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

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.

Nisio

The cyclist did not leave the scene,he was there when the emergency services arrived

The op was asked an either/or question and replied "he did".

CatFromHue

I don't see tests or licences for cyclists making much difference. We've both for cars and motor bikes and they regularly break the rules of the road too.

Baron Kurtz

endacl wrote: »

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

Part of the difficulty already mentioned I suppose. Licensing after the age of 16 might be appropriate, so by that rationale people over that age shouldn't cycle in a fashion with the mindset of a 6 year old. Y'know, things like that. It won't be a black and white rule of thumb. Any suggestions yourself?

SteM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Sorry, did the cyclist leave the scene or not?......

TheExile1878 wrote: »

He did, and he seemed distraught when the extent of the lady’scondition was seen....

Nisio wrote: »

The cyclist did not leave the scene,he was there when the emergency services arrived

The op was asked an either/or question and replied "he did".

This reads to me that the cyclist left the scenic the accident.

Nisio

SteM wrote:

This reads to me that the cyclist left the scenic the accident.

I was there this morning, the cyclist didn't leave the scene.

SteM

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

Part of the difficulty already mentioned I suppose. Licensing after the age of 16 might be appropriate, so by that rationale people over that age shouldn't cycle in a fashion with the mindset of a 6 year old. Y'know, things like that. It won't be a black and white rule of thumb. Any suggestions yourself?

No point in doing a licence at the age of 16. Most kids have 11+ years of cycling bad habits under their belt at that stage. Safe cycling has to be drilled into kids at early age.

SteM

Nisio wrote: »

I was there this morning, the cyclist didn't leave the scene.

I'm just quoting what the OP said. You should bring it up with them.

MarkAnthony

cython wrote: »

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.

Certainly an anomaly that probably needs to be closed these days.

traprunner

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Certainly an anomaly that probably needs to be closed these days.

So how would that be implemented? Any why implement something that's not actually an issue?

MarkAnthony

traprunner wrote: »

So how would that be implemented?

Simply set up speed traps and fine cyclists on the spot. If not the bike is seized.

There seems to be a bit of a cyclist centric attitude to these speed reductions. They're there to protect vulnerable pedestrians as much as cyclists. Why would we want one group of road users to be able to do more than the set limit?