Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

gladrags

Christ,on the one hand we have Danny Healy R claiming that global warming ain't happening.

On the other,we have O'Leary stupidly and ignorantly sniping at cyclists,who at the very least do not contribute to the emissions,caused by the increasing
numbers of motors on the roads.

This is a serious and real problem.

But the lines of traffic get bigger,as do the cars.

Jeeps and land rovers careering through heavily populated towns and cities.

And most of them have only one passenger,the driver.

Utter madness,will we never learn.

Roadhawk

gladrags wrote: »

Christ,on the one hand we have Danny Healy R claiming that global warming ain't happening.

On the other,we have O'Leary stupidly and ignorantly sniping at cyclists,who at the very least do not contribute to the emissions,caused by the increasing
numbers of motors on the roads.

This is a serious and real problem.

But the lines of traffic get bigger,as do the cars.

Jeeps and land rovers careering through heavily populated towns and cities.

And most of them have only one passenger,the driver.

Utter madness,will we never learn.

The recession is gone now. Property is still sh!t so ill buy a fancy jeep. Thats the mentality of a lot of motorists.

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the stats in the link you provided do not establish the cause or fault of an incident. Another link i found for stats in the RSA have different fatality stats for cyclists than the one you provided. Not sure if they have reported correctly.


Also these stats are from 4 years ago...anything more recent? Ever think that the recent stats are not being published because the government have an agenda to promote cycling and dont want to scare potential new cyclists? just saying.

Ah come on, really? Now you're clutching at straws. All the death and injury statistics are on the RSA site, if you do a bit of digging. Less of the conspiracy theories please.

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like you're using your gear wrong - or indeed not using them. Or you could de-layer

Actually, I agree with Kev on this one. I get sweaty with a short cycle, as I tend to cycle fairly energetically. I get sweaty with a short walk, or a running for a bus or running up the stairs too - it's just me. I normally change and shower at work after cycling, so it's not really a problem. sometimes when I take a Dublin Bike around the city, I have to ease back considerably to avoid getting sweaty, but it is easily done.

Roadhawk

Jawgap wrote: »

If things were as 'Mad Max' as you are suggesting, there'd be a lot more bloodied and broken cyclists - cycle fatalities in recent years rarely (and thankfully) make it into double figures in any given year.

Here's the 2015 stats

Hadnt seen that one before. One final step to get a real picture...how many motorists are there and how many cyclists are there currently? If we can hack this one out we might be able to find the ratio of cyclists in comparison to fatalities and likewise with the motorists.

I haven't once mentioned the "Mad Max" setting you are portraying. I have however been highlighting the lack of education and respect that some cyclists display when using roads.

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

I haven't once mentioned the "Mad Max" setting you are portraying. I have however been highlighting the lack of education and respect that some cyclists display when using roads.

Just for context, do you see the same 'lack of education and respect' that some drivers display on the roads, when they speed, break traffic lights, do their make-up and/or Facebook updates while driving?

monument

Posts deleted re speculation on blame on recent collision -- it's a matter for the courts.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Generalisation? I'm sorry, is what I see with my own 2 eyes every single day going to and from work not enough?

No. It's not -- a higher level of debate is expected on the Commuting and Transport board.

Don't reply to this.

-- moderator

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

Hadnt seen that one before. One final step to get a real picture...how many motorists are there and how many cyclists are there currently? If we can hack this one out we might be able to find the ratio of cyclists in comparison to fatalities and likewise with the motorists.

I haven't once mentioned the "Mad Max" setting you are portraying. I have however been highlighting the lack of education and respect that some cyclists display when using roads.

Completely irrelevant - or almost completely.

The number of km travelled via each mode would be a much more accurate denominator (as an earlier poster alluded to). According to the RSA....

Vehicle kilometres travelled (VkmT) is considered the best measure of risk exposure for all vehicles on the road.

The other point worth noting is somewhat counter-intuitive - more cycling and cyclists lead to fewer fatalities - cycling has increased hugely in popularity in the last 20 years or so but cyclist fatalities have decreased by 89.1% since 1990 (RSA: ROADCASUALTY & COLLISION REPORT 2013).

Likewise Portugal (in 2006), where people cycle on average 30km per year suffered about 128 cyclists killed for every billion km travelled. Whereas Denmark (average annual per capita cycling is 954km) suffered about 5.8. Ireland suffered 12.1 but in 2006 the average per capital cycling distance was only 186 km (CTC: Safety in Numbers)

I think Dublin is a great city to cycle in - when people start talking about how dangerous it is I wonder if I'm in the same city

MJohnston

Deedsie wrote: »

Depends on the route you cycle, the time of day you cycle. The junctions you have to negotiate etc?

There's a difference between statistically dangerous and feeling unsafe while cycling. I think when people say it's dangerous to cycle in Dublin, the latter is what they mean.

Rew

Roadhawk wrote: »

I am a regular Phoenix Park cyclist and tend to go at my one pace. I have seen that frustration a number of times on the face of other cyclists as they race past.

Really? because you can't see another cyclists face as they pass at speed unless your going the wrong way against them...

I was a regular there till recently I would pass and be passed it was no big deal. Occasionally Id have to call out that I wanted to pass on their right.

Some close calls with people stepping out into the cycle lane randomly though.

Rew

Deedsie wrote: »

Depends on the route you cycle, the time of day you cycle. The junctions you have to negotiate etc?

Definitely! I moved recently, same distance more traffic but far nicer then previous route.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

Depends on the route you cycle, the time of day you cycle. The junctions you have to negotiate etc?

Not really, the RSA data shows that while urban areas account for the greater number of collisions injuring cyclists, by far the greater proportion of fatalities occur in rural areas - so yes, while there's a greater chance of getting hit in Dublin (understandable given traffic densities) the chances of being killed are significantly less.

Dublin also had the lowest (1.5 per 100,000) number of persons killed per 100,000 population. It's Monaghan you'd want to avoid

Plus junctions are not inherently dangerous. The big thing as a cyclist is to avoid being on the inside of a left turning HGV - if we followed Paris' example with the equivalent of their 'right on red' (left on red in our case) they'd be even safer again.

A DCC Traffic Department Study from 2009 found that

Of the 427 collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city from 2002-2006, only 11 involved fatalities. However, eight of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning lorries. Of the three other fatalities, one involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes, in another a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist while the third was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.

Their findings clearly indicate that cyclists not poor or reckless driving are the problem :rolleyes:

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

Well I have been knocked down twice, but haven't been killed. Based on the stats used here unless I have been killed cycling is safe.

I'll see your "I have been knocked down twice" and raise you a "I've never been knocked off my bike in Dublin" - I was in Meath once, but for all my cycling in Dublin I've never had a tip. To add some context - I cycle about 10,000 km per year - a decent proportion of which is commutes inside the M50.

traprunner

I haven't been knocked down but I did manage to knock myself out when my front wheel slipped on a manhole. I'll be down as one of those stats that hospitals and the social welfare count as they have both noted it.

I've had one driver recently decide to close pass me, then proceed to swerve in front of me and then slam on his brakes just because he was in the left turning lane and crossed the junction to go straight on and I had the audacity to look over my left shoulder in surprise when I heard him there. He did try to jam on the brakes a couple more times up the road but I was hanging well back because he was obviously a deranged looney.

There were a few more close misses over the past 18 months or so and all down to drivers not looking and either pulling in or across me. But I've had similar things happen while driving too. I don't think it's particularly dangerous but I'm always aware.

One thing I can say is that cycling has made me a safer driver. I'm far more aware of cyclists since I started commuting on the bike.

magicbastarder

i've had two accidents; one my fault. thankfully no broken bones in either one, just a few stitches and sprained ankle.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

Lucky you, I stand by my argument that cyclists deaths is not the most accurate way to determine how safe Dublin cycling is.

I would do about 5000km cycling commuting a year for the last 3 years. Knocked down twice, slipped on ice once and landed on my head and four flat tyres.

I'd consider myself a fairly defensive cyclist so I wouldn't put myself in a position to be in danger where I can avoid it. Never break lights, obey the rules of the road, wear my helmet and hivis etc

Still got knocked down. Twice. So from my POV, where Dublin may not be the most dangerous city in Europe to cycle it's far from the safest either.

I'd agree with you - that's why I referenced collision data earlier in the thread in the context of km travelled - your perception that cycling is not safe is not supported by the evidence.

BTW, only about 8 to 10% of injuries suffered by cyclists are incurred commuting to/from work according to the RSA, but admittedly 'trip purpose' was marked as 'unknown' for 45% of the incidents examined.

Finally, even if you are unfortunate to be hit or fall, EU data also shows that in the case of "non-fatal road accident casualties who were admitted to
hospital" cyclists require the second shortest stay and have injuries that require a lower admission rate than other road user categories.

Cookie_Monster

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe we could limit bikes to 25kph, unless a competency test has been passed?

how, bike don't require speedo so you could never tell. There are no speed limit for bicycles anyway and you could never implement them because of the speedo thing.

also 25kph is my average speed on the bike, making it the max is absurd and is just further draconian limitations being put in place to sate the motoring lobby. In reality it would achieve nothing and be impossible to apply and enforce

magicbastarder

that was a tongue in cheek comment.

MJohnston

Only injury I've suffered due to cycling is when Michael O'Leary tried to shoot me

Cookie_Monster

magicbastarder wrote: »

that was a tongue in cheek comment.

you can never be sure when the anti-cycling rants start up...

magicbastarder

i've hit near 70kph on the bike. i'm not exactly living by those imaginary rules.

Grandeeod

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you can never be sure when the anti-cycling rants start up...

The pro-cycling rants aren't much better. They tend to be littered with the same old arguments that nobody seems to challenge to any great degree. Maybe its because people in general don't care about cyclists.

traprunner

A lot of cyclists are also drivers. Not a lot of drivers are also cyclists. It does give a bit more perspective when you are a user of both.

If the same old arguments are not challenged then why don't you give it a shot?

Carawaystick

Deedsie wrote: »

I never reported either of my collisions and I'd imagine most other people don't either if they are perceived to be minor. Not saying that's right but any collision statistics are flawed as a result.

How do you expect things to get better if you take no steps to prosecute those who endanger you personally?

TheExile1878

Well I've just been knocked over - almost into traffic on the Quays - by a cyclist who came across the Millennium Bridge, over the road (where pedestrians should be) and then came on to the pavement to go down towards Jervis.

Mr O'Leary - start with her.

magicbastarder

i would assume a pedestrian bridge would be covered by a ban on cycling on the footpath? or cycling without due care and attention?

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is cycling on a footpath not banned full stop?

i think this would cover the above scenario:
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-face-on-the-spot-fines-for-seven-road-traffic-offences-1.2270816

RobertFoster

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Well I've just been knocked over - almost into traffic on the Quays - by a cyclist who came across the Millennium Bridge, over the road (where pedestrians should be) and then came on to the pavement to go down towards Jervis.

Mr O'Leary - start with her.

He didn't say he'd be the one doing the shooting. Do your own wetwork.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is cycling on a footpath not banned full stop? Impossible to police but if AGS ever get their act together and start lashing out fines for cycling on the footpath then maybe it will stop.

So you want to ban kids from cycling? That would suit many motorists as there would be fewer cyclists due to virtually no exposure as a child. Foothpaths are the safest place for kids to cycle.

In saying that, here are laws covering cycling on footpaths already but like most traffic laws they are not enforced.

ED E

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

Tell that to the Finns, Norwegians, Swedes..... They all cycle on the path.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

So you'd put a child on a bike on the Rock Road heading to the park? I'm just using that as one example that a lot of people would know.