"High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners"

Iwannahurl

The "dangerization" thread notwithstanding, the Irish Times has put cycle safety on its front page today, with a large feature on page 3 as well. The IT's figures appear to be based on a recent RSA report, but it doesn't say which publication and I can't find anything new on the RSA's website.

High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners
Most fatalities involve middle-aged men cycling in built-up areas

The disproportionately high injury and death rate among cyclists – relative to the cycling population on the road – is alarming road safety campaigners.

It is estimated that about 2 per cent of the population cycles to work or school each day, based on latest census data.

Prior to 2012, injuries involving cyclists represented about 2 per cent to 5 per cent of all road users injured annually.

However, in 2012 the number of cyclists injured jumped to 8 per cent, up from 395 to 630.

The numbers dying on the road have also been on the rise, though numbers have varied from year to year. Last year 12 cyclists were killed, more than double the number the previous year.

Most deaths involved another vehicle. Half of last year’s fatal collisions involved a car, while a third involved a truck, van or bus. In two cases, no other vehicle was involved.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/high-death-and-injury-rates-among-cyclists-alarm-road-safety-campaigners-1.2306903

Two fatalities involved only the cyclists themselves, while a large majority of deaths and injuries occurred during daylight hours when visibility was good. Despite this the RSA is again reported as saying that hi-vis is "critical" for cyclist safety.

Incidentally, at present the poll attached to the IT report indicates that 87% of survey respondents belief that Irish roads are not safe for cyclists.

rp

Nice of the RSA to admit that people are driving around in "potential murder vehicles". Hi-viz won't mitigate for that.

paddy no 11

Attitude to cyclists is the problem nothing else. If a cyclist isnt wearing a hi vis or a helmet that doesnt give anyone the right to knock them down. This sort of attitude is way too prevalent ah shur he didnt have a helmet on what did he expect.

Moflojo

Very little, if any, mention of poor cycling infrastructure in the Irish Times cycling articles. This is the single biggest factor in cycling safety, in my opinion.

If I was being really cynical I'd say that the alarmist approach of the Irish Times is a good thing - it may scare beginner or potential cyclists off the road, but it could help to force an improvement in cycling infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the only things that seem to motivate a local council to improve, or create, cycling infrastructure are serious or fatal cycling accidents. (With the exception of tourism-driven projects such as Great Western Greenway)

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The IT's figures appear to be based on a recent RSA report, but it doesn't say which publication and I can't find anything new on the RSA's website.

There was a somewhat ridiculous RSA "report" some months back. If its based on that then this a straightforward silly season article.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There was a somewhat ridiculous RSA "report" some months back. If its based on that then this a straightforward silly season article.

OK, so a slow news day makes space for Carl O'Brien to pursue a personal interest perhaps?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fixed-penalties-a-cyclist-s-view-1.1467990

ted1

the State of no interest in cyclist safety.

6.5 years with 1.5 years suspended for the drunk driver that hit a cyclist, left him to die in a ditch, then fled the country and disposed of the vehicle within 24 hours.

If the state was serious he should have got life.

If the RSA care about cyclists they should insist on signs at all points where there is a left turn crossing a cycle path, reminding the driver to look in their mirrors.
they would insist that HGV's be fitted with cameras either side of the vehicle to eliminate blind spots.
i could go on.

jon1981

It will also be interesting to see how the state deal with these idiots which happened in July!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclist-62-killed-in-hit-and-run-crash-named-locally-31343260.html

A Dublin man in his 60s has been killed after being knocked off his bicycle in a hit-and-run in the city .

tomasrojo

The articles says:

However, in 2012 the number of cyclists injured jumped to 8 per cent, up from 395 to 630.

And what happened the next year?

What kind of crap analysis is this?

Abstract:
We are alarmed!

Methods:
Ah, who cares. Look up 'em yourself.

Remediation:
Helmets and hi-viz. Duh.

HivemindXX

There seems to be no source for that figure given (terrible journalism) but isn't it likely that the 2012 numbers are an anomoly? We are dealing with such low percentages that these numbers are very vulnerable to random spikes.

If the writer doesn't think this is the case to what does he attribute this massive increase? Does he think that cyclist behaviour change that much between 2011 and 2012? Perhaps Top Gear had a particularly "funny" anti-bike segment that caused motorists to be a little more murderous on the roads.

It is difficult to believe that the equivalent data isn't available for 2013 but if it does show a reduction back down to the norm will we see a newspaper article joyfully explaining that cycling is now four times safer than in the past! More importantly will the RSA take credit on behalf of their hi-viz campaign.

tomasrojo

The numbers dying on the road have also been on the rise, though numbers have varied from year to year. Last year 12 cyclists were killed, more than double the number the previous year.

Flat out wrong.
Should have read something like:

The numbers dying on the road have been trending downwards for years, though there have been bad years. Last year 12 cyclists were killed, more than double the number the previous year. It remains to be seen whether this year resembles 2014 more than 2013.

Imagine: "numbers have varied from year to year". Unlike all the other road statistics.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

It is difficult to believe that the equivalent data isn't available for 2013

I suspect it is, and it didn't fit the narrative. Always a bad sign when you quote different statistics for different years, especially non-consecutive years (2014 for deaths, 2012 for injuries, for example).

tomasrojo

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_Injuries_2012.pdf

They have to collate garda collision statistics, so they possibly haven't had a chance to do it for years after 2012.

2012 could easily be anomaly. The other years are pretty similar: 2-5%.

They claim that Dublin is unusually dangerous, which is the opposite of the usual claims (and what you'd conclude based on fatalities).

tomasrojo

According to the 2011 census report, 6% of those living in Dublin cycle to work (see Figure 16 appendix).

However, given that 17% of those injured on our roads in Dublin in 2012 were cyclists (figure 15
appendix), this indicates that cyclists in Dublin are over-represented in injury figures by almost a factor
of three. Cycling is therefore a particularly dangerous mode of travel in Dublin per cyclist population

There are trips taken by bike that aren't going to work.

This puts undue or at least premature emphasis on two annual statistics that might well be anomalies (one for injuries and one for fatalities) in two different years, and makes conclusions at odds with the fatality statistics, based on an assumption that nearly all journeys by bike are going to work (I assume they're including going to school as well).

It might have some merit, but I wouldn't put it on the front page of a newspaper.

tomasrojo

The report also assumes that serious injuries were under reported because the assessment was done by a Garda rather than a medical professional. I assume it's possible that a Garda could think a bloody but relatively minor injury was more serious that it was too?

Hmmzis

Read the article and he's making a total mess of the numbers.
First there is a statement that 2% cycle to work/school. The next paragraph states that cyclist injuries are 8% of the total.
Then a couple paragraphs later there is a statement that says 4 in 10 of injured cyclists were cycling for leasure and that only 1 in 10 were cycling to or from work.

So he has taken only the commuting percentage as a total of all cyclists but then for the injuries adds also leasure and some missing 5 in 10 category that are neither commuting or doing it for leasure.

From what I'm reading here is that commuting is way less dangerous than any other cycling activity and most injuries are due to leasure cycling or some other type of cycling that isn't leasure or commuting (racing maybe?).

Some way to make false statements, even for a journalist.

tomasrojo

If you exclude 2014, fatalities look like this:



Periodic high values scattered through general decline.

Cycling is therefore a particularly dangerous mode of travel in Dublin per cyclist population

(Graphs from http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/05/8894/)

tomasrojo

Hmmzis wrote: »

First there is a statement that 2% cycle to work/school. The next paragraph states that cyclist injuries are 8% of the total.
Then a couple paragraphs later there is a statement that says 4 in 10 of injured cyclists were cycling for leasure and that only 1 in 10 were cycling to or from work.

So he has taken only the commuting percentage as a total of all cyclists but then for the injuries adds also leasure and some missing 5 in 10 category that are neither commuting or doing it for leasure.

Shopping?

Hmmzis

tomasrojo wrote: »

Shopping?

Might well be. I'm sort of wondering if racing ijuries are part of the total number. Crashes in races are quite regular and a good few people would have required hospital visits after them.

tomasrojo

I just realised that most of the injuries being referred to are "not serious" (e.g. in 2012, the spike, 30 cyclist seriously injured, up from 16 the previous year, but quite similar to a few previous years -- see Figure 2c). So we're flapping our hands over predominantly minor injuries (30:600).

tomasrojo

Hmmzis wrote: »

Might well be. I'm sort of wondering if racing ijuries are part of the total number. Crashes in races are quite regular and a good few people would have required hospital visits after them.

These are based on Garda RTCs, so all collisions with cars, pretty much.

tomasrojo

So, basically, Dublin commuters have more minor injuries than users of other transport modes. Well, that's active travel in slow-moving traffic for you.

This is a non-story.

tomasrojo

It's not a welcome trend, but it doesn't even look that anomalous if you exclude minor injuries.

Might well come down the following year too.

Thinkingaboutit

Moflojo wrote: »

Very little, if any, mention of poor cycling infrastructure in the Irish Times cycling articles. This is the single biggest factor in cycling safety, in my opinion.

If I was being really cynical I'd say that the alarmist approach of the Irish Times is a good thing - it may scare beginner or potential cyclists off the road, but it could help to force an improvement in cycling infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the only things that seem to motivate a local council to improve, or create, cycling infrastructure are serious or fatal cycling accidents. (With the exception of tourism-driven projects such as Great Western Greenway)

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

Cycling infrastructure? Sometimes great, usually tokenistic, if not positively dangerous.

Beasty

As I pointed out in the off topic thread they are repeating last year's stats to sensationalise the situation when cyclist deaths have fallen back again this year (on a pro rata basis) - all the stats show, as already highlighted by tomasrojo, is a general downward trend in deaths. Even if serious injuries are rising (modestly) I do not believe there is any statistical evidence to support the sort of headlines being given to this "story". Indeed when you look at the general increase in cycling, perhaps another way to look at it is more along the lines "we've never had it so good"

Pity the RSA don't follow threads like this, as they really do themselves a disservice with the way they try and twist the stats to suit their own agenda

buffalo

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Cycling infrastructure? Sometimes great, usually tokenistic, if not positively dangerous.

There's a new lane just outside St Pat's in Drumcondra. It currently lasts about 100m, although it looks like they'll extend it further when the work is completed. So maybe 150m of segregated lane with a bus stop in the middle of it, before cyclists are directed onto the footpath.

Meanwhile at the pinch point northbound after Fagan's, there's still absolutely nothing.

Carawaystick

buffalo wrote: »

There's a new lane just outside St Pat's in Drumcondra. It currently lasts about 100m, although it looks like they'll extend it further when the work is completed. So maybe 150m of segregated lane with a bus stop in the middle of it, before cyclists are directed onto the footpath.

Meanwhile at the pinch point northbound after Fagan's, there's still absolutely nothing.

It's not segregated, as its only parttime bike lane. 7-10 am and midday til 7pm. Outside of those times you can park away there.

The monorail metro bendy bus to Swords thingyamajig had plans to move the footpath west of the tolka bridge there by Fagans to allow a cycle lane on the existing footpath.

tomasrojo

The RSA are no good at analysis, but they're great at PR. Look at what they've got: a new report based on Garda RTC reports. They got front-page news, when the only significant finding in it is that there was a spike of minor injuries incurred by cyclists in 2012, and a much less prominent, possible temporary increase in serious injuries.

Now that's magic.

Chips Lovell

Moflojo wrote: »

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

No thanks. Segregating cyclists only enforces the erroneous impression that they don't belong on the road. Get rid of the cycle lanes.

Moflojo

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Cycling infrastructure? Sometimes great, usually tokenistic, if not positively dangerous.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No thanks. Segregating cyclists only enforces the erroneous impression that they don't belong on the road. Get rid of the cycle lanes.

I said good, basic cycling infrastructure. My idea of good, basic cycling infrastructure is what currently exists in The Netherlands, not Ireland.

Be aspirational lads.

Chips Lovell

I am. They could be the best cycle lanes in the world, but they'll still a.) harden the perception among non-cyclists that cycling is so dangerous they need to be segregated and b.) reinforce the perception among many motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.

Cycling isn't dangerous. Cycling infrastructure is a massive waste of money.

buffalo

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's not segregated, as its only parttime bike lane. 7-10 am and midday til 7pm. Outside of those times you can park away there.

Are you sure? There's a small kerb and several bendy poles dividing it from the main carriageway from my recollection. Granted, I only walked past it twice, and one of those times it was dark and I'd been drinking.

eeeee

I agree with Jep on infrastructure. It plays to the idea that cycling is an inherently dangerous idea. It also takes cyclists away from cars, making them less used to dealing with cyclists, which, given the culture here is an awful idea. We are far from the cycling utopia that is the Netherlands, so really getting drivers used to sharing the roads goes a good bit further towards safety and tolerance than the intermittent, bumpy, unmaintained, debris-strewn, badly thought out red paths that currently exist. Less of those please.

Beasty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Cycling isn't dangerous. Cycling infrastructure is a massive waste of money.

Not only is it a waste of money, it helps perpetuate the "us and them" myth. Roads are in a pretty bad way in many places, and they can't even afford to maintain them properly - any new cycling infrastructure is likely to get equally neglected

coolbeans

Beasty wrote: »

Pity the RSA don't follow threads like this, as they really do themselves a disservice with the way they try and twist the stats to suit their own agenda

... but everything that the RSA does and says is from the perspective of a motorist looking through a windscreen. They've consistently proved themselves unfit for purpose. Tossers.

rollingscone

Beasty wrote: »

Not only is it a waste of money, it helps perpetuate the "us and them" myth. Roads are in a pretty bad way in many places, and they can't even afford to maintain them properly - any new cycling infrastructure is likely to get equally neglected

Don't forget creating the chance to call Cyclists Ungrateful.

dissed doc

Moflojo wrote: »

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

Actually a lot of people will probably die in order to get an improvement in infrastructure. That is precisely how the Netherlands ended up with the improvements in the 1970s, due to the amount of children being injured and killed while biking (Stop de Kindermoord).

At some point the injuries and deaths in Ireland would reach a tipping point and lead to action (but in ireland, probably banning bikes).

The Netherlands uses the (I am jokingly referring to) apartheid style, with bikes separate from cars separate to tram - everyone separated from everyone else for a lot of the time. It works well, definitely. .

The other style is common in Germany, which half the footpath width being marked for bike use. That also works well, but assumes personal responsibility between pedestrians and cyclists to not act like asses or be obstructive, too fast, dangerous. That works in Germany, Switzerland and Austria quite well.

For a lot of the broad footpaths in the centre within the canals, it would be simple to demarcate a 1 or 1,5m width for biking and just say that is biking, deal with it! No hassle with traffic lights, or big expense.

tomasrojo

I think I'll write to the IT about this. Does anyone see any flaw in my argument that the 2012 spike in injuries they make much of is predominantly an increase in minor injuries, and the general trend up to 2013 in fatalities was very much downward?

I don't think the IT made anything of the claim that Dublin was a particularly dangerous place to cycle, so perhaps that can be excluded.

Subpopulus

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I am. They could be the best cycle lanes in the world, but they'll still a.) harden the perception among non-cyclists that cycling is so dangerous they need to be segregated and b.) reinforce the perception among many motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.

Cycling isn't dangerous. Cycling infrastructure is a massive waste of money.

I'm surprised that in 2015 we still have to have this argument. Almost every city that has increased the amount of cyclists on its streets and lowered the injury rates has done so by building segregated infrastructure. Countries that advocated the vehicular cycling approach (no segregated paths/lanes; cycling with motor traffic) such as the UK and US have extremely low levels of cycling, and high injury rates. Thirty years of promoting vehicular cycling in these countries has led to no measurable improvement in the safety of cycling.

The countries with the highest levels of cycling and the lowest injury rates are the ones with huge amounts of segregated infrastructure (Denmark, The Netherlands). But the response here is along the lines of 'those countries are different and if we try to build infrastructure it'll be all crappy and it's better if we just build nothing'.

The relentless negativity of this culture of low expectations is damaging in the long run. About 1-2% of people will cycle no matter what the road conditions are. But you won't get more than 1-2% of people cycling on a regular basis if you get rid of all the cycle lanes, and the fewer cyclists there are, then the more unsafe the roads become. As the example of Dublin shows, the more cyclists on the road, the safer they become. The best way to encourage more people to cycle is to set them apart from motor vehicles, so that cyclists aren't intimidated by them.

Most of the infrastructure constructed in Ireland to date has been poor, but that's no reason to damn all cycling infrastructure. The quality of the stuff being built now is far higher than was was built 10 years ago, and in another 10 years I think we'll see even better infrastructure being built.

Subpopulus

gadetra wrote: »

I agree with Jep on infrastructure. It plays to the idea that cycling is an inherently dangerous idea. It also takes cyclists away from cars, making them less used to dealing with cyclists, which, given the culture here is an awful idea. We are far from the cycling utopia that is the Netherlands, so really getting drivers used to sharing the roads goes a good bit further towards safety and tolerance than the intermittent, bumpy, unmaintained, debris-strewn, badly thought out red paths that currently exist. Less of those please.

Surely it highlights the fact that cycling is quick and easy and can be safely done without having to share lanes with motor vehicles. About two years ago I heard a talk given by an AECOM engineer who was modelling cycle traffic flows in Dublin - he discovered that a huge number cyclists went out of their way to use the Grand Canal Cycleway, even if it significantly lengthened their trip. This is because segregated infrastructure made them feel far safer and made cycling much more enjoyable.

I don't buy your argument about taking cyclists away from cars making cycling less safe. One of the most dangerous things I have to put up with on my daily cycle is close overtaking from motorists, regardless of my lane positioning. If I could cycle straight ahead in a lane, and the motorist could drive straight ahead in their lane then surely that it would make it safer for the cyclists, no? Cars are still going to have to encounter cyclists at junctions, and the more cyclists on the road, the more they are going to look out for them at junctions.

And this idea that we're far from being like The Netherlands - is that an excuse not to build any infrastructure? Could you not demand more and better infrastructure so that you don't end up with crappy lanes, rather than fatalistically demanding that none be built. It's like that old Jewish joke -

How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb?
(Sigh) Oh, don't bother. I'll just sit here in the dark.

expectationlost

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/death-and-injury-toll-among-cyclists-on-the-rise-1.2307023
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/high-death-and-injury-rates-among-cyclists-alarm-road-safety-campaigners-1.2306903
is detailed analysis published on rsa site? http://rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

Chips Lovell

There's so many strawmen in that post I don't know where to start.

But I'll tell you what's relentless negativity. It's constantly telling the public that cycling is so dangerous they need to always wear a helmet and high visibility clothing. It's telling people that sharing the road with other traffic is so dangerous that cyclists should be segregated if at all possible. This is despite that fact that if we have more than 10 cyclists deaths in a year it's regarded as notable.

And then we wonder why more people don't opt for cycling. Why people who let their children cycle to school are seen as grossly negligent. This constant scaremongering is counterproductive.

I'm unaware of any country, certainly not the US or UK, where cycling is actively promoted as a safe, accessible and convenient mode of transport without the attendant hysteria of helmets, high viz vests and cycle lanes.

Subpopulus

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

But I'll tell you what's relentless negativity. It's constantly telling the public that cycling is so dangerous they need to always wear a helmet and high visibility clothing. It's telling people that sharing the road with other traffic is so dangerous that cyclists should be segregated if at all possible. This is despite that fact that if we have more than 10 cyclists deaths in a year it's regarded as notable.

And then we wonder why more people don't opt for cycling. Why people who let their children cycle to school are seen as grossly negligent. This constant scaremongering is counterproductive.

I'm unaware of any country, certainly not the US or UK, where cycling is actively promoted as a safe, accessible and convenient mode of transport without the attendant hysteria of helmets, high viz vests and cycle lanes.

I'm largely with you on the first two of these points, but I don't think that cycling among traffic is so dangerous that it requires segregations. I'm well aware that cycling isn't all that dangerous in and of itself, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it every day. However, the vast majority of the populace look upon cycling among traffic as a extremely intimidating and dangerous activity. Segregated facilities are the only thing that will convince them that cycling is a safe and appealing thing to do. I am someone that wants to see a culture of mass cycling in Ireland, and I believe that providing high-quality segregated infrastructure is part of that.

Leeds Uni did produced a report a few years back called the Understanding Walking and Cycling Report, which concluded:

To summarise, from our analysis of the influence of the physical environment on cycling it is clear that traffic is a major deterrent for all but the most committed cyclists. Potential cyclists, recreational (off-road) cyclists and occasional cyclists are discouraged from using their bicycles for everyday urban journeys because of their fear of cars and heavy goods vehicles... It is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists. This requires the provision of fully segregated cycle routes on all arterial and other busy roads in urban areas. It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic.

http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/UWCReportSept2011.pdf

As for being 'unaware of any country, certainly not the US or UK, where cycling is actively promoted as a safe, accessible and convenient mode of transport without the attendant hysteria of helmets, high viz vests and cycle lanes'. Surely The Netherlands and Denmark are such countries?

dissed doc

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm unaware of any country, certainly not the US or UK, where cycling is actively promoted as a safe, accessible and convenient mode of transport without the attendant hysteria of helmets, high viz vests and cycle lanes.

There is no hysteria now in NL or DK.

And I think it is unfair and simply incorrect to include hysteria about helmets and hi viz, in the same sense as cycle lanes being separate. It works to separate traffic lanes. That is why the Luas is generally separate to cars, and cars separate to pedestrians. We are doing it already. The only difference is adding a new separation for bikes.

While safety is a feature of a separate lane, the big difference will also be in numbers cycling and pollution, and long term health benefits. There are still accidents on separate lane systems of course, but overall would see a reduction. It is an overreaction to say that it is "due to cycling being so dangerous". That is media spin, and should be ignored like other types of extremism.

eeeee

Subpopulus wrote: »

I'm largely with you on the first two of these points, but I don't think that cycling among traffic is so dangerous that it requires segregations. I'm well aware that cycling isn't all that dangerous in and of itself, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it every day. However, the vast majority of the populace look upon cycling among traffic as a extremely intimidating and dangerous activity. Segregated facilities are the only thing that will convince them that cycling is a safe and appealing thing to do. I am someone that wants to see a culture of mass cycling in Ireland, and I believe that providing high-quality segregated infrastructure is part of that.

This is where I see getting rid of cycle lanes as a positive. It normalizes cycling on the road, as a normal and safe part of traffic. Other road users come to expect cyclists on the road, cyclists are not treated as Other on the road, as really delicate and vulnerable nuisances that hold up traffic and have to be segregated for their own safety. Potential cyclists then don't see cycling as something inherently dangerous and risky, instead as something completely normal and safe and tolerated on a grand scale by all traffic.
The key is instilling cycling as a normal, safe activity, not in need of special lanes or the like to be so.

The success of the cycle lane not eh canal can't be ignored either though, I wonder how many people have become regular cyclists as a result of it alone?

Currently the biggest source of contention in my daily cycling is crap cycle lanes I don't use. They haven't learnt either, new lanes put in this year are so badly designed I don't use them either. Motorists get pissed off I'm not using them, and the idea of more of the same does not appeal to me. If there were none or just lines painted on the road it would remove that contention. I suppose my opposition is borne out of experience of segregated cycle lanes that currently exist, which has been almost (not completely but almost) universally poor, which is depressingly negative!

tomasrojo

coolbeans wrote: »

... but everything that the RSA does and says is from the perspective of a motorist looking through a windscreen. They've consistently proved themselves unfit for purpose.

Worst of all, page 7 of the document implicitly promotes cable locks. Pity, as they could have squeezed in another picture of a helmet instead.

Skrynesaver

My problem with segregation is that I cycle thought the city from well past the suburbs, I'd like motorists to see me as a normal part of their commute rather than an insane aberration that "appears from nowhere" when we get outside the areas that will have cycle lanes.

I've had 2 hospital visits as a result of 40+ years cycling, the first was because someone turned right through a dedicated cycle lane without looking for weird alien bike forms, the second was when I lost the back end on a cycle lane that had not been gritted though the road had, my experience of cycling infrastructure in this country is that it's fine if you're a 12 year-old but the road is actually safer (provided we all use it).</2_cents>

Subpopulus

gadetra wrote: »

This is where I see getting rid of cycle lanes as a positive. It normalizes cycling on the road, as a normal and safe part of traffic. Other road users come to expect cyclists on the road, cyclists are not treated as Other on the road, as really delicate and vulnerable nuisances that hold up traffic and have to be segregated for their own safety. Potential cyclists then don't see cycling as something inherently dangerous and risky, instead as something completely normal and safe and tolerated on a grand scale by all traffic. The key is instilling cycling as a normal, safe activity, not in need of special lanes or the like to be so.

But how do you convince people that cycling in moving traffic is a safe and normal thing to do? Forcing people out of cycle lanes and into general traffic lanes almost certainly going to do it. Studies like the one I gave above show that regardless of the risks, people just don't want to cycle among motorised traffic because the find it intimidating. Read the quote from Leeds Uni report again-

To summarise, from our analysis of the influence of the physical environment on cycling it is clear that traffic is a major deterrent for all but the most committed cyclists. Potential cyclists, recreational (off-road) cyclists and occasional cyclists are discouraged from using their bicycles for everyday urban journeys because of their fear of cars and heavy goods vehicles... It is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists. This requires the provision of fully segregated cycle routes on all arterial and other busy roads in urban areas. It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic.

Aside from dramatically reducing the amount of traffic on the roads, how do you persuade people that cycling among general traffic is a safe and normal thing to do? Bear in mind that in the UK, where that report was written, cycling is much the same as in Ireland in that it mostly takes place in general traffic lanes rather than cycle lanes, so it's already normal to cycle on the road and other road users expect to see cyclists on the road.

Beasty

Subpopulus wrote: »

But how do you convince people that cycling in moving traffic is a safe and normal thing to do? Forcing people out of cycle lanes and into general traffic lanes almost certainly going to do it. Studies like the one I gave above show that regardless of the risks, people just don't want to cycle among motorised traffic because the find it intimidating. Read the quote from Leeds Uni report again-



Aside from dramatically reducing the amount of traffic on the roads, how do you persuade people that cycling among general traffic is a safe and normal thing to do? Bear in mind that in the UK, where that report was written, cycling is much the same as in Ireland in that it mostly takes place in general traffic lanes rather than cycle lanes, so it's already normal to cycle on the road and other road users expect to see cyclists on the road.

Clearly in Ireland (and indeed the UK) plenty of people are convinced enough to contribute to the recent upsurge in cycling within each country.

Of course, as others have said, cycling is actually a relatively safe activity, despite the best efforts of some (including the likes of the RSA) to try and paint it as much more dangerous. Even the recent return to very high volumes of motorised traffic has not had a major impact on serious cyclist injuries and deaths (which remain at pretty much an all-time low - well since the bike became a popular mode of transport anyway!). However if the RSA and news organisations want to continue sensationalising some very modest (and frankly unreliable in terms of the sorts of conclusions they attempt to draw from them) stats on the subject, they could perhaps look more at the volumes of motorised traffic to explain some of the fluctuations in the figures. Personally though, having kept my eyes on the stats via the various discussions we regularly have on here, I am really not seeing an issue.

galwaycyclist

Subpopulus wrote: »

Aside from dramatically reducing the amount of traffic on the roads, how do you persuade people that cycling among general traffic is a safe and normal thing to do? Bear in mind that in the UK, where that report was written, cycling is much the same as in Ireland in that it mostly takes place in general traffic lanes rather than cycle lanes, so it's already normal to cycle on the road and other road users expect to see cyclists on the road.

On phone so difficult to contribute.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO RESTRICTING OR REDUCING MOTOR TRAFFIC OR TO CONTROLLING IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS.

I apologise for shouting. If you start segregating cyclists (or pedestrians) as an "alternative" to controlling motor traffic then, as night follows day, what happens is you start seeing cyclists and pedestrians being managed for the benefit of cars.

What characterises cities with high levels of cycling is not segregated infrastructure it is an acceptance that motor traffic must be managed for the benefit of others rather than promoted at all costs.

In the UK, among the most car dependent cities are Milton Keynes and Peterborough both are "new towns" that were planned with extensive segregated cycling infrastructure.

In Galway, the parts of the city that have the highest cycling levels have effectively zero "cycling infrastructure" (and prior to the last census Galway had higher levels of cycling to work than Dublin). These parts of the city work because they werent "planned" around putting everyone in cars and then adding cycling or pedestrian facilities as an afterthought.

This is not to dismiss segregation as being part of the solution but if it is applied in the wrong context, if segregation is applied as an end in itself then it is more likely to become part of the problem

Subpopulus

Beasty wrote: »

Clearly in Ireland (and indeed the UK) plenty of people are convinced enough to contribute to the recent upsurge in cycling within each country.

There hasn't really been much of an upsurge though. In the UK cycling as a mode of transport is flatlining at about 1.5% of all journeys made, with London pretty much the only outlier of growth. It's been at the same level for about a decade.

Cycling makes up about 1.3% of all trips in Ireland, which is growing by about 0.1 percentage points PA at the moment. There's certainly growth in some of the cities, but when looked at nationwide, it's pretty minimal. Cycling is still an extremely marginal mode of transport. At least 9 out of 10 people aren't cycling on a regular basis.