#StopKillingCyclists - Kildare Street Tuesday 21st 5.30

irishrover99

diomed wrote: »

We also need infrastructure that separates cars and trucks from bicycles and pedestrians.

I agree but while it may be costly, they could start by having a continuous white line between the cycle lanes and car lane. Having a broken white line allows drivers to use it when been held up by cars turning right and in the event of an accident it takes some of the blame out of drivers hands as they can point to been within their rights to use it.
I had this discussion with a driver a few weeks ago who nearly took me off my bike. I just had to point out to him that he should also have checked his mirror and indicated before he done the maneuver.

Macy0161

irishrover99 wrote: »

I agree but while it may be costly, they could start by having a continuous white line between the cycle lanes and car lane. Having a broken white line allows drivers to use it when been held up by cars turning right and in the event of an accident it takes some of the blame out of drivers hands as they can point to been within their rights to use it.

Continuous white only puts the driver in the wrong, but it's never enforced.

Clonskeagh Road has a continuous white line, and it's free for all for cars getting by right turning traffic (and motorbikes filtering up it). I've never seen any enforcement of any road traffic rules on this stretch!

Seth Brundle

1bryan wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

His sister was killed by a lorry. I should have made that clear.

I don't know anything beyond that.

it was the 'beyond that' I wondered about. I'd like to know what his objections are based on.

The Indo was talking to him...

Neil, who is from Naul in Co Dublin, told Independent.ie: "I am in favour of anything that raises awareness about cyclist safety and the need for more funding in the area but personally I found this event very upsetting.

"I thought it was clearly inappropriate and it brought up thoughts of what Donna must have gone through and that's just not an image you want to think of.
"I'm conscious that I'm not the only one who has lost someone in a cycling accident and I just don't think the campaigners were trying to understand what we are going through.

"People are grieving and something like this may just add to their pain, there's a way of doing things but I don't think this is it."

He also said that he has an issue with the name of the Stop Killing Cyclists initiative.

He explained: "There has to be some decency, the name makes it sound like people are intentionally going out and killing cyclists.
"I think it's important to remember that the day Donna died there was another family affected, her death will undoubtedly have had a huge impact on the life of the truck driver.

"As a family we bear no ill feeling towards him at all."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/brother-of-cyclist-killed-in-road-accident-criticises-upsetting-and-insensitive-event-36344352.html

1bryan

kbannon wrote: »

The Indo was talking to him...



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/brother-of-cyclist-killed-in-road-accident-criticises-upsetting-and-insensitive-event-36344352.html

he seems like a really decent guy and well done to him for voicing his opinion. I wonder if he's a cyclist himself. I wonder if that's the difference between him and me and why my opinion differs.

tomasrojo

I follow him on Twitter. He seems a very decent man. I personally don't like die-ins either. I never have. I don't have his reason to dislike them, but I can't get behind them.

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

I follow him on Twitter. He seems a very decent man. I personally don't like die-ins either. I never have. I don't have his reason to dislike them, but I can't get behind them.

Likewise.

Also, I know it may not be popular, but I'm not a big fan of ghost bikes (despite me being an initial supporter) - unless the family of the deceased want one, or it somehow helps them through their grief.

I think die-ins, ghost bikes etc amp up the negative, risky side of cycling out of all proportion to the reality and, paradoxically, by not encouraging as many people to cycle as possible, they make roads less safe for cyclists.

ED E

The other side of this argument is London cyclists did several die ins then things changed. Rather rapidly too.

In their case it was the Mayor that was motivated, in our case its Ross + Councillors.


For example, the site of the latest fatality:
https://twitter.com/kerrycyclingcam/status/933476826470600704
The CoCos have to be reached for issue like that.

jimmycrackcorm

1bryan wrote:

he seems like a really decent guy and well done to him for voicing his opinion. I wonder if he's a cyclist himself. I wonder if that's the difference between him and me and why my opinion differs.

I doubt that he is a cyclist as those of us who have been knocked down or suffered near misses are all too aware that such actions are very necessary.

magicbastarder

ED E wrote: »

The other side of this argument is London cyclists did several die ins then things changed. Rather rapidly too.

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/fianna-fail-cyclist-close-pass/

tomasrojo

Neil Fox is entitled to find die-ins offensive. It doesn't matter whether he personally gets about by bike. I get about by bike, and I don't think I've more right to an opinion about them than he has.

1bryan

tomasrojo wrote: »

Neil Fox is entitled to find die-ins offensive. It doesn't matter whether he personally gets about by bike. I get about by bike, and I don't think I've more right to an opinion about them than he has.

I don't think anyone questioned his right to an opinion. Moreso that his opinion might be different if he were a cyclist himself.

mr spuckler

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I doubt that he is a cyclist as those of us who have been knocked down or suffered near misses are all too aware that such actions are very necessary.

how does that make the opinion of a guy whose sister was killed by a truck less valid?

tomasrojo

1bryan wrote: »

I don't think anyone questioned his right to an opinion. Moreso that his opinion might be different if he were a cyclist himself.

Since his sister's death, he's been a fairly prominent advocate for cyclists to be treated more fairly. His sister was killed because of bad street design. He has more skin in the game than most.

tomasrojo

By the way, I'm very willing to accept that die-ins might be effective. I don't know, and I'm not so arrogant that I'm going to pretend I do.

I just really, really don't like them.

andy69

Can't find it, but I do recall years ago an Ad on the TV (on RTE I'm sure) and it showed people lying down on the road, sheet covering them completely - it was to show the number of road deaths. I guess like a modern day 'die-in' style of campaign, but this was on TV

1bryan

tomasrojo wrote: »

Since his sister's death, he's been a fairly prominent advocate for cyclists to be treated more fairly. His sister was killed because of bad street design. He has more skin in the game than most.

right, and again, no questioned that. This is about one's perspective when forming an opinion. No one is questioning the validity of his opinion or his entitlement to hold one.

bucketybuck

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agree, but its Crap Motorists that kill people.

Thats exactly the sort of definitive, finger pointing statement that just antagonises people. Its "motorists killing people", when in fact the very article you cited earlier states clearly that:

07Lapierre wrote: »

Definitely agree that we need to learn from these fatalities...BUT we already know a lot!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20728611/

"A fatal injury of a cyclist is more often driver's fault than cyclist's (598 vs. 370)"

37% of fatalities are actually caused by the cyclists. Of course motorists may cause more, nobody will deny that at all but 37% is a significant percentage no matter what the discussion. "Motorists kill people", but so did 370 cyclists.

If the idea of these demonstrations is to raise awareness and drive change then there are far better ways of doing so than antagonising through statements such as "stop killing us" or "Motorists are killing people" when its clearly a far more nuanced situation than that.

Macy0161

bucketybuck wrote: »

37% of fatalities are actually caused by the cyclists. Of course motorists may cause more, nobody will deny that at all but 37% is a significant percentage no matter what the discussion. "Motorists kill people", but so did 370 cyclists.

If the idea of these demonstrations is to raise awareness and drive change then there are far better ways of doing so than antagonising through statements such as "stop killing us" or "Motorists are killing people" when its clearly a far more nuanced situation than that.

Based on those stats. Based on the stats this year? Well we are still awaiting court cases and inquests, but charges have been brought in some cases, and significant number have appear to have hit from behind.

mr spuckler

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats exactly the sort of definitive, finger pointing statement that just antagonises people. Its "motorists killing people", when in fact the very article you cited earlier states clearly that:



37% of fatalities are actually caused by the cyclists. Of course motorists may cause more, nobody will deny that at all but 37% is a significant percentage no matter what the discussion. "Motorists kill people", but so did 370 cyclists.

If the idea of these demonstrations is to raise awareness and drive change then there are far better ways of doing so than antagonising through statements such as "stop killing us" or "Motorists are killing people" when its clearly a far more nuanced situation than that.

is the point not that motorists also cause the deaths of other road users (in this case cyclists)? to the best of my knowledge there are no recorded cases in Ireland in the last 15 or so years of a cyclist causing the death of anyone other than themselves.

terrydel

tomasrojo wrote: »

By the way, I'm very willing to accept that die-ins might be effective. I don't know, and I'm not so arrogant that I'm going to pretend I do.

I just really, really don't like them.

Not a huge fan of them but in this particular instance, with a media that already revels in stoking the fires of the cyclist vs motorist phoney war, another log on that fire isnt helpful, and I personally find this to be one. It will probably, with the help of our awful media, create a bigger wedge between 'us' and 'them'.

mr spuckler

terrydel wrote: »

Not a huge fan of them but in this particular instance, with a media that already revels in stoking the fires of the cyclist vs motorist phoney war, another log on that fire isnt helpful, and I personally find this to be one. It will probably, with the help of our awful media, create a bigger wedge between 'us' and 'them'.

potentially. it was also notable how the independent placed far more prominence on the story about Neil Fox's dislike of the approach taken than they did the protest / cause itself.

GreeBo

mr spuckler wrote: »

is the point not that motorists also cause the deaths of other road users (in this case cyclists)? to the best of my knowledge there are no recorded cases in Ireland in the last 15 or so years of a cyclist causing the death of anyone other than themselves.

If cyclists are dying either way, does it really matter?

The point is that people keep dying and we seem unable to prevent it.

CramCycle

diomed wrote: »

A solution must be to take some control from motorists.
Car have cruise control. Cars have GPS with speed limits on the maps.
The move must be to have car speed limited automatically by the car electronics to the speed limit.
We also need infrastructure that separates cars and trucks from bicycles and pedestrians.

I don't think it needsd to go that far, a simple SIM card linked to the GPS and the ability to text the drivers insurance company or the RSA. One would halt almost all speeding if people thought their insurance would jump, the other would highlight typical areas of speeding for gardai to crackdown on, although google maps would be just as good for that.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is there somewhere where the Irish data for causes of cyclist deaths & injuries is published?

Not that I am aware of, even coroners reports are not published, you have to request them and pay a fee. This said inquests are open to the public and typically where newspapers get their info. Alot of other info is available from witnesses, the gardai and regretably knowing people.

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

My understanding is that the data is published too long after the event to be useful or at least current. Inquests and Court Cases happen here a very long time after the events being inquired into. The RSA do some stats but not adequately enough I'm told.

Even without stats re cause and culpability I'd love if by 31st December the RSA or Garda could publish a county map of Ireland with location of all this year's cycle fatalities, time of collision and "This cyclist was/was not wearing a helmet/high viz/had lights" I'm not saying the first two should be mandatory or anything but afaik almost all this years fatalities were so equipped and died anyway so if given enough prominence it just might shut up the constant "but it's their own fault" brigade

It would be a very useful study, and one that would cost little and only require minimal cooperation from the Gardai. Since no blame is being aportioned, it should not suffer issue with biasing an investigation so it should ba available almost immediately to the reporting body.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Blocking traffic for the sake of it maybe, but every commuter cyclist shifting to car/ public transport would be a real eye opener for most of the population. Potentially a game changer in seeing cycling as a solution rather than a problem.

The main issue would be getting cyclists to support it as obviously we'd suffer by being stuck in traffic/ missing busses/ squashed on rail as anyone!

It would be an eye opener, and a great idea. But I'd never do it. I got a lift into work yesterday, never again. While all these tragedies are terrible, i still do not feel unsafe on the roads. While I would love for improvements, most of the improvements I can think of are cheap and workable but the government or gardai have no interest. Average speed cameras, red light cameras and ANPR on bus lanes. Don't announce them, just do it, system would have paid for itself in 48hours in Dublin. Once the fines are issued, within 28days, you would see a massive change to the behaviour of motorists with minimal fuss.

kbannon wrote: »

The Indo was talking to him.

I can't disagree or fault him at all.

Jawgap wrote: »

Likewise.

Also, I know it may not be popular, but I'm not a big fan of ghost bikes (despite me being an initial supporter) - unless the family of the deceased want one, or it somehow helps them through their grief.

I think die-ins, ghost bikes etc amp up the negative, risky side of cycling out of all proportion to the reality and, paradoxically, by not encouraging as many people to cycle as possible, they make roads less safe for cyclists.

I like the ghost bikes, but only with permission of the family and only if done correctly. Interestingly, it was friends of hers that I had a disagreement with about Ghost bikes, they seen it as a memorial, which is nice, but by placing it somewhere other than the accident, they completely missed the point and would have been better off doing something else. I wasn't going to argue, I just pointed out why it may not be a great idea.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats exactly the sort of definitive, finger pointing statement that just antagonises people. Its "motorists killing people", when in fact the very article you cited earlier states clearly that:



37% of fatalities are actually caused by the cyclists. Of course motorists may cause more, nobody will deny that at all but 37% is a significant percentage no matter what the discussion. "Motorists kill people", but so did 370 cyclists.

If the idea of these demonstrations is to raise awareness and drive change then there are far better ways of doing so than antagonising through statements such as "stop killing us" or "Motorists are killing people" when its clearly a far more nuanced situation than that.

That is in another country, with far different levels of fatalities etc. in relation to cycling, in no way does it serve a purpose to bring it in here. It is much like people bring in the other paper from the UK showing kids being at fault. It is not relevant to us, In Ireland, when other vehicles are involved with the cyclist, and the cyclist passes away, the motorist is typically at fault (or at least in every case i have seen in recent years). When it is the cyclist singular, it is nearly always 100% the cyclist fault.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Based on those stats. Based on the stats this year? Well we are still awaiting court cases and inquests, but charges have been brought in some cases, and significant number have appear to have hit from behind.

Off the top of my head, nearly all collisions involving a motorist resulting in the death of a cyclist in the Republic over the last 12 months, has involved speeding or not driving to the conditions at hand (usually both). There are some cyclist deaths that have not been the fault of anyone other than the cyclist involved, only one of these involved another vehicle, and appeared to be the fault of the cyclist speeding around a bend and hitting a trailer (although this one I could be incorrect on as I am missing some things from it but that is my understanding). In recent years, ones that are solely the fault of the cyclist include the man in Cork who hit a bollard, at night, with no lights after being in his local for a period of time. The student in town who rear ended a taxi at low speed, and died as a result of the head injury sustained. In 99.9% of cases, that fall would not have even hurt a person. Another hit a cateye and the bike came from under him. There are others. This said, almost every other one on the Island of Ireland can be attributed to poor driving, hitting from behind, in daylight, several wearing helmets, hi vis or lights, typically the motorist will have been driving to fast for the conditions, or trying to make a turn or junction, having seen the cyclist before they get there and in a scenario where if they were driving safely, would have and should have stopped behind them in good time. Some use poor road design and other things as an excuse for some, I don't, I think regardless of the road design, you drive with due care and attention, sin e.

if you removed the ones that are attributable to motorists on this island, we would not have been above 5 for several years, the others are due to a variety of factors that to hunt down and change the system to solve them would be an insurmountable amount of work, whereas the others could have been saved with a drive to change only one thing, the perception of a subset of motorists on what is appropriate while behind the wheel.

Jawgap

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats exactly the sort of definitive, finger pointing statement that just antagonises people. Its "motorists killing people", when in fact the very article you cited earlier states clearly that:



37% of fatalities are actually caused by the cyclists. Of course motorists may cause more, nobody will deny that at all but 37% is a significant percentage no matter what the discussion. "Motorists kill people", but so did 370 cyclists.

If the idea of these demonstrations is to raise awareness and drive change then there are far better ways of doing so than antagonising through statements such as "stop killing us" or "Motorists are killing people" when its clearly a far more nuanced situation than that.

that study simply indicated what we already know - in collisions between cyclists and vehicles, cyclists come off worse......

the cyclists in the incidents looked at didn't kill anyone except themselves:

If cyclists are at fault, the most frequent among severe accidents are collisions on crossroads when the cyclists deny the right of way to a car. These collisions tend to be of most serious consequence for the cyclist.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

While I would love for improvements, most of the improvements I can think of are cheap and workable but the government or gardai have no interest. Average speed cameras, red light cameras and ANPR on bus lanes. Don't announce them, just do it, system would have paid for itself in 48hours in Dublin. Once the fines are issued, within 28days, you would see a massive change to the behaviour of motorists with minimal fuss.

But our apparently 100% law abiding motorists would be up in arms! Fish in a barrel etc etc.

I really can't get my head around why ANPR isn't widespread. Even start with tax and insurance, then for red lights, move on to bus lanes and mandatory cycle lanes, then average speed (maybe the tech is there to link them to red light cameras - average speed between lights, and do tax and insurance (and learner drivers) all at the same time!?).

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

But our apparently 100% law abiding motorists would be up in arms! Fish in a barrel etc etc.

I really can't get my head around why ANPR isn't widespread. Even start with tax and insurance, then for red lights, move on to bus lanes and mandatory cycle lanes, then average speed (maybe the tech is there to link them to red light cameras - average speed between lights, and do tax and insurance (and learner drivers) all at the same time!?).

It would be very simple to get average speed built into the red light cameras. You would just have to have them active all the time and then allowable times at the other cameras around the city. Delete every plate that doesn't cross another camera point inside the time limit and job done, you could have it rolling over a time period that takes in the shortest route along the longest points. the camera would then also auto store anyone who crosses the white line while the camera is red and stored separately with a clip from the camera, auto updated and immediately issuing a fine. The camera would be wide angle to capture the driver as well, so there is none of this, I wasn't driving excuse BS. Tax and insurance could be done as a third database, although tax only would be easier until they sort out insurance companies reporting cars that are insured, a third database cross checking against the motor tax database which should be autoupdated from the time the tax is bought so tax discs would be pointless.

Fish in a barrel is a hateful term, this implies that the Gardai are trying to shoot them. What is really happening is the gardai are lighting a fire and putting a pan on it beside the barrel, and some idiots are literally jumping out of the perfectly safe barrel and onto the pan of their own freewill and volition.

When things have improved, these cameras could then be tasked with recording images of cyclists who also break the lights, as creatures of habit, it would be very easy to identify a junction to target on a specific morning and at a specific time to pick these people up the following week. This said, it might highlight how little of a problem it actually is but it would keep people from giving out in a "what about your one" fashion.

1bryan

CramCycle wrote: »

Not that I am aware of, even coroners reports are not published, you have to request them and pay a fee. This said inquests are open to the public and typically where newspapers get their info. Alot of other info is available from witnesses, the gardai and regretably knowing people.

I'm not sure a coroner's report would even be helpful in this regard anyway. One of the first things the coroner will emphasise at the outside of any inquest hearing is that the purpose of the hearing is solely to establish cause of death, not to apportion blame. And, cause of death is very generic (misadventure, accidental, etc).

Inquests are a terrible waste of time and the only purpose they serve, that I can see, is to make sure insurance companies don't skimp on paying out on life insurance policies.

CramCycle

1bryan wrote: »

I'm not sure a coroner's report would even be helpful in this regard anyway. One of the first things the coroner will emphasise at the outside of any inquest hearing is that the purpose of the hearing is solely to establish cause of death, not to apportion blame. And, cause of death is very generic (misadventure, accidental, etc).

Inquests are a terrible waste of time and the only purpose they serve, that I can see, is to make sure insurance companies don't skimp on paying out on life insurance policies.

Very much so, in fact it is one of the key lines they spout. It is simply an inquest. If anyone wants to take that info and proceed further, then it goes to the courts. I have heard some coroners reports at inquests and to guess they are simply saying what they think will lead to the least amount of hassle, or will be easiest to accept, later on seems to ring true (to me). The only use they have is that they keep some records but their interpretations for want of a better word at inquests are sketchy at best and highly inappropriate at other times.
I do wonder sometimes how they got passed their formative years, let alone got into a job which deals with facts, figures and people.

Jawgap

1bryan wrote: »

I'm not sure a coroner's report would even be helpful in this regard anyway. One of the first things the coroner will emphasise at the outside of any inquest hearing is that the purpose of the hearing is solely to establish cause of death, not to apportion blame. And, cause of death is very generic (misadventure, accidental, etc).

Inquests are a terrible waste of time and the only purpose they serve, that I can see, is to make sure insurance companies don't skimp on paying out on life insurance policies.

No, coroner's court juries can also return a narrative verdict.

1bryan

Jawgap wrote: »

No, coroner's court juries can also return a narrative verdict.

really? That wasn't my experience. I was aware they could return recommendations, but I thought the possible verdicts were finite.