

I would personally be petitioning for red light cameras, installed over time across the country. Sounds petty of me but the overtime bit is that the fines garnered from those who do not know they are there could pay for the installation, rather than a net loss overall.

magicbastarder

i have twice recently (out of three trips) while waiting to turn right off griffith avenue onto the malahide road (i.e. down into fairview) been beeped at by drivers behind me. i can only assume i was being beeped at for 'failure to make adequate progress' but adequate progress in this instance would have had me under the wheels of oncoming traffic.

Carawaystick

CramCycle wrote: »

Baggot St. a few years ago, only one on memory.

A driver or a pedestrian?

CramCycle

Carawaystick wrote: »

A driver or a pedestrian?

A pedestrian, courier on a one way street, pedestrian didn't look to his right, got clipped, hit his head of the pavement, died from the head injury.

magicbastarder

worth noting that the courier was going the wrong way up the street, so the pedestrian looked the 'wrong' way - i.e. the way he was expecting traffic to come from.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

worth noting that the courier was going the wrong way up the street, so the pedestrian looked the 'wrong' way - i.e. the way he was expecting traffic to come from.

Sorry, I meant to include that, I realise I haven't pointed that out clearly at all.

magicbastarder

the courier ended up with a bad drug habit and ended up in a downward spiral of addiction and crime:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/cracking-up-25956300.html

nak

I remember other couriers who were on the road at the time said that people were shouting murderer etc at them.

Would they shout that at say every taxi driver if one of them had hit someone?

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

,

Parent: Don't be stupid, if it wasn't that dangerous, why would they have brought out mandatory insurance (replace with the list of things above)?


.

So that when I take a wing mirror or damage the side of a car or hit a person I have coverage to repair?

I do not have insurance for my moto cycle because it is dangerous. I have it so I can pay any damage that might happen

mcgratheoin

Deleted User wrote: »

So that when I take a wing mirror or damage the side of a car or hit a person I have coverage to repair?

Why do you need coverage to pay these amounts? If you are liable then you are liable regardless of whether you have insurance or not and will have to pay for the repair.

I do not have insurance for my moto cycle because it is dangerous. I have it so I can pay any damage that might happen

Insurance is not primarily for damage that might be caused to property (although it is often used for this), it is for damages and potential medical bills which are far more likely to mount in costs. The probability of a motorbike crash causing serious injury to a third party is far higher than a bicycle crash, hence there has never been a serious suggestion to introduce compulsory insurance for cyclists.

For what it's worth (and has been already pointed out with the correct numbers by Morana), there are about 20000 cyclists in Ireland who do have cycling insurance through Cycling Ireland's scheme, and all participants in sportives are required to be insured for those events as well.

whupdedo

CramCycle wrote: »

Sorry, I meant to include that, I realise I haven't pointed that out clearly at all.

Methinks you would have left it out entirely but for it was pointed out to you

CramCycle

whupdedo wrote: »

Methinks you would have left it out entirely but for it was pointed out to you

Well yes, I thought it was implied but on re reading it I can see how it might not have been. If no one had pointed it out, I would have presumed that everyone got it, well actually, I wouldn't have, I just would not have though about it ever again. Was that what you meant?

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

A pedestrian, courier on a one way street, pedestrian didn't look to his right, got clipped, hit his head of the pavement, died from the head injury.

Somebody who knew the courier posted here ages ago. Tragic story all round, if what he said was accurate. The pedestrian wasn't clipped, IIRC; he was startled and walked back abruptly, tripped on the kerb and hit his head.

seamus

I think in any case, what we can take from it is that pedestrian deaths due to cyclists are so rare that they border on being freak accidents. That's the only known one in about 30 years IIRC.

radia

CramCycle wrote: »

There was a spike in accidents after seat belts were made mandatory in the UK if I remember right, don't be shocked at some of the counter intuitive things that happen when changes are made.

Here's how to use a spike:

el tel

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Definitely no balance in the report, they could have quite easily shown some of this video...

Did you see that at 2min36secs? A car running a red light! With a bike on the back...typical cyclist bastard! :P



It always makes me laugh when people bang on about cyclists running red lights. Almost without fail, at practically every single traffic light I encounter there is a car who disobeys amber or red lights.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

So that when I take a wing mirror or damage the side of a car or hit a person I have coverage to repair?

I do not have insurance for my moto cycle because it is dangerous. I have it so I can pay any damage that might happen

....but you're not compelled to use your insurance only to have it.

Motor vehicles have to have insurance because of the potential for catastrophic damage rather than just any damage. A car on its best day has a much greater potential to wreck lives and property than a bike on its worst.

dinneenp

link to RTE player, begins at 23:50.