Journalism and cycling

2 Wheels Good

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Why protection only for people who happen to use a bike at the weekends?

Check his timeline, he's focusing on this for this discussion as there's been a few accidents lately. Not ignoring commuting cyclists or anything like that.

Annie get your Run

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

Check his timeline, he's focusing on this for this discussion as there's been a few accidents lately. Not ignoring commuting cyclists or anything like that.

In fact he's just said he will focus on that later in the week. Am pleasantly surprised by Conor Faulknans comments, that idiot they had on the phone though :rolleyes:

mr spuckler

i only caught the end of it - that caller was hilarious.

his rationalisation of the insurance debate was almost like he was slowly coming to the correct conclusion in his own head as he spoke!

Chuchote

Road 'accidents' are greatest killers of the young worldwide

http://www.thejournal.ie/road-deaths-young-people-3391615-May2017/

ROAD TRAFFIC INJURIES are the main cause of the death of young people, a global study by the World Health Organization (WHO) has found.
In 2015, road injuries were the leading cause of adolescent death among 10- to 19-year-olds, resulting in approximately 115,000 adolescent deaths (88,590 of these deaths were boys or young men).
Most young people killed in road crashes were vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
The WHO report, Global accelerated action for the health of adolescents (AA-HA!): Guidance to support country implementation, found that more than 3,000 adolescents die every day, totalling 1.2 million deaths a year.

radia

Weepsie wrote: »

radia wrote: »

[*]They are usually a pain in the hole to join or leave unless you've a mountain bike, as there are fixed entry and exit points. This means that either you get stuck behind someone or, if you use the road to overtake or simply maintain a brisk pace, you've a load of motorists upset that you're not in the cycle track.

Now there are plenty of pros and cons of separated bike lanes, and this is one I hear a lot.

Cyclists tell drivers all the time to just wait patiently until it's safe to overtake. It's the same for cyclists. Just wait, a chance will come. There's an awful lot of looking down on other people because they are for whatever reason going slower than others would like.

Just to be clear, I'm not bothered about people going slowly in the cycle track, and certainly don't look down on them. If that's the pace they want to travel at, and the surface where they want to cycle, good for them. The point I'm trying to make is that the road is there for faster cyclists to travel on, overtaking the slower ones safely as you've proposed. However, unfortunately the existence of the cycle track makes motorists feel - wrongly - that cyclists have no right to be on that road. As Annie has pointed out, there is often no space on the cycle track to overtake at all, so it's not a question of being patient and waiting on the cycle track until it's safe to overtake; the road is the correct place to make the overtaking manoeuvre. It's legal to do so, and safe to do so when all road users behave as they should. However, the existence of the cycle track makes it less safe by changing the motorists' perspective.

Annie get your Run

Weepsie wrote: »

My point was that if we are asking for patience from road users when on roads, we should expect to enable the same patience in ourselves if we are on a road, or bike path or whatever. The conditions don't allow you to overtake, so what, when they do then overtake where and when it is safe to do so.

If there are well built lanes, this shouldn't be an issue though, though they should remain optional unless they're absolutely perfect.

Absolutely, I don't disagree with that, nor do I look down at those cycling slower (indeed I'm passed early and often!) but in many cases (with the raised lanes) there is zero opportunity to overtake, zero. You're absolutely right too about them staying optional until they are up to standard which currently many of them are not.

Annie get your Run

rubadub wrote: »

I expect him to look behind to check incase someone is passing and give some sort of indication, many people do this. Or they are looking well ahead and see it coming and move slowly outwards.

If only we had enough advance warning that we need to swerve out!! Many times the hole or whatever is in the way is only visible as you're coming onto/into it. You're trying to look ahead at traffic and traffic lights, use peripheral vision to see what's coming left/right and then look down at the road to see potholes and obstacles. Cut some slack. The RSA says 'expect the unexpected' bicycles swerve, you should account for that in your overtake (hence the suggestion of 1.5m passing distance.

Tenzor07

Wow, the legal vultures really do look at every little detail to avoid a pay out!

Cyclist-who-suffered-traumatic-brain-injury-in-van-crash-settles-case-for-3million

In the High Court on Tuesday, Mr Dorscan's counsel said liability in the case was conceded except for the fact that Mr Doroscan was not wearing a cycle helmet.
Counsel said while a helmet was not legally required, it had to be taken in to account in the assessment of the case and would account for about 20% contributory negligence on the part of Mr Doroscan.

Chuchote

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wow, the legal vultures really do look at every little detail to avoid a pay out!

Cyclist-who-suffered-traumatic-brain-injury-in-van-crash-settles-case-for-3million

It's odd, really; I wonder if comparable claims were made about seatbelts before they were compulsory.

Chiparus

Chuchote wrote: »

It's odd, really; I wonder if comparable claims were made about seatbelts before they were compulsory.

Thats just council for the defendant ( you and me) chancing his arm trying to reduce the award, but I doubt it would have any impact.

Chuchote

Man with cerebral palsy cycling across Ireland on a modified bike

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/its-absolutely-amazing-this-disabled-man-is-cycling-across-ireland-on-a-modified-bike-35722560.html

Chuchote

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drivers-do-not-own-the-road-450174.html

The Road Safety Authority has urged motorists to share the road with bicycle users, as the number of cyclists killed on Irish roads so far in 2017 is now more than twice what it was this time last year.

The death of Donal O’Brien, who was killed in Cork when he was in an accident with a car while on his bicycle on Sunday, brings to eight the number of cyclists who died following a collision so far this year. Ten cyclists died in total in 2016.

Brian Farrell, RSA communications manager, said it is positive to see an increase in the number of those taking to the roads on a bicycle because of the benefits to cyclists’ health and the environment. However he said the greater numbers of cyclists means a greater risk that a cyclist could be injured.

“There’s a huge job to be done, with drivers in particular,” he said, adding that motorists need to realise that they do not “own the road”.

“Drivers don’t have exclusive rights to the road,” he said.

(snip)

Chuchote

What happens to traffic if it's diverted away from a street to build a cycleway or pedestrianise? It 'evaporates':

http://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/05/16/david-so-where-will-all-the-city-centre-traffic-go/

The Liffey Cycle Route, the north and south quays traffic-management changes, and the College Green Plaza scheme are cases in point.

In all of these situations, Dublin City Council appears to be proposing to redirect amounts of car traffic from familiar and heavily trafficked routes into, sometimes, residential areas.

* * *

So where will all the traffic go? It evaporates, right?

Actually it does. Not very scientific sounding, or even helpful, many might think. But there is a sound basis for this counter-intuitive idea, and lots of evidence to support it too.

Traffic reduction, or “traffic evaporation”, as it is increasingly referred to, is a recognised effect of traffic-management schemes. And the point of it is that, when executed well in cities with good policies, the traffic doesn’t divert onto nearby streets, it disappears or, indeed, evaporates.

This is not conjecture or wordplay. It is based on hard evidence and the experience of other cities. And there is a reason for it.

<snip>

Dealing with any issue requires perspective. In all of the traffic restrictions proposed by the council, the number of cars involved is very low. The M50 carries 12,000 vehicles per hour at its peak. But on the Liffey quays there are fewer than 500 cars per hour heading inbound.

Importantly, there are 120 buses per hour going inbound on the quays too. Those buses can take up to 10,000 people into the city. Therefore it is a false economy to argue for increased priority for cars.

Retail and commercial groups that do so are, in real terms, doing their members a disservice. Councillors who do so need to think seriously about the huge numbers of people living in west Dublin, who rely on the bus.

<snip>

An important UK study, by eminent Professor Phil Goodwin and others, from 1998 and updated in 2002, shows that where such traffic-management schemes have been put in place, actually very little traffic redirects onto nearby streets.

<snip>

Traffic surveys by Dublin City Council suggest that more than 40 percent of car traffic on the quays is going straight through the city and out the other side.

<snip science stuff>

This is how it is possible for traffic levels in the surrounding areas to drop. The improved public transport literally sucks in car trips from these areas.

Put simply, if a new restriction is put in place, few sensible people will drive all the way to it. Most will change their journey plan before they depart.

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drivers-do-not-own-the-road-450174.html

i think this quote is really significant and should be all that's needed in any reply to a comment about cyclists breaking red lights / rotr etc.

The RSA’s research shows that 80% of motorists break the 50kmph speed limit and that drivers are becoming increasingly distracted by mobile phones and children in their cars.

what_traffic

Chuchote wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drivers-do-not-own-the-road-450174.html

Depressing that Brian Farrell, RSA communications manager does not understand statistics or risk.

However he said the greater numbers of cyclists means a greater risk that a cyclist could be injured.

Tombo2001

“Cyclists are entitled to cycle two abreast,” he said, “you would hope that they would show common sense and pull in where they can to let a car pass, but they are entitled to cycle two abreast unless passing parked cars.”

What does this mean exactly in Bold.....

Why does he need to say that?

Its the law, they are entitled to do it.

Its only 'common sense' if the driver behind them is someone who doesn't observe the rules of the road. Its not a cyclists job to help a motorist get to their destination quicker.

rubadub

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Are you expecting the chap on the bike to go through the potholes in case someone might be overtaking within the same lane? The responsibility for a same overtake lies with the overtaker, not the overtaken.

I expect them not to wrecklessly risk their own life and others. To have some cop on, many do not.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Not a frequent user of cycle lanes, but I'd only look behind me. I don't indicate if I'm staying within the lane. If it's a defect or a piece of road furniture, I might point at it though.

Looking behind you in itself is an indication at least. But if you are intending to do absolutely nothing I am not sure why you look around in the first place.

I hope and expect it is not true, but from your posts it would sound like if you suddenly come across a pothole on the cycletrack, and plan to swerve out to avoid it, you might look behind you -but if you see a lad on the verge of overtaking you, you are not responsible for him, so continue to swerve out anyway. I guess/hope you would not do this, but it is what I am talking about.

Very often the obstacle can be avoided by moving to one side or the other of the lane, if I look behind and see a lad belting along likely to try and pass me I move in out of his way, avoiding both him and the obstacle, this may leave me with less room than if I moved the other way. But unlike your rules I do take reponsibility as the potential "overtaken".

Annie get your Run wrote: »

The RSA says 'expect the unexpected' bicycles swerve, you should account for that in your overtake (hence the suggestion of 1.5m passing distance.

Unfortunately there is very rarely 1.5m passing distance available on the cycletracks, which is specicially what I was talking about, so this is why people complain and why it is not very similar to cars having to wait to pass. I have taken to going up grass verges on the N11 to avoid them, I am not sure if this is legal though as I guess they may be techincally footpaths.

Some people are swerving all the time, say yet another arsehole this morning cycling along with no hands on the handlebars for no reason at all, prick swerving all over the place.

Weepsie

rubadub wrote: »

I expect them not to wrecklessly risk their own life and others. To have some cop on, many do not.


Looking behind you in itself is an indication at least. But if you are intending to do absolutely nothing I am not sure why you look around in the first place.

You should be checking over your shoulder regularly, not just if you are intending to move out.

It would also be reckless to go through a pot hole, could cause serious damage to self, bike and can possibly cause an even worse accident.

I hope and expect it is not true, but from your posts it would sound like if you suddenly come across a pothole on the cycletrack, and plan to swerve out to avoid it, you might look behind you -but if you see a lad on the verge of overtaking you, you are not responsible for him, so continue to swerve out anyway. I guess/hope you would not do this, but it is what I am talking about.

Precisely, the person overtaking should be giving enough room, time and space so that if the person on front of them has to correct themselves or move out that they can either safely stop their overtake, or give the required room.

The onus is on the overtaking party to ensure they are giving more than enough room should the unexpected happen.

Grassey

Brian Farrell, RSA communications manager, said it is positive to see an increase in the number of those taking to the roads on a bicycle because of the benefits to cyclists’ health and the environment.

So nothing to do with it being a more efficient way to commute/travel through the city? It's simply that I'm a tree hugging health freak?

they are entitled to cycle two abreast unless passing parked cars.

That's a new one to me - unless he means overtaking a car parked in a cycle lane?

rubadub

Weepsie wrote: »

You should be checking over your shoulder regularly, not just if you are intending to move out.

Why? again I am talking about off road cycle tracks here, like on the N11. What are you looking behind to see? some are saying the responsibility is all on the person behind, so why bother your hole if you are not going to cycle any differently.

I do look behind regularly BTW.

Weepsie wrote: »

It would also be reckless to go through a pot hole, could cause serious damage to self, bike and can possibly cause an even worse accident.

Of course it could, and often the obstacle is very trivial and would cause far less issue to cycle over (or swerve to the otherside) rather than swerve out into the path of a guy overtaking at breakneck speed. Or you (well me anyway) might decide to avoid it but not give it such a wide berth. The other poster sounded like he looks behind but then does nothing different.

Weepsie wrote: »

The onus is on the overtaking party to ensure they are giving more than enough room should the unexpected happen.

I wonder if anyone follows the 1.5m advice on cycletracks, I have never come across a guy on a roadbike in all the gear stuck behind a granny on a bike on the N11 waiting for 1.5m to pass. I doubt these guys are going up the grass verges like me. They can unexpectedly swerve at any time, so there is rarely ever "more than enough room". Maybe this is why some stick to the roads instead, so they can follow their 1.5m rule.

Chuchote

rubadub wrote: »

I wonder if anyone follows the 1.5m advice on cycletracks, I have never come across a guy on a roadbike in all the gear stuck behind a granny on a bike on the N11 waiting for 1.5m to pass. I doubt these guys are going up the grass verges like me. They can unexpectedly swerve at any time, so there is rarely ever "more than enough room". Maybe this is why some stick to the roads instead, so they can follow their 1.5m rule.

Surely the 1.5m is passing distance for a car passing a bike?

magicbastarder

Grassey wrote: »

So nothing to do with it being a more efficient way to commute/travel through the city? It's simply that I'm a tree hugging health freak?

not mentioning them is not the same as denying/excluding them.

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

You should be checking over your shoulder regularly, not just if you are intending to move out.

rubadub wrote: »

Why? again I am talking about off road cycle tracks here, like on the N11. What are you looking behind to see? some are saying the responsibility is all on the person behind, so why bother your hole if you are not going to cycle any differently.

I do look behind regularly BTW.

Because it is good practice, alerts you to potential issues coming from behind that you may not realise. Alerts you to other traffic behind that you can be mentally prepared for an overtake. Alerts you to emergency vehicles with the blues on but no siren so you can give way to them. Alerts you to potential dangerous drivers. Warns you of potentially dangerous cyclists half wheeling you.

Just because you are not responsible for those behind you, does not mean you shouldn't be prepared for them.

Came up in a Garda statement where the Garda asked how I knew the bus was approaching from behind at speed. I explained where I was when I first saw the bus, the speed I was doing and when the bus came past. It had to have been speeding to cover the distance in that space of time. Now obviously not scientific but it gave the garda a good impression of my road awareness and the style of driving of the bus. Backed up by Helmet cam footage (which oddly, does not always make it clear when you are looking behind).

magicbastarder

on a cycle track i would occasionally check behind me to confirm i'm not holding other, faster cyclists up.

rubadub

CramCycle wrote: »

Just because you are not responsible for those behind you, does not mean you shouldn't be prepared for them.

Yep, but sounded like the other poster looks behind and doesn't change anything he is doing. "being prepared" sounds like you are going to potentially change your future actions, and that is what I am getting at being somewhat repsonsible for what may happen, for your own sake and others.

magicbastarder wrote: »

on a cycle track i would occasionally check behind me to confirm i'm not holding other, faster cyclists up.

+1, and I stick to a straight line, rather than being a needlessly wandering daydreaming prick taking in the sights and shrugging off all responsilibilty.

Grassey

magicbastarder wrote: »

not mentioning them is not the same as denying/excluding them.

Agreed, though it is odd to highlight those two benefits to cycling as the reason for the increase in cycling. Saying that its positive to see an increase in cyclists on the roads because it's a viable alternative for short distance journeys etc would do much more for the image of cycling as fellow road users over linking it to health and environmental reasons.

I'd an conversation in work in relation to the 30km speed roll out a while back, with a colleague saying it'll be bedlam for commuters. I suggested it'd have no impact, and pointed out when I drive to work my average speed is <10km/h, when I cycle it's >20 km/h, therefore I save a minimum of 1 hour every day by not sitting in the car. The response was 'well you're into all that sporty stuff' - not that I was choosing a better mode of transport to get to work.

Tombo2001

Grassey wrote: »

Agreed, though it is odd to highlight those two benefits to cycling as the reason for the increase in cycling. Saying that its positive to see an increase in cyclists on the roads because it's a viable alternative for short distance journeys etc would do much more for the image of cycling as fellow road users over linking it to health and environmental reasons.

I'd an conversation in work in relation to the 30km speed roll out a while back, with a colleague saying it'll be bedlam for commuters. I suggested it'd have no impact, and pointed out when I drive to work my average speed is <10km/h, when I cycle it's >20 km/h, therefore I save a minimum of 1 hour every day by not sitting in the car. The response was 'well you're into all that sporty stuff' - not that I was choosing a better mode of transport to get to work.

Its funny the attitude people have.

Commute cycling could really to with a proper marketing campaign.

E.g. for anyone trying to lose weight, its the first thing I would tell them to do.

Chuchote

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its funny the attitude people have.

Commute cycling could really to with a proper marketing campaign.

E.g. for anyone trying to lose weight, its the first thing I would tell them to do.

Yeah, our leaders are moving towards a big obesity drive; my guess is that this will be diet-centred with movement towards gastric band surgery

Fian

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its funny the attitude people have.

Commute cycling could really to with a proper marketing campaign.

E.g. for anyone trying to lose weight, its the first thing I would tell them to do.

I have lost weight since i took up cycling, but I remain overweight. Just no longer (mildly) obese.

I started by a happy accident, I moved closer to town while our house was being extended, closer than my 7km current commute and decided cycling was sensible. I had moved to just outside the canal and it was an easy walk to work, never mind an easy cycle. By the time I moved back to Dundrum I realised that cycling was a more pleasant commute than the Luas.

Before that I would honestly have believed that a 7km cycle was beyond my abilities. It is hard to imagine how I believed that looking back, but I know it is the case.

And maybe there was even an element of truth in it, absurd as that sounds to me now. I can climb to the Sally gap nowadays, but when I did start cycling from Dundrum actually got off the bike and walked up the "hill" passing our lady's grove school in Clonskeagh. Nowadays I hardly register that as an incline, certainly not as a remotely challenging climb.

It is easy to forget how daunting a cycle commute can sound to someone who is not in the habit of getting on a bike.

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

not mentioning them is not the same as denying/excluding them.

Perhaps, but Grassey has a point, given the all pervasive congestion issues in urban areas it was odd not to see efficiency head-lined as well. And what about economy? It's a poor look-out if the RSA can't pinpoint the major advantages of cycling for the individual and for society