Journalism and cycling

Weepsie

I've linked to some of those solutions before as have others. It's too simple a solution to be be allowed work in Ireland though

schemingbohemia

tomasrojo wrote: »

Phil Skelton's article is very well put. One small error, about Dublin Bikes:



There was one fatality, but there have been many millions of trips.

One other:


They're designed so that the liner will crush at impact speeds (as in, impact speed of the helmet on a hard surface, not the speed of the rider) of 20km/h or lower without breaking. That's the test you have to pass to sell your helmet in the EU. I've never really been clear whether helmets splitting is of benefit. They're certainly not supposed to do it a low speeds.

When was this? I don't recall that.

ThisRegard

schemingbohemia wrote: »

When was this? I don't recall that.

I think it was a foreign student late one night a few years ago. At the time the coroner recommended that helmets be made mandatory, council said it wasn't feasible.

HivemindXX

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think it was a foreign student late one night a few years ago. At the time the coroner recommended that helmets be made mandatory, council said it wasn't feasible.

I tried to find the incident online but I couldn't. If I remember correctly this seemed to be an incident in which the cyclist braked sharply and fell hitting their head on the bumper of the car in front of them. This is actually the sort of thing helmets are supposed to be effective against.

Chuchote

HivemindXX wrote: »

I tried to find the incident online but I couldn't. If I remember correctly this seemed to be an incident in which the cyclist braked sharply and fell hitting their head on the bumper of the car in front of them. This is actually the sort of thing helmets are supposed to be effective against.

http://www.herald.ie/news/coroner-calls-for-helmets-in-bike-scheme-28015243.html

Coroner calls for helmets in bike scheme
Fiona Dillon – 15 August 2012 04:00 PM

CITY officials will consider making helmets available for hire as part of the city bikes scheme.

The city coroner Dr Brian Farrell said recently that he would write to the council recommending they examine the possibility of making helmets available for hire with the dublinbikes scheme.

His remarks came at the inquest into the death of a 21-year-old Brazilian man who was not wearing a helmet when he sustained fatal head injuries after hiring a dublinbike.

Leonardo Souza da Silva, a medical student, died when he fell off his bike and hit the rear bumper of a taxi while cycling home after a night out.

HivemindXX

Dublin Bikes latest figures show 15 million journeys up to September last year with an average duration of 14 minutes (surprisingly low) giving a total of 3.5 million hours usage. If we guess at 10kph as a fairly conservative average speed for a Dublin bike through the city centre that is still 35 million kilometres travelled. One fatality does not seem like an urgent enough issue to mandate compulsory helmets for all.

I remember wondering at the time how much alcohol the cyclist had consumed. The article says "after a night out" which is often code for "from the pub" but there was no mention of alcohol levels only the lack of a helmet.

rubadub

Chuchote wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/coroner-calls-for-helmets-in-bike-scheme-28015243.html

they don't even mention the fact that he was drinking! unless you consider "a night out" to be a euphemism for drinking alcohol.

Imagine a driver over the limit died of head injuries, the article would be going on and on about the alcohol, and of course never dare suggest a driver could have survived if wearing a helmet. Nor pedestrians, even though mandatory drinking helmets should make far more sense to these coroners and A&E types who call for mandatory helmets for cyclists.

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php/topic,20366.0.html

A BRAZILIAN medical student died when he fell off his bike and hit the rear bumper of a taxi while cycling home after a night out, an inquest has heard.

Leonardo Souza da Silva (21), from Marilia in Brazil but living in Lower Gardiner Street in Dublin?s city centre, had come to Ireland to improve his English. He died at St James?s Hospital on June 22nd last year after sustaining severe head injuries. Mr da Silva had hired a Dublin Bike and was not wearing a helmet.

Dublin Coroner?s Court heard yesterday that he had been drinking with friends at Dicey Reilly?s Bar on Harcourt Street. Pedro Germeno, in his deposition to the court, described Mr da Silva as being ?not drunk but not sober? when they left the bar after 11pm. They hired Dublin Bikes at the station on St Stephen?s Green with the intention of cycling home.

However, on Westmoreland Street Mr da Silva was cycling between cars when he appeared to lose control of the bike. Wet conditions had made the road slippery, the court heard.

He was seen tumbling over the handlebars, landing on the road and banging his head into the back of a stationary taxi. Another taxi driver said he saw Mr da Silva hit his head off the rear bumper of the stationary taxi and then attempt to sit up before falling back down and hitting his head off the ground.

It became clear in hospital that the incident had left Mr da Silva brain dead and his mother gave permission over the telephone to withdraw life support. The autopsy found that Mr da Silva had suffered severe head injuries causing bleeding around and inside the brain.

The jury returned a verdict of accidental death in which alcohol and road conditions may have played a role. Coroner Dr Brian Farrell will write to Dublin City Council recommending they examine the possibility of making helmets available for hire with the Dublin Bikes Scheme.

He will also recommend that safety information be prominently displayed at bike stations.

Dr Mike McKillen of the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after the hearing that what happened to Mr da Silva was ?one of the few cases? where a helmet would have saved a cyclist?s life.

Most cyclists die from injuries to their lower bodies after being ?crushed under a bus or truck?, he said. A helmet rental scheme was ?not feasible and practical? with public bicycles, he added, citing hygiene problems.

Helmets send the wrong signals to drivers because the more cyclists are dressed in protective armour the closer motorists will drive to them, he said.

The bike scheme had helped safety as it has a ?critical mass? effect, he said.

Barbara O?Connell of Acquired Brain Injury Ireland said she would like to see the helmet rental scheme introduced or see people bringing their own helmets for use on Dublin Bikes.

A helmet ?not only reduces the risk of brain injury but the severity?, said Ms O?Connell.

So far this year seven cyclists have been killed on the roads, compared to nine in the whole of 2010, seven in 2009 and 10 in 2008.

The council said it gives ?full consideration? to all recommendations made by the coroner?s court.

Saw this recently
Alcohol: obscuring the outcomes of helmet research?

When Crocker, Zad, Milling and Lawson, 2010 commenced their research, they expected to show a link between the non-use of cycling helmets and a heightened risk of head injury. An early press release (Seaton, 2008) (removed by the authors, after the commentary on their paper was submitted for peer-review) claimed: ?preliminary results of a year-long study that indicates cyclists are nearly twice as likely to suffer a brain injury if they are not wearing a bicycle helmet?.

However, as the research progressed, it became clear that the strongest link with head injury was not helmets but alcohol use by cyclists. Of 40 alcohol-affected cyclists, 57.5% had head injuries, compared to 29.5% of cyclists who had not used alcohol, a highly significant difference. In fact, the research found no significant relationship between helmet use and head injury for sober cyclists. It just so happened that all the intoxicated cyclists except one did not wear a helmet.

schemingbohemia

HivemindXX wrote: »

Dublin Bikes latest figures show 15 million journeys up to September last year with an average duration of 14 minutes (surprisingly low) giving a total of 3.5 million hours usage. If we guess at 10kph as a fairly conservative average speed for a Dublin bike through the city centre that is still 35 million kilometres travelled. One fatality does not seem like an urgent enough issue to mandate compulsory helmets for all.

I remember wondering at the time how much alcohol the cyclist had consumed. The article says "after a night out" which is often code for "from the pub" but there was no mention of alcohol levels only the lack of a helmet.

I'd think my own usage of DB would be around that average or even a bit less. If you think about it cycling between the farthest extremities of the scheme would probably take 30 minutes max and very few people would do that.

mr spuckler

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I'd think my own usage of DB would be around that average or even a bit less. If you think about it cycling between the farthest extremities of the scheme would probably take 30 minutes max and very few people would do that.

yip mine would be similar, really where it's just outside easy walking distance.

although i did incur a €1.50 fee last week for an overuse :eek:

tomasrojo

I have taken a Dublin Bike out for a few hours more than once. Basically, was nowhere near any of my own bikes, and decided that I might as well make a trip I had to make to the suburbs on a Dublin Bike as use public transport. About the same price for the return trip (or cheaper, can't remember), faster and more reliable.

Not sure what I'd have done had I got a puncture out in the suburbs though!

Chuchote

I'm a DublinBikes member, but there are no stations in the run from Christ Church up Clanbrassil Street to Emmet Bridge, nor are any planned, in an area full of tech startups and heavily residential, and with the highest cycling numbers in Dublin city. Very bizarre!

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

I'm a DublinBikes member, but there are no stations in the run from Christ Church up Clanbrassil Street to Emmet Bridge, nor are any planned, in an area full of tech startups and heavily residential, and with the highest cycling numbers in Dublin city. Very bizarre!

no it seems to be all about granegorman at the moment...

Tenzor07

Nice write up here by Cian Ginty, I think from my own observations that the Amber gambling is now expected in Dublin.. I made it through the amber light myself this morning in the car, but looked behind to see two more cars kept going through the red...


why-do-we-turn-a-blind-eye-to-motorists-breaking-red-lights

Pinch Flat

I would say at this stage breaking red lights by motorists is virtually 100% in Dublin, the numbers that follow seem to be getting more and more. Anywhere between one and five cars skipping a junction is not unusual.

The reason we ignore it is because we're a car dominated society that sees cyclists as the issue.

rubadub

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I think from my own observations that the Amber gambling is now expected in Dublin.

It's red gambling now, paddy power would refuse a bet on a amber being broken!

At the newish junction where leopardstown roundabout was it is comical. The amber is showing for a good while, but they still casually go through the red for several seconds after. Looks even more weird as you might get one car stopping the moment it sees amber, yet the other lane is going for what seems like ages.

There are a few lights on my route that got new timing sequences in the last year or so, and they are definitely programmed to expect people breaking reds, i.e. the light goes red and the subsequent green takes a good few seconds more to come on.

Tenzor07

rubadub wrote: »

There are a few lights on my route that got new timing sequences in the last year or so, and they are definitely programmed to expect people breaking reds, i.e. the light goes red and the subsequent green takes a good few seconds more to come on.

People may have copped onto that and take advantage of it?

I think now the reason a driver should go through a red is so they don't get rear ended by the clown driving behind them who thinks Amber means go faster?

I caught the cyclists favorite, the Taxi driver, going through a red and I let a roar at him, the face on him when I did that!

V-man

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I caught the cyclists favorite, the Taxi driver, going through a red and I let a roar at him, the face on him when I did that!

Once a Taxi cut me off and gave me the usual foul language.
Next moment I was sitting inside and suddenly he became very friendly (I am a tall guy that used to spend 3 hours a day on my bike and gym )
Now a bit older, wiser and no longer in the same shape so use a camera instead.

rubadub

Tenzor07 wrote: »

People may have copped onto that and take advantage of it?

Some do, some don't. So it is needlessly delaying traffic as you have many cars at a halt while others are driving for 5-10seconds. If all of them broke the reds it would be just like it was. I would like to see more timers on lights which would speed things up.

Lights on the old times would be going green soon after the other is red, but then you get people breaking reds thinking they still have ages left.

It is like the people programming have actually been told "red is the new amber"

CramCycle

rubadub wrote: »

Some do, some don't. So it is needlessly delaying traffic as you have many cars at a halt while others are driving for 5-10seconds. If all of them broke the reds it would be just like it was. I would like to see more timers on lights which would speed things up.

Lights on the old times would be going green soon after the other is red, but then you get people breaking reds thinking they still have ages left.

It is like the people programming have actually been told "red is the new amber"

I think it was an effort by road engineers to reduce accidents in their genius mindset. Once it goes Amber, it should only stay red on the crossing for the amount of time it takes a slow moving cyclist to get through the junction. ANPR should be on for anyone who crosses the line after it is Amber and the crossing lights should go Green immediately on the red.

All it really has done is make traffic for motorists worse. Funnily those who do it to save time presumably, unaware that because of their actions and people like them, it is worse for everyone.

blackwhite

I must be one of the few drivers (and from my own experience I seem to be) who won't break a red light, or proceed on amber if there's sufficient time/distance to safely stop. I do the same when cycling (although I'll admit to being somewhat less dilligent with pedestrian crossings/lights when I'm on foot :P)

I've had more than one passenger in the car go to me "You could have made it there" when the light was red, not even amber, well before I reached it.
I've had more than one fellow cyclist shoot past me when stopping at a red, whilst cursing at me for stopping (most times the 2nd part happened was on Grand Canal cycle path).

It seems to be ingrained into most people's minds at this stage (driver, cyclist and pedestrian alike) - keep going unless you might get hit.

blackwhite

CramCycle wrote: »

I think it was an effort by road engineers to reduce accidents in their genius mindset. Once it goes Amber, it should only stay red on the crossing for the amount of time it takes a slow moving cyclist to get through the junction. ANPR should be on for anyone who crosses the line after it is Amber and the crossing lights should go Green immediately on the red.

All it really has done is make traffic for motorists worse. Funnily those who do it to save time presumably, unaware that because of their actions and people like them, it is worse for everyone.

It's not illegal to proceed through amber if you were too close to stop safely when the lights changed from green.

I'd suggest the above, with amber for as long as it would take a slow cyclist to clear the junction (as you suggested), and ANPR catching any vehicle that hasn't cleared the junction when the lights turn red, bar maybe traffic that was waiting for a gap to turn right (i.e. anyone caught would have had ample time to see amber and stop safely).

cdaly_

CramCycle wrote: »

ANPR should be on for anyone who crosses the line after it is Amber

blackwhite wrote: »

It's not illegal to proceed through amber if you were too close to stop safely when the lights changed from green.

But ANPR could be used to build up a picture of those who habitually break Amber and that could be used to justify an increased fine/points when the same driver breaks Red.

Macy0161

tbh, I'd settle for widespread ANPR for clear red lights. A bit like reductions in drink drive limits, I prefer the approach of getting a certain amount of compliance first. Also, it's one of those self perpetuating things - our light sequences are so long because of the driver behaviour/ habit of breaking reds. The more people do it, the more it's engineered into the sequence, and the less compliance we get (such as the leopardstown example above).

I've been beeped out of it for stopping at amber several times. And not to say I have a halo when in the car, when I have felt I've been a bit of an amber gambler, I'm always a bit shocked how many have come through behind. One of the things that gets my goat up so much about "all cyclists" red light jumping!

Roadhawk

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Nice write up here by Cian Ginty, I think from my own observations that the Amber gambling is now expected in Dublin.. I made it through the amber light myself this morning in the car, but looked behind to see two more cars kept going through the red...


why-do-we-turn-a-blind-eye-to-motorists-breaking-red-lights

From what i can the the silver nissan is the only vehicle that actually broke the red light...marginal, but broke it nonetheless. You cant tell from the pictures provided if the silver Mercedes broke the red light or not...you can definitely say they went through an amber or red. Altough they may have had time to stop after seeing the lights change to amber its not illegal to go through an amber light.

buffalo

Roadhawk wrote: »

From what i can the the silver nissan is the only vehicle that actually broke the red light...marginal, but broke it nonetheless. You cant tell from the pictures provided if the silver Mercedes broke the red light or not...you can definitely say they went through an amber or red. Altough they may have had time to stop after seeing the lights change to amber its not illegal to go through an amber light.

It is illegal to go through an amber light. From the RotR: "An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, you must not go beyond the light."

The expected behaviour is to stop. You may only proceed if stopping would be dangerous.

srsly78

You just stated that in certain conditions it is permitted to proceed through the amber light, completely contradicting yourself. Come on ffs, if you are commenting on legal stuff like this then these little details are important!

RayCun

srsly78 wrote: »

You just stated that in certain conditions it is permitted to proceed through the amber light, completely contradicting yourself. Come on ffs, if you are commenting on legal stuff like this then these little details are important!

in certain conditions it is permissible to proceed through a red light

that doesn't mean you can blaze through them

same with amber

rubadub

Roadhawk wrote: »

Altough they may have had time to stop after seeing the lights change to amber its not illegal to go through an amber light.

I thought if they had time to stop (safely) then it was illegal.

So going through an amber can be illegal.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

30 (2) A driver of a vehicle approaching traffic lights in which a non-flashing amber light is illuminated, shall not drive the vehicle past the traffic lights, or past traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] when such sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, save when the vehicle is so close to the traffic lights that it cannot safely be stopped before passing the traffic lights or traffic sign number RRM 017.

srsly78

Yes we all know the law. The problem is the really lazy way people phrase things!

"It is illegal to proceed past an amber light" - this statement is incorrect because it makes a general statement.
"In certain situations it is allowed to proceed past an amber light" - this statement is correct.

Unfortunately the whole concept of correct vs incorrect may also need explanation.

Macy0161

Again I'd suggest if we could stop people going through RED lights, we can worry about ambers!