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.