Road Safety Authority: 2017 Road Deaths 186->158 but Cyclists 10->15

Slydice

2017 saw a 50% increase in Cyclist deaths. From 10 to 15 people

The RSA has put this out:
Provisional Review of Fatal Collisions
January to December 29th 2017
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Provisional_Reviews_of_Fatal_Collisions/RSA%20Provisional%20Review%20of%20Fatalities%2029th%20December%202017.pdf

Section 6. Road user type
As can be seen in the graph and table below, driver and passenger fatalities represent almost three fifths of fatalities (59%) in 2017, while VRU’s represent two fifths (41%).

There has been a decrease in driver fatalities (-17%) and passenger fatalities (-32%). Overall, this represents a net decrease in vehicle occupant fatalities from 119 in 2016 to 93 in 2017 (-22%). There has also been a reduction in pedestrian (-5) and motorcyclist fatalities (-2). However there has been an increase among pedal cyclists (+5) fatalities.

More detail is further into the document:
10 Men / 5 Women
Years of age: 5 were 25-39, 7 were 45-64, 3 were >= 65
Speed limits: 5 on 50km/h limit, 10 on 80km/h
Light conditions: 13 during daylight, 2 during darkness
Day of week: 7 on Sunday, 3 on Tuesday, 2 on Wednesday 2 on Friday, 1 on Monday
County: 4 in Dublin, 3 in Kerry, 3 in Cork
(that's only 10 so I am guessing the other 5 were in the rest of the country, not sure why they don't say)

tomasrojo

As I've said before, saying there's a 50% rise is true, but misleading, because it makes it sound worse than it is. Basically, the yearly total has gone up, but it's gone 12->10->15. Which is not the direction anyone would want, but it's all in the same ballpark.

Where it differs is from the 2007-2012 period, which was consistently low, even getting down to 5.

It's worth noting, and I do think the total may be on an upward trend, due to both higher numbers of cyclists, and more HGVs back on the road, but analysing small numbers is hard to come up with vey meaningful stuff, especially on small timescales.

Mercian Pro

tomasrojo wrote: »

... analysing small numbers is hard to come up with vey meaningful stuff, especially on small timescales.

Agreed, which is why an analysis of cyclist injuries would be more useful. The last time the RSA did this was in 2014 based on injuries in 2012. Even though the data was based on Garda reports that under-recorded the number of injuries, it was useful in that it analysed the manoeuvres drivers were making at the time and the type of road junction where the injuries occurred.

On the sensitive issue of who was to blame, I am not aware of any analysis of this or of penalties imposed.

P_1

The fact that 7 deaths took place on a Sunday is rather concerning given that that would suggest that Sunday spins could be the most dangerous type of cycling to undertake.

Threading carefully here to try to avoid causing distress to the friends and families of those lost but is there any more detail (type of road, nature of collision etc) available in relation to these?

Jakey Rolling

Agreed it's not all about deaths - life changing injuries to both cyclists or car occupants can have as much impact as fatalities.

It would be interesting to see such figures published, if they exist. It may even be that as far as cars are concerned there are more accidents but various safety improvements mean less fatalities.

Attitude to cyclists is becoming toxic though, which doesn't help.

jimmynokia

"Attitude to cyclists is becoming toxic though, which doesn't help" ... Thats another argument..

Beasty

P_1 wrote: »

The fact that 7 deaths took place on a Sunday is rather concerning given that that would suggest that Sunday spins could be the most dangerous type of cycling to undertake.

Threading carefully here to try to avoid causing distress to the friends and families of those lost but is there any more detail (type of road, nature of collision etc) available in relation to these?

Again I don't think this is anywhere near a statistically significant population to draw much in the way of conclusions. One year we had a number of deaths in the first few weeks of the year (think that was 2015). This year we had a number in the early summer and a few towards the end of the year. Another year it was probably "statistically" geared to September after the holiday break.

Of course many cyclists spend more time on their bikes on Sundays than any other days. Another factor is motor vehicles on the road are back to their pre-recession levels. I don't think the numbers of deaths are thought.

Yet again though, the numbers are so small that it's difficult to draw any conclusions other than perhaps cycling is a lot safer than it was 10, 20 or even 30 years ago when I think the numbers killed on the road were higher

tomasrojo

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Agreed, which is why an analysis of cyclist injuries would be more useful. The last time the RSA did this was in 2014 based on injuries in 2012. Even though the data was based on Garda reports that under-recorded the number of injuries, it was useful in that it analysed the manoeuvres drivers were making at the time and the type of road junction where the injuries occurred.

My main recollection of that analysis, perhaps unfairly, was an inept or cynical conclusion that cycling was very dangerous, especially in Dublin. This was based on giving undue weight to a large increase in minor injuries. The fatality and serious injury trends were not very dramatic, but for some reason there was a very large spike in minor injuries. Cycling in Dublin wasn't very productive of death and serious injury (given the amount of cycling there, I think it was about the safest place, proportionately), but cycling there did seem to carry a not tiny likelihood of minor injury.

This leads on to the fatalities appearing to be disproportionately occurring on Sundays, already mentioned. I don't have any hard analysis, but it's often been said that fatalities occur disproportionately on rural roads, and the deaths this year have been mostly on 80km/h roads. In the UK rural roads are an order of magnitude or so more likely to cause death than urban roads. Don't know if a calculation has been done here, but it looks plausible that rural roads are more hazardous, probably mostly down to speed (maybe poor sightlines on back roads, but not sure how much they feature in the stats).

AndrewJRenko

jimmynokia wrote: »

"Attitude to cyclists is becoming toxic though, which doesn't help" ... Thats another argument..

It could well be a related issue. There was one case in Australia of a cyclist killed by a motorcyclist who had previous utterances of hate speech against cyclists on social media. Hate speech certainly inflames people and has led to direct violence in other scenarios, so it's not a huge leap to suggest that it could well be a factor in deaths of or injuries to cyclists.

yop

I commented on one of those stories today, I did get a good amount of support but I think road kill would be better respected than us currently.

dense

yop wrote: »

I commented on one of those stories today, I did get a good amount of support but I think road kill would be better respected than us currently.

Does anyone know why that could be the case?

dense

P_1 wrote: »

The fact that 7 deaths took place on a Sunday is rather concerning given that that would suggest that Sunday spins could be the most dangerous type of cycling to undertake.

Threading carefully here to try to avoid causing distress to the friends and families of those lost but is there any more detail (type of road, nature of collision etc) available in relation to these?

Sunday, the day of "Sunday drivers".

I see more cyclists out on Sundays too.

But that's just being anecdotal, there's little to go on without some forensic detail about fatal accidents forthcoming.

And that detail may not be forthcoming.

Separately, does anyone wish to discuss whether certain roads, although they're all obviously "public roads" are just not suited for cycling, from a safety point of view?

I'm thinking here mainly of rural roads which don't afford a cyclist or a driver much opportunity to avoid each other either when both are going in the same direction or meeting each other.

As a driver I've had a few close calls rounding bends and finding a cyclist in front of me, and as a cyclist there are a couple of rural roads that I would deliberately avoid so that the same doesn't happen to me.

I don't need to cycle those particular roads so I choose different, IMO safer ones.

It's all well and good saying that motorists should be driving within their field of view and be anticipating something being around the next corner, but do we as cyclists also need to accept that there's little sense in putting our own mortality in the hands of drivers by cycling on roads we actually know aren't safe for cyclists?

CramCycle

dense wrote: »

Does anyone know why that could be the case?

Simply, cutting out the bull, its because the majority of us, myself included want to blame someone else for the issues we face daily, be they life changing or in the grand scheme of things, so unimportant that being annoyed at them would seem illogical if you made even the slightest attempt to step back.

EDITED (went on a rant in my head): Its the reason why news is so bleak most of the time.

In the case of the above, while I haven't read the comments, I can easily imagine. People get frustrated because they left late, were not as focused as they should have been, or they cannot drive as they think they can get away with or they have no basic concept of traffic, either way, it is either them or someone like them that caused the issue that has annoyed them. The majority of us simply cannot accept that the predicament that we find ourselves in, while maybe not entirely our fault, is in some way, at a minimum, partially our fault.

We therefore need to blame someone, so our minds can overlook our own flaws. For many motorists, those who do not drive, this is the cyclist, we can all identify with pedestrians, but we cannot all identify with someone who has chosen not to be in the same situation or maybe using PT if they cannot afford the car.

I am not criticising these people, although they deserve it in my mind, because I know, deep down, I am probably just as guilty on occasion.

dense

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It could well be a related issue. There was one case in Australia of a cyclist killed by a motorcyclist who had previous utterances of hate speech against cyclists on social media. Hate speech certainly inflames people and has led to direct violence in other scenarios, so it's not a huge leap to suggest that it could well be a factor in deaths of or injuries to cyclists.

That fatal accidents have an element of design about them?

Designed by drivers who have a low opinion of cyclists?

That's tantamount to saying some of these fatalities here were deliberate.

Do you think that is the case?

dense

CramCycle wrote: »

Simply, cutting out the bull, its because the majority of us, myself included want to blame someone else for the issues we face daily, be they life changing or in the grand scheme of things, so unimportant that being annoyed at them would seem illogical if you made even the slightest attempt to step back.

EDITED (went on a rant in my head): Its the reason why news is so bleak most of the time.

In the case of the above, while I haven't read the comments, I can easily imagine. People get frustrated because they left late, were not as focused as they should have been, or they cannot drive as they think they can get away with or they have no basic concept of traffic, either way, it is either them or someone like them that caused the issue that has annoyed them. The majority of us simply cannot accept that the predicament that we find ourselves in, while maybe not entirely our fault, is in some way, at a minimum, partially our fault.

We therefore need to blame someone, so our minds can overlook our own flaws. For many motorists, those who do not drive, this is the cyclist, we can all identify with pedestrians, but we cannot all identify with someone who has chosen not to be in the same situation or maybe using PT if they cannot afford the car.

I am not criticising these people, although they deserve it in my mind, because I know, deep down, I am probably just as guilty on occasion.

True enough, my question was one which can't really be properly or comprehensively answered!

Edited: I do believe that there is a need for novice cyclists to be exposed to a public health campaign warning of the possible consequences of cycling up the left of stationary vehicles at traffic lights.

There appears to have been a number of avoidable deaths where (HGV) drivers have not seen cyclists beside them.

yop

Why? I can't really answer it to be very honest. In many ways I feel its just an avenue for bullies to "interact" with those they don't know, a bit like keyboard warriors on forums or social media, if they met you face to face in 9 out 10 times they wouldn't say it your face, so when they are in a car then they feel insulated and use that to bully the cyclist.

There will come a day, sooner rather than later, when a child is going to be killed on the roads, it may cause a bit more outcry but again I suspect it will be the kids parents who will be blamed.

All we can do ourselves is protect ourselves and those around us and educate as many people as possible, for the rest you just hope you don't encounter them.

buffalo

dense wrote: »

That fatal accidents have an element of design about them?

Designed by drivers who have a low opinion of cyclists?

That's tantamount to saying some of these fatalities here were deliberate.

Do you think that is the case?

I don't think anyone set out to deliberately kill anyone else, but I do think there are probably fatalities that were caused by a driver deliberately choosing a riskier course of action - e.g., choosing not to slow down going around a bend, or choosing to look at their phone while driving. Choosing to drive after a few pints. Those are deliberate choices - not necessarily considered, calculated ones leading to cold-blooded murder, but ones that prioritise ones own convenience over public safety.

1bryan

dense wrote: »

True enough, my question was one which can't really be properly or comprehensively answered!

Edited: I do believe that there is a need for novice cyclists to be exposed to a public health campaign warning of the possible consequences of cycling up the left of stationary vehicles at traffic lights.

There appears to have been a number of avoidable deaths where (HGV) drivers have not seen cyclists beside them.

so you're implying these have all been the fault of the cyclists?

Macy0161

dense wrote: »

Sunday, the day of "Sunday drivers".

I see more cyclists out on Sundays too.

But that's just being anecdotal, there's little to go on without some forensic detail about fatal accidents forthcoming.

And that detail may not be forthcoming.

Separately, does anyone wish to discuss whether certain roads, although they're all obviously "public roads" are just not suited for cycling, from a safety point of view?

I'm thinking here mainly of rural roads which don't afford a cyclist or a driver much opportunity to avoid each other either when both are going in the same direction or meeting each other.

As a driver I've had a few close calls rounding bends and finding a cyclist in front of me, and as a cyclist there are a couple of rural roads that I would deliberately avoid so that the same doesn't happen to me.

I don't need to cycle those particular roads so I choose different, IMO safer ones.

It's all well and good saying that motorists should be driving within their field of view and be anticipating something being around the next corner, but do we as cyclists also need to accept that there's little sense in putting our own mortality in the hands of drivers by cycling on roads we actually know aren't safe for cyclists?

Bottom line is a motorist is supposed to drive at a speed that they can stop in for the distance they can see*. They're not exempted because they came around the bend and couldn't see. Although my recollection is that this isn't really the circumstances of many of the deaths.

I have more close passes/ near misses on my weekend spins than I do commuting. None are down to the standard of road - in fact I would say the better the road, the more likely a close pass is. It's mainly down to disregard for "cyclists" and inpatience. Biggest hold up to me being safely overtaken on these roads is not me, or the group, or bends in the road, it's on coming traffic.

For me, rural roads are the biggest danger, but most of the commentary on cyclist behaviour is based up urban cycling/ driving. Not sure how that can be addressed. Although, we obviously get the 7 a breast bull, from motorists who can't grasp that two a brest, staggered, viewed from behind may look more than 2 wide...

*the form of transport I use most is the car, mainly on rural r roads. I wouldn't claim to be the perfect driver (far from it), but living were I do I get held up far other motorists than I ever have by cyclists or groups of cyclists. It's just some (most?) motorists are blind to this fact.

AndrewJRenko

Macy0161 wrote: »

Bottom line is a motorist is supposed to drive at a speed that they can stop in for the distance they can see*. They're not exempted because they came around the bend and couldn't see. Although my recollection is that this isn't really the circumstances of many of the deaths.

I've been informed that one of the 2017 deaths on a club spin was exactly this circumstance, when a driver came round a bend and ploughed into the trailing rider of a club spin. It hasn't come to inquest yet, so this isn't in the public domain. I won't identify the case until it does.

dense wrote: »

That fatal accidents have an element of design about them?

Designed by drivers who have a low opinion of cyclists?

That's tantamount to saying some of these fatalities here were deliberate.

Do you think that is the case?

I've had enough absolutely and explicitly deliberate close punishment passes to believe that yes, some of these may well be deliberate - at least deliberate in the intention to scare the cyclist off the road.

yop wrote: »

All we can do ourselves is protect ourselves and those around us and educate as many people as possible, for the rest you just hope you don't encounter them.

We can do more than that. We can change the culture by challenging it on the road, and when it comes up in conversation here online, or in the pub or at coffee time in work.

dense wrote: »

True enough, my question was one which can't really be properly or comprehensively answered!

Edited: I do believe that there is a need for novice cyclists to be exposed to a public health campaign warning of the possible consequences of cycling up the left of stationary vehicles at traffic lights.

There appears to have been a number of avoidable deaths where (HGV) drivers have not seen cyclists beside them.

How about a public health campaign to eliminate blind spots on trucks, through better design (see through doors?) or better equipment (mirrors, cameras) or better management (additional crew on watch)?

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

Was there not a child killed on their way to school in the past year and people were more concerned why they where cycling to school on their own. Outcry would only last until the next news cycle anyway.

2016 it was, and you're right, the outcry fades quickly;

http://www.thejournal.ie/crash-boy-11-dead-cyclist-2958975-Sep2016/

dense

1bryan wrote: »

so you're implying these have all been the fault of the cyclists?

No.
Without knowing the circumstances, we can't know who's at fault.

The point is, if we accept that there are certain positions which are dangerous and which we know have been cited in collisions, such as an acknowledged blind spot of a HGV, intending cyclists should be made aware of that dangerous area.

Would that be objectionable? To inform cyclists about the risks they face? It might save a life.

Personally I wouldn't cycle up the side of an HGV, just in case, because I know the risk, and I wouldn't for example, in trying to teach a child some cycling roadcraft advise them to do it either.

I can't assume that others know the risk though.
If they don't know, they're putting themselves at risk.

Seaswimmer

tomasrojo wrote: »

As I've said before, saying there's a 50% rise is true, but misleading, because it makes it sound worse than it is. Basically, the yearly total has gone up, but it's gone 12->10->15. Which is not the direction anyone would want, but it's all in the same ballpark.

Where it differs is from the 2007-2012 period, which was consistently low, even getting down to 5.

It's worth noting, and I do think the total may be on an upward trend, due to both higher numbers of cyclists, and more HGVs back on the road, but analysing small numbers is hard to come up with vey meaningful stuff, especially on small timescales.

Strangely the cycle counter numbers on the Rock Road were down this year.

2016 275,000
2017 262,000

I expected an increase in line with the perceived notion that numbers of cyclists are up generally so not sure why there was such a substantial drop this year.

Big increase over 2013 which was last full year count (approx 210,00) but I expected trend to be continually upwards.

dense

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How about a public health campaign to eliminate blind spots on trucks, through better design (see through doors?) or better equipment (mirrors, cameras) or better management (additional crew on watch)?

Why not all of them?
Why are we not seeing such campaigns aimed at drivers and cyclists?

There was an RSA TV campaign aimed at motorists regarding cyclists (that I havent seen in a while) but I don't ever remember one from the RSA aimed at specifically teaching cyclists anything.

Has there been any?

Plastik

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Strangely the cycle counter numbers on the Rock Road were down this year.

2016 275,000
2017 262,000

I expected an increase in line with the perceived notion that numbers of cyclists are up generally so not sure why there was such a substantial drop this year.

Big increase over 2013 which was last full year count (approx 210,00) but I expected trend to be continually upwards.

That could relate to a few things - the pressure plate on the road doesn't seem to clock me every time I go over it, and secondly with more cyclists on the road in general, more often that not I'm further out on the bus lane and no longer activating it. I'm sure that would be the case for a lot of people. The counter is good but you have to cycle on a very specific part of the cycle lane to activate it.

I'm sure someone will correct me and tell me that pressure plate is nothing to do with it and I've been wasting my time all along :pac: But nevertheless, it still doesn't pick me up on every pass, so that must be the case for plenty of others too.

Beasty

Plastik wrote: »

That could relate to a few things - the pressure plate on the road doesn't seem to clock me every time I go over it, and secondly with more cyclists on the road in general, more often that not I'm further out on the bus lane and no longer activating it. I'm sure that would be the case for a lot of people. The counter is good but you have to cycle on a very specific part of the cycle lane to activate it.

I'm sure someone will correct me and tell me that pressure plate is nothing to do with it and I've been wasting my time all along :pac: But nevertheless, it still doesn't pick me up on every pass, so that must be the case for plenty of others too.

Maybe it's suffering from "Apple Battery Syndrome" and is designed to "slow down" after a few years by not recording everyone....

:pac:

Macy0161

dense wrote: »

The point is, if we accept that there are certain positions which are dangerous and which we know have been cited in collisions, such as an acknowledged blind spot of a HGV, intending cyclists should be made aware of that dangerous area.

From memory, that was potentially a factor in one (possibly a second) of the deaths.

I wouldn't have a problem with a campaign on that. I'd hope it'd be accompanied by making HGV drivers more aware, and the RSA pushing for changes in truck design too. To me, too much of a free pass is given to HGV's and other vehicles on this, when there have been examples of them pulling up alongside cyclists, rather than the other way around.

1bryan

dense wrote: »

No.
Without knowing the circumstances, we can't know who's at fault.

The point is, if we accept that there are certain positions which are dangerous and which we know have been cited in collisions, such as an acknowledged blind spot of a HGV, intending cyclists should be made aware of that dangerous area.

Would that be objectionable? To inform cyclists about the risks they face? It might save a life.

Personally I wouldn't cycle up the side of an HGV, just in case, because I know the risk, and I wouldn't for example, in trying to teach a child some cycling roadcraft advise them to do it either.

I can't assume that others know the risk though.
If they don't know, they're putting themselves at risk.

but why no suggestion of a campaign to educate HGV drivers of the dangers they risk imposing on the most vulnerable road users to complement one for cyclists?

This is like that ridiculous campaign the RSA ran a few years ago where gardai were practically forcing cyclists to sit in the cabin of a truck to see how poor the visibility is.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the cases you describe occur because of the lack of visibility from within the cabin. I would hazard to suggest that the recommendations arising from ALL of the inquests into the deaths of these people have suggested something be done to improve visibility. And what has happened in terms of acting on these suggestions?

Yet here we are suggesting that cyclists, and cyclists only, have a part to play in preventing such deaths from occurring again. As cyclists we can certainly do our bit, but really, the responsibility resides with those at the wheels of those deathtraps we have to share the streets with.

1bryan

Macy0161 wrote: »

From memory, that was potentially a factor in one (possibly a second) of the deaths.

I wouldn't have a problem with a campaign on that. I'd hope it'd be accompanied by making HGV drivers more aware, and the RSA pushing for changes in truck design too. To me, too much of a free pass is given to HGV's and other vehicles on this, when there have been examples of them pulling up alongside cyclists, rather than the other way around.

exactly. Nail on the head.

Atlantic Dawn

Good to finally see some actual stats around the deaths. I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured. Sunday having almost half the deaths but not being a work day is another interesting statistic, would this point to car drivers being perhaps under the influence from Saturday night or perhaps inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads on that day, difficult one to pinpoint a cause.

Slydice wrote: »

More detail is further into the document:
10 Men / 5 Women
Years of age: 5 were 25-39, 7 were 45-64, 3 were >= 65
Speed limits: 5 on 50km/h limit, 10 on 80km/h
Light conditions: 13 during daylight, 2 during darkness
Day of week: 7 on Sunday, 3 on Tuesday, 2 on Wednesday 2 on Friday, 1 on Monday
County: 4 in Dublin, 3 in Kerry, 3 in Cork
(that's only 10 so I am guessing the other 5 were in the rest of the country, not sure why they don't say)

brocbrocach

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Good to finally see some actual stats around the deaths. I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured. Sunday having almost half the deaths but not being a work day is another interesting statistic, would this point to car drivers being perhaps under the influence from Saturday night or perhaps inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads on that day, difficult one to pinpoint a cause.

It just goes to show that all the bruhaha about ninja cyclists and Hi-vis etc etc etc is hugely exaggerated. What will the RSA focus on when their bandwagon is gone?

07Lapierre

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Good to finally see some actual stats around the deaths. I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured. Sunday having almost half the deaths but not being a work day is another interesting statistic, would this point to car drivers being perhaps under the influence from Saturday night or perhaps inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads on that day, difficult one to pinpoint a cause.

10 killed on roads with 80kph limit. To me that says it all....speed kills. Speed combined with lack of due care and attention.

Going by those stats, cycling at night is much safer which is something I tend to agree with (as long as your bike has good lights on ). I find I get less close passes in the dark then during daylight hours.

GreeBo

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured.

Again the sample size is very small...but (ignoring cycle ninjas & invisible cars) its often *much* easier to notice things at night due to the contrast of lights against darkness than during the day where "everything* is contrasting with everything else and it can be harder to distinguish a guy crossing the road from a brightly coloured bus shelter in your peripheral vision.

GreeBo

brocbrocach wrote: »

It just goes to show that all the bruhaha about ninja cyclists and Hi-vis etc etc etc is hugely exaggerated. What will the RSA focus on when their bandwagon is gone?

Or it shows that (thankfully) the number of idiots who cycle without lights or reflective gear isnt a significant number?

The numbers are far too low for you to draw any such conclusions.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

10 killed on roads with 80kph limit. To me that says it all....speed kills. Speed combined with lack of due care and attention.

Same for every form of transport.
If something goes wrong, the slower everyone is going the better.

Some (typically in the motors forum!) will argue that its *inappropriate* speed (to which they include going too slowly) but I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

Faster = more splat in the event of a collision.

Eamonnator

If you're aged under 24 or between 40-44, stay away from Dublin, Kerry and Cork, cycle only on Thursday and Saturday and only during the hours of darkness and stick to 50kph roads, you've a great chance of survival.

1bryan

Eamonnator wrote: »

If you're aged under 24 or between 40-44, stay away from Dublin, Kerry and Cork, cycle only on Thursday and Saturday and only during the hours of darkness and stick to 50kph roads, you've a great chance of survival.

Getting that on a t-shirt

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

Some (typically in the motors forum!) will argue that its *inappropriate* speed (to which they include going too slowly) but I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

On motorways, i'd agree with this. there should be a minimum speed limit on motorways.

I remember matching an episode of " Police Intrerceptors" about UK traffic cops and they pulled a guy over for travelling too slow on the motorway.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

On motorways, i'd agree with this. there should be a minimum speed limit on motorways.

I remember matching an episode of " Police Intrerceptors" about UK traffic cops and they pulled a guy over for travelling too slow on the motorway.

100%, but 80km/h isn't slow (unless you are in the Motors forum)

AndrewJRenko

dense wrote: »

Why not all of them?
Why are we not seeing such campaigns aimed at drivers and cyclists?

There was an RSA TV campaign aimed at motorists regarding cyclists (that I havent seen in a while) but I don't ever remember one from the RSA aimed at specifically teaching cyclists anything.

Has there been any?

You'll see videos aimed at both cyclists and motorists on their YouTube channel;

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi8nqrsVU6ht0pNF4PjtpD4I0w7X_gsPC

But I guess the emphasis on truckers would be because;

• They are the ones who actually cause harm
• They are the ones at work on the road - doing a job, with all the regulation that entails
• They're not the victims

Victim-blaming campaigns aren't generally a great idea from a public safety point of view.

"Young ladies, please wear drab clothes and don't drink alcohol to avoid being raped".

GreeBo wrote: »

Or it shows that (thankfully) the number of idiots who cycle without lights or reflective gear isnt a significant number?

Or that it shows that cyclists without lights are generally visible anyway in the cities.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

100%, but 80km/h isn't slow (unless you are in the Motors forum)

its too slow when your on the slip road trying to join the main carraigeway, when everyone else is doing 100/120.

You can't put a number on driving too slow on the motorway...an appropriate speed is the speed everyone else is doing. if all cars are travelling at 150, then any speed slower than that could be seen as "inappropriate". knowing the correct speed comes with experience.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

its too slow when your on the slip road trying to join the main carraigeway, when everyone else is doing 100/120.

You can't put a number on driving too slow on the motorway...an appropriate speed is the speed everyone else is doing. if all cars are travelling at 150, then any speed slower than that could be seen as "inappropriate". knowing the correct speed comes with experience.

I think 80km/h would be on the limit of slowness for joining a motorway, but not too slow.
It would be very rare that the road would be so busy that you couldnt easily merge at 80 or so empty that the cars doin 100/120 couldnt see you and move to lane 2. ( Not that you have a right to merge anyway)

I'm not looking to get into an argument about car speeds, (especially in a thread about cycling!), but since you mentioned driving on the motorway, thats what I was referring to.
80km/h is not "too slow" for an Irish motorway.
150km/h is too fast for an Irish motorway.

Survival statistics for pedestrians/cyclists at various speeds clearly demonstrate that pure speed kills, appropriate or not.

GreeBo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or that it shows that cyclists without lights are generally visible anyway in the cities.

The point is that it shows nothing as the numbers are statistically insignificant.

If 4 of the bikes involved were blue, are blue bikes more dangerous to cycle than red ones?

DirkVoodoo

Speed is not an issue on most motorways that we have.

It's how people drive on them: dangerous over and undertaking (saw a lot of this yesterday!), driving too close, dangerous lane switching (something we seem particularly good at on the m50 - exiting from the outside lane!), not driving appropriate to the conditions (fog, heavy rain, etc)

If we could follow most of those like reasonable drivers, I would say that you could drive at 140/160 on most of the 120 motorway sections without issue.

GreeBo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Speed is not an issue on most motorways that we have.

It's how people drive on them: dangerous over and undertaking (saw a lot of this yesterday!), driving too close, dangerous lane switching (something we seem particularly good at on the m50 - exiting from the outside lane!), not driving appropriate to the conditions (fog, heavy rain, etc)

If we could follow most of those like reasonable drivers, I would say that you could drive at 140/160 on most of the 120 motorway sections without issue.

I think we need to "save" these discussion for the motors forum.

Beasty

Eamonnator wrote: »

If you're aged under 24 or between 40-44, stay away from Dublin, Kerry and Cork, cycle only on Thursday and Saturday and only during the hours of darkness and stick to 50kph roads, you've a great chance of survival.

Yep - that gives the rest of us a bit more space as well. In fact, I think they are selfish hogging the emergency services, so I think we should ban the lot of 'em




:pac:

magicbastarder

brocbrocach wrote: »

It just goes to show that all the bruhaha about ninja cyclists and Hi-vis etc etc etc is hugely exaggerated. What will the RSA focus on when their bandwagon is gone?

as others have mentioned, i don't think you can draw conclusions from incomplete data. it could be possible that few cyclists die at night because cyclists avoid the dangerous roads at night.

Eamonnator

magicbastarder wrote: »

as others have mentioned, i don't think you can draw conclusions from incomplete data. it could be possible that few cyclists die at night because cyclists avoid the dangerous roads at night.

Fortunately, because so few cyclists are killed on our roads, it takes very little to skew the statistics.

Ferris

15 instances is too low to provide any meaningful analysis, particularly as the quantity of factors present is so high (night vs. day, rural vs. city etc.).

Whats needed is additional analysis of non-fatal collisions as, unfortunately, these occur in higher numbers. I can see merit in such an analysis but am unsure if any collection of this data is in place, do the gardai / ins. companies record it?

brocbrocach

magicbastarder wrote: »

as others have mentioned, i don't think you can draw conclusions from incomplete data. it could be possible that few cyclists die at night because cyclists avoid the dangerous roads at night.

It's true that the sample size is very small but it can be used to illustrate certain broad points I think.
The amount of white noise about lights, Hi-Vis, dark clothes would lead you to think that this is the overwhelming number one issue in cycling safety. The fact that comparatively few die at night would suggest that the attention would be best directed somewhere else.

flatface

brocbrocach wrote: »

It's true that the sample size is very small but it can be used to illustrate certain broad points I think.
The amount of white noise about lights, Hi-Vis, dark clothes would lead you to think that this is the overwhelming number one issue in cycling safety. The fact that comparatively few die at night would suggest that the attention would be best directed somewhere else.

Exactly this. if cyclist misbehaviour was such a big factor you would see a large number of urban fatalities considering the number of journeys taken in the city, red lights jumped etc.
Year on year we see the majority of deaths in rural counties implying speed and driver inattention being the biggest factor. It would be nice if the media picked up on this one.