Pedestrian Injured - Junction of Dame St/Sth Great George's Street

TheExile1878

Today there was a pedestrian knocked down by a ... cyclist, [speculation deleted]

I've no idea how the lady is, but it did not look good as we called the ambulance and Guards.

I hope anyone who cycles realises that whilst you might be in danger from cars not obeying the laws, you are the danger to pedestrians - [speculation deleted]

We need cameras at that junction, and some sort of identifying mark for cyclists needs to be explored. If this cyclist left the scene - what could be done ? "Guy in blue lycra on a bike" is not much for An Garda Siochona to go on.

I hope she is okay but after ten minutes she was still motionless. Let's hope and pray for the best [speculation deleted]

schemingbohemia

Sorry, did the cyclist leave the scene or not? Hope the lady recovers and that the culprit is caught.

TheExile1878

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Sorry, did the cyclist leave the scene or not? Hope the lady recovers and that the culprit is caught.

He did, and he seemed distraught when the extent of the lady’scondition was seen – it was so horrible to witness, but I knew this was goingto happen sooner or later. If it was achild, or a smaller person I doubt they’d have survived. Not hyperbolae btw – this happened right infront of me.

Danjamin1

I cycled past there at about 12:15, was wondering what the ambulance was for. Does my head in when I see anyone going through red lights!

galwaycyclist

Provides a strong argument for Ireland setting up a national police service for enforcing road rules something along the lines of the French Gendarmerie or the British constabulary that kind of thing.

schemingbohemia

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Provides a strong argument for Ireland setting up a national police service for enforcing road rules something along the lines of the French Gendarmerie or the British constabulary that kind of thing.

Provides a strong argument for people taking personal responsibility and care for others but that's just me.

thomasj

schemingbohemia wrote:

Provides a strong argument for people taking personal responsibility and care for others but that's just me.

You know thats not going to happen

There are some people who just become maniacs once they get on their bike.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

thomasj wrote: »

You know thats not going to happen

There are some people who just become maniacs once they get on their bike.

Or when they get in cars. People are dicks, not just cyclists.

1hnr79jr65

This is one of the reasons i believe cyclists should be made purchase insurance. Motorists are held responsible and can have claims against them, no reason same cant apply to cyclists who are found responsible for any accident.

SteM

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

This is one of the reasons i believe cyclists should be made purchase insurance. Motorists are held responsible and can have claims against them, no reason same cant apply to cyclists who are found responsible for any accident.

The cyclist left the scene according to a post further up. Insurance would be no use in this case.

Is cyclist insurance mandatory in any European country does anyone know?

schemingbohemia

thomasj wrote: »

You know thats not going to happen

There are some people who just become maniacs once they get on their bike.

And I was replying to the nonsensical post by Galwaycyclist. We have Garda, they can't be everywhere, this was one ignorant idiot causing an accident that was easily preventable.

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

This is one of the reasons i believe cyclists should be made purchase insurance. Motorists are held responsible and can have claims against them, no reason same cant apply to cyclists who are found responsible for any accident.

The cyclist can still be sued. Claims are made due to behaviour not because there's insurance in place. If the pedestrian had walked out in front of the cyclist and caused the injury would you be advocating for insurance for pedestrians?

SteM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The cyclist can still be sued. Claims are made due to behaviour not because there's insurance in place. If the pedestrian had walked out in front of the cyclist and caused the injury would you be advocating for insurance for pedestrians?

The cyclist can be sued but may not have the money to pay out the claim that is awarded to the pedestrian to cover medical expenses, loss of money from being out of work etc. Insurance would help cover large claims like that.

Alkers

SteM wrote: »

The cyclist can be sued but may not have the money to pay out the claim that is awarded to the pedestrian to cover medical expenses, loss of money from being out of work etc. Insurance would help cover large claims like that.

What about when the pedestrian is at fault as per the recent incident in the phoenix park? Do we make pedestrians require insurance also?

Dyr

Tbh if I saw a cyclist attempt to leave after that I'd probably get myself in trouble

City centre needs some sort of permanent traffic enforcement body, wasting your time with the traffic corps

beauf

TheExile1878 wrote: »

...We need cameras at that junction, and some sort of identifying mark for cyclists needs to be explored....

The city has CCTV camera's all over. The cyclist is bound to be caught on a few of them.

What you need is the Garda to enforce the existing laws. Not create some new laws or licencing that will be ignored. Its just a waste of money.

This cyclists has most likely been ignored by Garda on numerous occasions, with the result that they don't fear any action. if they had been stopped and fined a few times, or even the bicycle impounded they might have stopped doing it. TBH though its the same with all other road users, cars, trucks, vans.

Hope the lady is ok.

Saipanne

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

SteM

Simona1986 wrote: »

What about when the pedestrian is at fault as per the recent incident in the phoenix park? Do we make pedestrians require insurance also?

Where did I say that cyclists should be required to have insurance? I was explaining the reasons for insurance cover rather than suing an individual without insurance.

beauf

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

You must be living in some alternate universe.

Less than one in 10 motorists obey speed limit along Dublin quays

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/only-one-in-10-drivers-obeying-city-limit-26719803.html

82% of car drivers surveyed exceeded the 50km/h limit on urban national roads

http://irishcycle.com/myths/myths-law-breaking/


Cyclists can be fined for "driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration". If not speeding specifically.

Its all the same issue. The lack of enforcement. Need more Garda on the street.

Saipanne

beauf wrote: »

You must be living in some alternate universe.



http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/only-one-in-10-drivers-obeying-city-limit-26719803.html



http://irishcycle.com/myths/myths-law-breaking/


Cyclists can be fined for "driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration". If not speeding specifically.

Its all the same issue. The lack of enforcement. Need more Garda on the street.

You didn't read my post, just what you wanted to see. :rolleyes:

cython

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

I'm a cyclist, and I don't always attempt to reach my max speed. Will happily go for it on a good road if the way in front of me is clear, etc. but would not dream of going full speed through congested traffic, or indeed through areas where I know lemming pedestrians (note not all pedestrians!) pay no heed to traffic lights or traffic around them.

Saipanne wrote: »

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

I don't. I don't cycle in pedestrian areas, or on footpaths, and I don't speed through red lights, and in fact do not break them unless they are ones that I know to ignore cyclists (in which case I carefully traverse junction on a pedestrian green, giving way to pedestrians, in the absence of a better option). In fact your entire post is pretty hard to take seriously at this point. This is not to say that no cyclists ever behave as you describe, but generalisations such as you have posted are just ludicrous

Saipanne wrote: »

You didn't read my post, just what you wanted to see. :rolleyes:

Did I read it well enough for you? :rolleyes:

seamus

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

You have absolutely no evidence to back up this claim. It's pure bull.

Spanish Eyes

Cyclists do speed, and they do break the lights. But not all of them. The minority give the rest a really bad name.

Pedestrians can be in a coma too, or on earphones, or the mobile. Fault all round sometimes.

I have to say as a pedestrian, I am ultra cautious at junctions in the city. The cyclists can come out of nowhere at great speed. I always double check when the green is for me, as that means some muppet MIGHT break the red on the other side.

I think that has to be acknowledged.

I hope the lady is OK and recovers from her injuries.

beauf

Saipanne wrote: »

So you didn't read it, and provided that pitiful response.

Thanks for that.

I didn't say I didn't read it. I said it wasn't worth reading. Its nonsense, asinine.

Even something like "max speed" has no meaning. If you cycle you are not going to try and reach your max speed uphill, into the wind, or on a long cycle. Likewise regardless of the risk has no meaning. Cyclists are pedestrians, drivers aswell. Why would they ignore all rational thought just because they are on a bicycle. Its just an inane comment.

But if you have some stats to back up your "opinion" you'd have posted them before now.

MarkAnthony

Perfectly reasonable to retrain, with reasonable force, a cyclist or anyone else trying to leave the scene after doing anything more than minor damage to someone.

On speed I'm actually interested to see will cyclists be done for speeding once most on inner Dublin is reduced to 30Kph, surely some of these lycra clad middle aged men manage more than 30 - they seem too!

I actually don't have an issue with cyclists jumping red lights, actually it makes sense in a lot of cases. However there does seem to be two contingents of people (well three if you count the VAST majority of responsible cyclists). (i) Lycra clad speedy gonsalez' who seem to think the road, path, space to get a tank through, belongs to them. (ii) People who just don't give a feck. I almost mullered someone the other turning right on a red light through a busy junction. Tip: You know what you're gonna do - I in a big hunk of metal don't. If I slow down while you're doing something dangerous it's not permission to continue the maneuver moron - it's me trying not to kill you.

On insurance it should just be tacked on to the price of a bike. Bikes cause so few accidents that it really shouldn't be an issue.

Carlos Orange

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Cyclists do speed, and they do break the lights. But not all of them. The minority give the rest a really bad name.

From what I see day to day it is the minority who receive a bad name from the actions of the majority.

MarkAnthony

psinno wrote: »

From what I see day to day it is the minority who receive a bad name from the actions of the majority.

As per any group really.

Roadhawk

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

Couldnt have said it better myself. Some bicycles reach very high speeds and usually do so on those little skinny tyres which make it very hard to stop.

Spanish Eyes

psinno wrote: »

From what I see day to day it is the minority who receive a bad name from the actions of the majority.

You are very brave to say that.

Lycra bombs coming your way now....

beauf

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

This is one of the reasons i believe cyclists should be made purchase insurance. Motorists are held responsible and can have claims against them, no reason same cant apply to cyclists who are found responsible for any accident.

Maybe look into why it doesn't exist anywhere...

A parliamentary initiative was submitted in 2008 and was passed. It is thought that over 90% of cyclists were already insured and that the vignette was redundant. Also, neighboring countries do not have this requirement so Switzerland decided to align itself to other countries. The first sticker was introduced in Switzerland in 1890 and were made out of metal until 1988!

However, you must have a valid "reponsabilité civile" insurance as the bike is no longer insured but the cyclist must be. In principle, damage to a third party involving a bicycle will be covered by liability insurance. Also, it is important to make sure that your insurance covers damage after a bicycle accident. NOTE: The sticker is still required for mopeds and electric bikes equipped with assisted pedals that exceed 25 km/h.

If you are involved in a bike accident and do not have insurance and it is your fault then you will be required to pay out of pocket.

http://www.knowitall.ch/careers/47-transport/swiss-transport/732-new-laws-for-bicycle-owners-in-switzerland-no-more-vignettes

Also

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/

beauf

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Cyclists do speed, and they do break the lights. But not all of them. The minority give the rest a really bad name....

I agree.

Recent article "1-in-8 cyclists were observed passing through a red light"

http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/26/only-1-in-8-cyclists-run-red-lights-says-study-of-60-irish-junctions/

The report says that 1-in-8 cyclists were observed passing through a red light. This was highest in Limerick (44pc) and lowest in Cork (5pc). Male cyclists were more likely to break a red light (14pc vs 8pc) and cyclists using public bikes were more likely to break a red light (16pc vs 11pc).

Of the cyclists that broke a red light, 52pc went straight through the junction and the presence of a cycle lane did not appear to affect the incidence of red light breakage.
It's worth pointing out that these observations were recorded in June 2015 so pre-date the introduction of the new fixed charges for cyclists. They were introduced in July of last year. We will be conducting a follow-up round of studies again soon.

I don't see the point. Red lights hold you up very little on a bicycle in terms of your overall journey time, unless you are on a very short journey.

Roadhawk

It was only a matter of time before this happened anyway. with the increase of cyclists particularly around Dublin there are massive efforts to manage them by building better infrastructure and implementing a fine system.

Carlos Orange

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

You are very brave to say that.

Lycra bombs coming your way now....

I'll be sure to keep an eye out as I walk home from work tonight through the exact junction this thread is about.

traprunner

Hope the lady is ok.

I really with there was more enforcement for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians but there resources aren't there and it does seem like many minor infringements of the law require too much paper work for them to be worth enforcing.

On a side note I'm glad to see that this has descended into the usual thing where all cyclists are the same and insurance. It wouldn't be a boards discussion/argument without it :P Now, if only there was a car involved we'd hear "road tax" too. As it's been said in probably most threads where an accident happens....there are idiots in all walks of life...cyclists are often motorists too and pedestrians can also act the eejit. No human is perfect or above anyone else.

magicbastarder

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

i'm scratching my head on this one. for many cyclists, 30km/h would a reasonable top speed they could maintain (i average less than that anyway). it'd be extremely tough for a cyclist to consistently breach speed limits (which don't apply to them anyway).

i fail to see how "actual speed used compared to maximum speed attainable" has any bearing whatsoever on this. it's an utterly meaningless statistic.

glued

Surprised this didn't happen sooner. That junction is a disaster for cyclists breaking the red lights. There should be far better Garda Enforcement in the area. Every time I'm at that light at least one cyclist will break the lights. I've seen one cyclist ticketed at that junction in the past 3 years.

endacl

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

I don't. I stop for red lights too. I mustn't be the cyclist you're talking about....

Spanish Eyes

Whatever about "slowly" going through a red light when the coast is VERY clear, there is absolutely NO excuse for a cyclist to race through a red.

I've seen it so often. That's why it takes me a long time to cross the road at that junction anyway, and TBH at most junctions these days now.

Sad, but there is so much competition for actual space in Dublin to walk, cycle and drive it's becoming a bit of a nightmare. It's heaving out there folks, so be careful.

Spanish Eyes

Did anyone actually witness the accident?

Otherwise there is no point is apportioning blame to either the cyclist or the pedestrian really. Either could have been at fault.

beauf

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Sad, but there is so much competition for actual space in Dublin to walk, cycle and drive it's becoming a bit of a nightmare. It's heaving out there folks, so be careful.

Lot of people are very selfish and aggressive either as pedestrian driver or cyclist. No empathy for anyone else.

Dyr

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Sad, but there is so much competition for actual space in Dublin to walk, cycle and drive it's becoming a bit of a nightmare. It's heaving out there folks, so be careful.

Thats the crux of it, if you look at dame street you narrow road lanes on a main artery into the city, then you have narrow busy footpaths, which dublin bus block up by putting bus stops for multiple bus routes on, you then have those multiple busy routes piling buses through, as well as two taxi ranks and zero enforcement.

It's pretty much the same around the rest of the city centre, compounded by temporary works that appear to be permanent barricading people and traffic into narrow crossing points

Baron Kurtz

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Did anyone actually witness the accident?

Otherwise there is no point is apportioning blame to either the cyclist or the pedestrian really. Either could have been at fault.

The OP may have, at least the aftermath, but it appears she was completely in the right. I'm wondering about the damage caused tbh - the cyclist must have properly cleaned her out, for her to be motionless afterward.

I'm not sure about the insurance idea, but some form of license would be a good start. I cycle and would have no qualms getting one. It might serve to instill some element of care when you get on a bike and biking in general. As for things like the DB system, fairweather cyclists and children the licensing would be awkward. It's really about personal responsibility but heck knows where to start there.

traprunner

endacl wrote: »

I don't. I stop for red lights too. I mustn't be the cyclist you're talking about....

Me either. I rarely get up to 30kph either regardless of how hard I try and I stop at red lights. I wonder what percentage of cyclists are actually able to break the speed limit.

Downhill is different but the city centre is flat.

traprunner

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

The OP may have, at least the aftermath, but it appears she was completely in the right. I'm wondering about the damage caused tbh - the cyclist must have properly cleaned her out, for her to be motionless afterward.

I'm not sure about the insurance idea, but some form of license would be a good start. I cycle and would have no qualms getting one. It might serve to instill some element of care when you get on a bike and biking in general. As for things like the DB system, fairweather cyclists and children the licensing would be awkward. It's really about personal responsibility but heck knows where to start there.

It has been asked of others when licences are mentioned. How would it work? I'm genuinely interested as no one has been able to come up with anything that sounds workable.

cython

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Perfectly reasonable to retrain, with reasonable force, a cyclist or anyone else trying to leave the scene after doing anything more than minor damage to someone.

On speed I'm actually interested to see will cyclists be done for speeding once most on inner Dublin is reduced to 30Kph, surely some of these lycra clad middle aged men manage more than 30 - they seem too!

I actually don't have an issue with cyclists jumping red lights, actually it makes sense in a lot of cases. However there does seem to be two contingents of people (well three if you count the VAST majority of responsible cyclists). (i) Lycra clad speedy gonsalez' who seem to think the road, path, space to get a tank through, belongs to them. (ii) People who just don't give a feck. I almost mullered someone the other turning right on a red light through a busy junction. Tip: You know what you're gonna do - I in a big hunk of metal don't. If I slow down while you're doing something dangerous it's not permission to continue the maneuver moron - it's me trying not to kill you.

On insurance it should just be tacked on to the price of a bike. Bikes cause so few accidents that it really shouldn't be an issue.

On the bolded, currently speed limits do not apply to bicycles and cyclists as the legislation applies them to mechanically propelled vehicles, and legally pedal cycles do not fall into this category.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Couldnt have said it better myself. Some bicycles reach very high speeds and usually do so on those little skinny tyres which make it very hard to stop.

Have you any actual basis in fact to suggest that "skinny little tyres" make it any harder to stop, or is it speculation because it happens to suit your point? Because if you watch some of the crashes in pro-cycling plenty of them can stop on a proverbial dime on very similar tyres from well over 30km/h if there's a crash in front of them. Realistically misjudgement of appropriate speed is a far greater factor than the bloody tyres!

micar

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Did anyone actually witness the accident?

Otherwise there is no point is apportioning blame to either the cyclist or the pedestrian really. Either could have been at fault.

Exactly, the pedestrian may have walk out onto the road without looking.

It cannot be assumed that 1) cyclist went through a red light or 2) he was cycling too fast.

I have had people walk out in front to me. Luckily I have never hit anyone but we have had a few choice words.

I hope the lady in question has a speedy recovery

Baron Kurtz

traprunner wrote: »

It has been asked of others when licences are mentioned. How would it work? I'm genuinely interested as no one has been able to come up with anything that sounds workable.

As am I. It doesn't seem like something that would be too hard to introduce or manage. In theory at least. The practicalities in enforcement would cause too much difficulty I'd imagine, so by that token it would be overlooked as an option.

endacl

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

As am I. It doesn't seem like something that would be too hard to introduce or manage. In theory at least. The practicalities in enforcement would cause too much difficulty I'd imagine, so by that token it would be overlooked as an option.

What class of a license would you suggest for a 6 year old...?

Tarabuses

micar wrote: »

Exactly, the pedestrian may have walk out onto the road without looking.

It cannot be assumed that 1) cyclist went through a red light or 2) he was cycling too fast.

I have had people walk out in front to me. Luckily I have never hit anyone but we have had a few choice words.

I hope the lady in question has a speedy recovery

If you read posts 1 and 3 you will see that the incident was witnessed by the OP. There is no question of the pedestrian having walked out into the road without looking. For you to suggest this about a women who has been seriously injured is outrageous.

I am also taken aback by the report that the cyclist was distraught at the lady's condition but then left the scene.

Hrududu

beauf wrote: »

Where did you get that from? I never saw it published who was at fault. Can you post a link, thx.

Reports say cyclist was in cycle lane when he collided with the pedestrian. There don't seem to be any more details than that though

http://utv.ie/News/2016/05/05/Cyclist-dies-after-Phoenix-Park-pedestrian-collision-58489

micar

micar wrote: »

Exactly, the pedestrian may have walk out onto the road without looking.

It cannot be assumed that 1) cyclist went through a red light or 2) he was cycling too fast.

I have had people walk out in front to me. Luckily I have never hit anyone but we have had a few choice words.

I hope the lady in question has a speedy recovery

Tarabuses wrote: »

If you read posts 1 and 3 you will see that the incident was witnessed by the OP. There is no question of the pedestrian having walked out into the road without looking. For you to suggest this about a women who has been seriously injured is outrageous.

I am also taken aback by the report that the cyclist was distraught at the lady's condition but then left the scene.

He does not specifically say he witnessed the incident.

seamus

Tarabuses wrote: »

I am also taken aback by the report that the cyclist was distraught at the lady's condition but then left the scene.

I'm surprised, but not that surprised.

Fight or flight. Many peoples' first instinct when they accidentally injure another person is to run. Pure adrenaline takes over. Happens with all kinds of road users, all the time.