Dangerous - cycling in Dublin City Centre

Diddley Squat

I seen two cyclists taken out yesterday.
One got a wallop on Leeson St and then when I was going home I seen another getting turned over in Donnybrook.

The traffic is chaos , too many cars, too many bikes, too many mobile phones.

I really don't know what the answer is to be honest.
ANy ideas

doozerie

Be aware, be predictable, expect no-one else to be either of those.

ED E

Fire the Gardai, hire one of several UK forces that are actually dealing with traffic issues.

TC just got renamed to the RPU in line with the UK but nobody believes that'll change anything.

dobman88

Diddley Squat wrote: »

I seen two cyclists taken out yesterday.
One got a wallop on Leeson St and then when I was going home I seen another getting turned over in Donnybrook.

The traffic is chaos , too many cars, too many bikes, too many mobile phones.

I really don't know what the answer is to be honest.
ANy ideas

Do you mean you saw two incidents yesterday? Or you have seen incidents previously?

Light up, always expect the unexpected, always expect other people to be idiots and look after yourself, stick to the rules of the road like stopping at lights, always be aware of your surroundings but the big one is always expect other people to be idiots

magicbastarder

remember, approximately half of motorists are below average intelligence.

cyclists are clearly the exception to this rule.

eeeee

Was everyone ok? By the sounds of your post you seen the incidents occur, so I'm guessing you stuck around to make sure everyone was alright and gave information to attending emergency services?

ted1

dobman88 wrote: »

Diddley Squat wrote: »

I seen two cyclists taken out yesterday.
One got a wallop on Leeson St and then when I was going home I seen another getting turned over in Donnybrook.

The traffic is chaos , too many cars, too many bikes, too many mobile phones.

I really don't know what the answer is to be honest.
ANy ideas

Do you mean you saw two incidents yesterday? Or you have seen incidents previously?

Light up, always expect the unexpected, always expect other people to be idiots and look after yourself, stick to the rules of the road like stopping at lights, always be aware of your surroundings but the big one is always expect other people to be idiots

Sticking to the rules of the road ( written for cars) could get you killed, it’s the reason why more females are killed by HGVs than women.

punisher5112

I see cyclists do mad things, pedestrians do bat sh1t crazy stuff cars, trucks etc etc.

One thing to remember is people don't see bikes that includes pedestrians.

People look through most cyclists and see the vehicle instead it's been well studied.....



I will say one thing though people are really getting dumber ....

eeeee

To answer the title of the OP, cycling isn't dangerous in Dublin City Centre, thousands of cyclists make it in and out safely every single day, myself amongst them.

There is a need for better education certainly, amongst all road users. There aren't enough bicycles on the road yet, town is gridlocked with private cars daily. Also the more cyclists on the road the better drivers become at not driving into them.

doozerie

ted1 wrote: »

Sticking to the rules of the road ( written for cars) could get you killed, it’s the reason why more females are killed by HGVs than women.

That's a ridiculous statement.

magentis

ted1 wrote: »

Sticking to the rules of the road ( written for cars) could get you killed, it’s the reason why more females are killed by HGVs than women.

Quote of the day right there.

Wishbone Ash

ted1 wrote: »

... more females are killed by HGVs than women.

...and for years I was going around thinking women were females.

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

...and for years I was going around thinking women were females.

I think he means more females are killed by HGVs than by other women.

...nope, never mind, still doesn't sound right.

Also I feel horrifically flippant punning about death.

Macy0161

The only way to change road behaviour is enforcement. The only way for consistent enforcement is camera/ ANPR. There seems to be no desire to move towards this though. At the moment, for any road user to get caught for any offence, you have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong garda (except for a limited number of speed vans).

Jawgap

Diddley Squat wrote: »

I seen two cyclists taken out yesterday.
One got a wallop on Leeson St and then when I was going home I seen another getting turned over in Donnybrook.

The traffic is chaos , too many cars, too many bikes, too many mobile phones.

I really don't know what the answer is to be honest.
ANy ideas

Ban mobile phones?

....and I thought the turnover was ruled offside?

Dublin is not a dangerous city to cycle in* - people need to cop themselves on and stop taking isolated incidents they experience individually as representative of the entire city/cycling experience.


*College Green, however, is a complete cock-up.

Tombo2001

The new bike lane on O'Connell Street is a complete joke. None of the buses passing me are leaving anywhere close to 1.5 metres.

Its an accident waiting to happen, and probably more than one accident.

kirving

1.
The most important thing is to assume that you're invisible.

Will the car pull out from the side road even though I have my lights on? Assume they haven't seen you and they're gonna pull out in front of you.

2.
Next up is not to put yourself in a dangerous situation, regardless of what the law says you're allowed to do.

Just because the traffic is slow moving and you haven't seen an indicator, that the car won't turn left, change road position, or open a door.

3.
Lights on in the daytime - DRLs cut collisions hugely.

Tombo2001

Jawgap wrote: »

Ban mobile phones?

....and I thought the turnover was ruled offside?

Dublin is not a dangerous city to cycle in* - people need to cop themselves on and stop taking isolated incidents they experience individually as representative of the entire city/cycling experience.


*College Green, however, is a complete cock-up.

Is that a fact, or is that an opinion.

A lot of people believe its dangerous, as per thejournal.ie poll. Whats the definition of dangerous?

If your not happy with that definition how about this one - Dublin is a city where if you cycle regularly, then chances are you will experience frequent 'close calls' on a bike. Unless using your cop on means hopping up on the footpath, I would question any cyclist who disagrees with this.

Tombo2001

Kevin Irving wrote: »

1.
The most important thing is to assume that you're invisible.

Will the car pull out from the side road even though I have my lights on? Assume they haven't seen you and they're gonna pull out in front of you.

2.
Next up is not to put yourself in a dangerous situation, regardless of what the law says you're allowed to do.

Just because the traffic is slow moving and you haven't seen an indicator, that the car won't turn left, change road position, or open a door.

3.
Lights on in the daytime - DRLs cut collisions hugely.

I'd be interested in any evidence to show cyclists are at less risk if the have lights on in daytime.

My own view is that the dangerous overtakes is the source of most 'close calls'; I dont see how any of the above protects you from that. Its the traffic behind thats the primary risk, not the traffic in front.

Thinkingaboutit

ted1 wrote: »

Sticking to the rules of the road ( written for cars) could get you killed, it’s the reason why more females are killed by HGVs than women.

Eh? More women than men you mean.

It needs to be taken for granted in practical terms that a turning or lane changing HGV/bus, or one that is likely to, has an absolute right of way. Physics and the practical fact a HGV driver cannot see too much (if you cannot see his mirror, he probably cannot see you even with additional measures) overrules laws and regulations. HGVs are an extraordinary hazard when cycling, and cycling close to a manoeuvring one isn't remotely safe. Behind or clearly in front only. That's how I do it. As best I'm aware, the current revised ROTR, suggests cyclists be careful near HGVs (which themselves have notices on them).

Essentially, I'm not sure if the lack of rule breaking women cyclists is any notable reason for the disparity in deaths. Male cyclists might be able to accelerate away from dangerous places, disparity in size, basically a complex matter. HGVs/buses should also not be on streets not made for them, if possible. Way to many cars too.

Jawgap

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Is that a fact, or is that an opinion.

A lot of people believe its dangerous, as per thejournal.ie poll. Whats the definition of dangerous?

If your not happy with that definition how about this one - Dublin is a city where if you cycle regularly, then chances are you will experience frequent 'close calls' on a bike. Unless using your cop on means hopping up on the footpath, I would question any cyclist who disagrees with this.

It's a fact.....and yes i know people are going to cite data, even from such unimpeachable sources as the journal.ie, but they always neglect context and simply focus on bald figures.

I don't find it dangerous, as long as you have a decent set of lights, generally respect the rules of the road and apply some common sense - and if you are getting into repeated close calls, then perhaps the problem isn't the environment in which you are cycling.....

.....so, I disagree with you - feel free to question, but all such fearmongering does is discourage cycling and work to deprive people of one of the great, free, simple pleasures of living in a relatively flat, if somewhat occasionally damp, city.

Jawgap

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

...and for years I was going around thinking women were females.

....surely 'female' is an anatomic description whereas as "woman" is the social construct through which any person can choose to express their identity?

shootermacg

Another dangerous issue is bus, lorry and van drivers stopping in front of turn offs allowing oncoming traffic to turn right.

I have no issues with cars doing this, because visibility is OK, but, if you are going to be doing this in a bus or lorry, for the love of god stop well in advance of the lane to give the poor cyclists a chance.

I pretty much come to a stop in these circumstances and I've still had some close calls.

eeeee

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Is that a fact, or is that an opinion.

A lot of people believe its dangerous, as per thejournal.ie poll. Whats the definition of dangerous?

If your not happy with that definition how about this one - Dublin is a city where if you cycle regularly, then chances are you will experience frequent 'close calls' on a bike. Unless using your cop on means hopping up on the footpath, I would question any cyclist who disagrees with this.

Thousands and thousands of cyclists go through Dublin city centre every single day without incident.
It's really not that dangerous.
That's not to say things can't be improved, or should be, drastically even (particularly when it comes to infrastructure). Close passes happen, but on my commutes and spins they're very much in the minority. I'm passed safely by innumerable cars daily. Close passes and other dangerous behaviours towards cyclists are very serious, definitely, but cycling around Dublin isn't inherently dangerous. That better education needs to happen is doubtless. Attitudes are hardening and this is obviously problematic.

Yes you will have incidents if you're on the road, as all road users will have. But it's a safe, free and very enjoyable activity the (vast) majority of the time.

Wishbone Ash

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The new bike lane on O'Connell Street is a complete joke. None of the buses passing me are leaving anywhere close to 1.5 metres. ..

Leaving aside the fact that it is not a legal requirement, the suggestion is 1 metre in a 50/30km/h zone.

schemingbohemia

nee wrote: »

Thousands and thousands of cyclists go through Dublin city centre every single day without incident.
It's really not that dangerous.
That's not to say things can't be improved, or should be, drastically even (particularly when it comes to infrastructure). Close passes happen, but on my commutes and spins they're very much in the minority. I'm passed safely by innumerable cars daily. Close passes and other dangerous behaviours towards cyclists are very serious, definitely, but cycling around Dublin isn't inherently dangerous. That better education needs to happen is doubtless. Attitudes are hardening and this is obviously problematic.

Yes you will have incidents if you're on the road, as all road users will have. But it's a safe, free and very enjoyable activity the (vast) majority of the time.

+1 There were 10 million cycle journeys (at least) in Dublin in 2016, there was 1 death, that's 1 death too many but it is safe, it could be safer. It's a lot safer than it was in the 80s/90s.

What needs to happen is for vehicle drivers to pay more attention, put their mobile phones away, indicate clearly in advance of manoeuvres and be more aware of people cycling, there are more of us now than for a couple of decades and awareness is growing but very slowly.
Vehicle drivers

droidus

"The front rank of cycle-safe cities worldwide are in northern Europe. City Cycling, published in 2012 and edited by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler, calculated the average number of annual cyclist deaths over the previous five years for every 10,000 daily cycle commuters in big European and American cities. London, with an average of 1.1 deaths per 10,000 commuters, fared better than New York’s 3.8. But both lagged far behind the 0.3 annual average deaths in Copenhagen and 0.4 in Amsterdam."

https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/

I havent read that book and dont know if they have data for Dublin, but I would say that Dublin probably falls below London and is (statistically at least) less dangerous.

The frustrating thing is that it could be a LOT less dangerous with some decent infrastructure and a move away from the appalling car culture we have in Ireland.

doozerie

Macy0161 wrote: »

The only way to change road behaviour is enforcement.

I completely agree that enforcement is necessary but at best it is a blunt instrument that gets applied after the fact so basically after someone has already done something potentially dangerous and which is covered by the Rules of the Road. Apart from the fact that the Rules of the Road don't cover all behaviour anyway, I'd prefer that fellow road users didn't endanger me and others in the first place.

So my preferred approach is education first, to encourage understanding and empathy. Far too many people (not just motorists but cyclists and pedestrians too) adopt an approach of not giving a toss about anyone else while using the roads. Education for all road users of their potential impact on others would address the unreasonable behaviour of some, and hopefully many, of those people I believe. And for the rest who simply choose to be ignorant and/or obnoxious regardless, effective and consistent enforcement is necessary.

Enforcement without education will never be an effective solution, in my opinion.

magicbastarder

if you ask me, the only sort of education which will work is education via punishment.
education on its own will probably work with the 99% of motorists you don't need to worry about in the first place.

doozerie

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you ask me, the only sort of education which will work is education via punishment.
education on its own will probably work with the 99% of motorists you don't need to worry about in the first place.

The first challenge there is defining an effective punishment. For motorists, removing someone's right to drive is generally seen as a severe punishment (not nearly severe enough typically, but that's another discussion), yet how often do you read of motorists in court who amongst other things were driving without a license? As a punishment, it simply doesn't work for far too many people.

Or take a prison sentence, such a rarity for even the most appalling of behaviour on the roads, do you really believe that someone serving a prison sentence for a motoring offence will be a better/safer driver once they leave prison? Sure, no-one want to go (back to) prison, but even the admittedly faint threat of prison wasn't enough to stop them behaving in a way which led to them getting a prison sentence in the first place, so as a threat it's just not effective (enough).

And harder still is to define those 99% of motorists you don't need to worry about in the first place. Most of the worrying incidents I've witnessed or been subjected to on the road were not the result of malicious behaviour, but the result of regular people (like me) making poor decisions without thinking through the potential consequences. Such casual behaviour, even if not malicious, is no less dangerous all too often. And every last one of us potentially falls into that camp, every last one of us (including cyclsists) can be a danger to others in any given moment on any given day.

When I am driving my car and I'm choosing not to overtake the cyclist(s) ahead, despite the protests of the impatient motorist directly behind me, it's not because I am one of those motorists that you don't need to worry about. I'm as keen to get from A to B as anyone else, I'll overtake that cyclist(s) the first chance I get. But because I've been on the receiving end of such behaviour, I understand the risks involved if I overtake on a narrow road, or into a blind bend, etc., so I wait until I think it'll be safe.

My sense of what amounts to safe driving behaviour is based on, and biased by, my years of experience of riding a bike. Those years have been an education and without them I would probably be just as likely as anyone else to do a dangerous overtake which puts that cyclist(s) at risk because I am in a hurry and "they'll be grand" but mostly because I don't care in the least about them because they are "other".

Of course there are those for whom education won't work. There is a minority of people out there who are simply sociopathic, they'd run over their own mother if she were to get in their way. For those people I don't see any alternative to consistent enforcement paired with punishment - it won't solve the problem of their behaviour but it might minimise it.

ED E

85% of motorists admit texting and driving.

Nobody actually thinks its safe, or if they do they're too stupid to hold a drivers licence anyways. You're 23 x more likely to crash. People are selfish.


Until AGS are taking phones and crushing them beneath their boot or the monetary equivalent people won't cop the hell on.

Tombo2001

nee wrote: »

Thousands and thousands of cyclists go through Dublin city centre every single day without incident.
It's really not that dangerous.
That's not to say things can't be improved, or should be, drastically even (particularly when it comes to infrastructure). Close passes happen, but on my commutes and spins they're very much in the minority. I'm passed safely by innumerable cars daily. Close passes and other dangerous behaviours towards cyclists are very serious, definitely, but cycling around Dublin isn't inherently dangerous. That better education needs to happen is doubtless. Attitudes are hardening and this is obviously problematic.

Yes you will have incidents if you're on the road, as all road users will have. But it's a safe, free and very enjoyable activity the (vast) majority of the time.

The data I saw in recent days suggest that 4 cyclists are hospitalised every day. This was quoted by TOmmy Broughan in the Dail.

Lets assume 1/3rd are in Dublin. That would amount to circa 500 hospitalisations in Dublin every year.

You are saying thousands cycle 'without incident' every day. What is the ratio that distinguishes safe from unsafe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-12-000-cyclists-a-day-commute-into-dublin-city-1.2982547

If there are 12'000 commuting cyclists in Dublin everyday, and circa 500 are hospitalised each year...and many more have tumbles but dont go to hospital.....is that safe? I dont know. You tell me.

Are the figures right? I dont know, but I dont have any other figures. If you think the figures are wrong, the please show what the right figures are.

doozerie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Are the figures right? I dont know, but I dont have any other figures. If you think the figures are wrong, the please show what the right figures are.

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to pick a figure without providing convincing supporting evidence, and declare it valid unless someone can "show what the right figures are".

magicbastarder

or if you do take the figures at face value - 500 a year is two a day (based on commuting cyclists).
two out of 12,000 is a one in six thousand chance of being injured in any one day, or once every 30 years if you assume that the average commuter cycles on 200 days in one year.

or if you crunch the numbers slightly differently - one in 24 cyclists can expect to be injured in any one year if you use the raw '500 out of 12,000' figure (and all this is complicated by the fact that i guess it assumes it's the same 12,000 cycling in every day).

Tombo2001

doozerie wrote: »

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to pick a figure without providing convincing supporting evidence, and declare it valid unless someone can "show what the right figures are".

The figures ARE the supporting evidence.

That is - here is an opinion, and here is empirical data that provides supporting evidence.

Which is considered in most situations to be a stronger argument than - here is an opinion, and the supporting evidence is that its my opinion, and thats all anyone should need.

Jawgap

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The data I saw in recent days suggest that 4 cyclists are hospitalised every day. This was quoted by TOmmy Broughan in the Dail.

Lets assume 1/3rd are in Dublin. That would amount to circa 500 hospitalisations in Dublin every year.

You are saying thousands cycle 'without incident' every day. What is the ratio that distinguishes safe from unsafe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-12-000-cyclists-a-day-commute-into-dublin-city-1.2982547

If there are 12'000 commuting cyclists in Dublin everyday, and circa 500 are hospitalised each year...and many more have tumbles but dont go to hospital.....is that safe? I dont know. You tell me.

Are the figures right? I dont know, but I dont have any other figures. If you think the figures are wrong, the please show what the right figures are.

No let's not.

Let's start by finding out where Deputy Broughan got that statistic......it may come as a shock to some but TDs occasionally play it a bit fast and loose with facts and figures.

Tombo2001

Jawgap wrote: »

No let's not.

Let's start by finding out where Deputy Broughan got that statistic......it may come as a shock to some but TDs occasionally play it a bit fast and loose with facts and figures.

Ok work away - it seemed to be reasonably well backed up by data from individual hospitals.

He had very specific figures.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

or if you do take the figures at face value - 500 a year is two a day (based on commuting cyclists).
two out of 12,000 is a one in six thousand chance of being injured in any one day, or once every 30 years if you assume that the average commuter cycles on 200 days in one year.

or if you crunch the numbers slightly differently - one in 24 cyclists can expect to be injured in any one year if you use the raw '500 out of 12,000' figure (and all this is complicated by the fact that i guess it assumes it's the same 12,000 cycling in every day).

Do you consider that low risk?

Jawgap

magicbastarder wrote: »

or if you do take the figures at face value - 500 a year is two a day (based on commuting cyclists).
two out of 12,000 is a one in six thousand chance of being injured in any one day, or once every 30 years if you assume that the average commuter cycles on 200 days in one year.

or if you crunch the numbers slightly differently - one in 24 cyclists can expect to be injured in any one year if you use the raw '500 out of 12,000' figure (and all this is complicated by the fact that i guess it assumes it's the same 12,000 cycling in every day).

Or put it another way......every time I cycle 1 km in the city I have several dozen interactions with other road users, road infra-structure etc......

Scale that up and if (for the sake of simplicity), 10,000 cyclists are cycling 10km per day and having 10 inter-actions per km, that's roughly 1,000,000 interactions per day or about 250,000,000m interactions per year (counting only weekdays in Dublin). Of those daily 1,000,000 interactions, 'only' 4 result in an outcome with a cyclist being hospitalised - sounds pretty ok to me?

droidus

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Do you consider that low risk?

Risk is relative - what are you comparing it to?

Jawgap

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ok work away - it seemed to be reasonably well backed up by data from individual hospitals.

He had very specific figures.

Ok, post the data......I reckon there a 98.567% chance they're defective.....I presume you also accept that probability given it is quite specific?

doozerie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The figures ARE the supporting evidence.

That is - here is an opinion, and here is empirical data that provides supporting evidence.

Which is considered in most situations to be a stronger argument than - here is an opinion, and the supporting evidence is that its my opinion, and thats all anyone should need.

You have provided no supporting evidence. You say a figure was quoted by someone in the Dail but can you even point to where this was recorded? And that's before we even get to the question of whether he cited a figure based on real data or whether he simply rattled off a figure off the top of his head.

The dangers, or not (I'm in the "not" camp), of cycling is a topic that generates more than its fair share of hysteria. Chucking in figures as facts without evidence to support them simply feeds the hysteria and cripples real debate.

uphillonly

The press has been following this debate on Boards:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/01/30/suicidal-dublin-man-buys-bicycle/

Jawgap

Here's the Deputy's figures......

OVER 2,600 CYCLISTS ATTENDED HOSPITAL DUE TO ROAD ACCIDENTS IN 2015 & 2016 – BROUGHAN

....and as suspected they're a bit eggy......the figures relate to the “number of discharges with an external cause code of pedal cyclist injured in transport accident2 in acute hospitals, reported to HIPE for 2015 and 2016.” (my emphasis added).

He's assuming an external cause is always a motorist.

I'd be willing to bet I'm in there twice for the stitches I received following disagreements with potholes. Doubtless a good chunk of those figures are as a result of motorists' behaviour but not all of them will be, and it still doesn't show the whole picture because they lack context.

EDIT: Actually I'm probably only in their once for the time they had to keep me in to deal with one gash that needed some minor surgical cleaning out.

Chips Lovell

532 in Dublin. Of those, 152 were from the two children's hospitals.

Any time I've been treated in hospital it's been for a racing or training accident. I doubt they'd split them out from other pedal cyclist accidents.

Tombo2001

doozerie wrote: »

You have provided no supporting evidence. You say a figure was quoted by someone in the Dail but can you even point to where this was recorded? And that's before we even get to the question of whether he cited a figure based on real data or whether he simply rattled off a figure off the top of his head.

The dangers, or not (I'm in the "not" camp), of cycling is a topic that generates more than its fair share of hysteria. Chucking in figures as facts without evidence to support them simply feeds the hysteria and cripples real debate.

If I provided no supporting evidence then why is there an ongoing discussion regarding the validity of the evidence I cited.

Why do I even have to write that down.

So let me understand.

I provided evidence....to support the point I am making.......but no supporting evidence to support that evidence....



...if i provided supporting evidence to support that evidence.....would that be null and void because there was no supporting evidence to support the supporting evidence.....

eeeee

The worst injuries I have ever gotten on the bike is from a velodrome, which is purpose built for bikes and traffic free.
Other than that I have dislocated my shoulders a couple of times, once just going over a pothole (shoulders are fcuked).
I was hit by a car once in 13 years of almost daily cycling, he broke the lights and went straight into me.

I still regard commuting by bike extremely safe. Racing less so. If you take Jawgap's calculation, and counted every interaction you have on your daily commute, with every single driver, and every pedestrian, set of lights, every other cyclist, every bit of road furniture, kerb, piece of infrastructure - cycling in Dublin is incredibly safe. Describing it as anything else is hyperbole IMO. That is not to say it's completely safe, and no improvements can be made, or better education needed.

Education, education, education. Completely agree with Doozerie about understanding and empathy. There is a real binary 'them and us' opening up, which is awful. This is mirrored in attitudes more broadly. We are increasingly inhabiting an empathy dessert, and this is the most dangerous thing happening at the moment.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Do you consider that low risk?

i'd prefer it was lower, of course. but i suspect that my rough and ready figures would be completely at odds with what your average punter would guess at.

Plastik

Jesus this is rapidly descending into a Boards.ie thread.

1874

punisher5112 wrote: »

I see cyclists do mad things, pedestrians do bat sh1t crazy stuff cars, trucks etc etc.

One thing to remember is people don't see bikes that includes pedestrians.

People look through most cyclists and see the vehicle instead it's been well studied.....
I will say one thing though people are really getting dumber ....

I would say cyclists can be/are less visible even than motorbikes, and as someone that used to cycle to work all the time years ago, got clipped by a car off my bike once and other close calls, got driven into on a motorbike by a car, but have been a car driver for a longtime, a van driver and on a few occasions rigid trucks.
Cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, truck drivers, not different, all people and I think in a lot of cases can be individually selfish and annoying and do stupid things that disregards other road users or endangers others and themselves.
Mostly its about not understanding sharing the available road space, being aware of others and understanding their perspective. As a car driver, I take it easy around cyclists and give plenty of time and am conscious of the road surface in front of a bicycle if possible, like road damage or even puddles where a cyclist wont know whats under the water or may steer around it as I know what its like to hear someone in a car tearing up behind you or encroaching on you as (me at least) would wheeze along, while someone impatiently tries to get past you.

I see motorbikes doing stuff that I think is careless mainly for their own safety, like driving too fast/or down bus lanes approaching slip roads in the dark and wet especially, where it might mean a less observant driver might not see them.(I think bus lanes make sense for motorbikes to be in, but caution of cyclists, preferable for cyclists to have their own lane, but sharing the space makes better sense for use of a resource if people can respect each others use of it).

And car drivers, there are so many of them (me/us) relative to other road users, so there is more potential for incidents, you'd wonder how many of them passed a test, it seems like its just A-B means to an end, and too busy to pay attention and be damned with everyone else. Even simple things like indicating an intention to change lanes or turn or just buy a damn hands free bluetooth kit.

Cyclists, Ive seen do stupid stuff too, I think not using cycle lanes where they are provided does not make sense, doing things they may not realise increases the risk to them, for example going off the cycle lane to go straight on roads with that have slip roads, probably speeds things up instead of staying on the lane and crossing a slip road at a right angle(where the lane crosses). Also around junctions, breaking the lights, so much greater a risk to do so on a bike if a car crossing decides to do the same thing at the same time (and I see that a lot with cars) and not cycling in single file where it makes sense.

Layout of lanes and use, I think there should be dedicated cycle lanes/routes in and out of cities on all major routes, in practice its probably not likely that cycle lanes exist at all or will be dedicated, but even in shared lanes with buses there should be sufficient space in a joint lane for a bus to overtake cyclists without being right on top of them or for a cyclist to overtake a bus where it is stopped to pick up/drop off passengers. Like an extra wide bus lane with a red cycling portion on each side, where the cyclist can use up the entire width unless a bus approaches,and then be obliged to move to the red portion to allow overtaking by buses. It would be preferable for many reasons to not have to cordon this portion of road off from cars with a concrete kerb/other barrier, but in this country it is likely going to have to be done.

Cyclists being visible and correct road use, in the same way there are rules for other road users, I think cyclists need to be obliged to follow the rules themselves, its not a one size fits all solution, following the rules, a mixture of high viz and lights, for road use a mirror should be compulsory and a helmet. I noticed recently pulling out of a business, it was early, dark, raining, because I was tired I was taking my time, saw a cyclist approaching but barely, as the cars lights further back made it difficult to see the cyclist even with their own front light on. I could tell
it would have been better if they had a blinking light (but not a blinding light) and even some reflective bands on moving part of their body, I think that would be a good idea as cyclists need to make themselves highly visible, just putting a light on doesn't necessarily do that well or as well as a cyclist may think. Although I have a gripe about really bright (dazzling bike lights, the same as if a car driver has badly adjusted lights or drives with their beams in my face), I think a blinking light that is dipped at a slight angle to the road, instead of full on face out helps a cyclist be seen very well, maybe in conjunction with a non blinking light for their own visibility of the road. Cyclists that are on paths or lanes facing oncoming traffic need to be aware of that. Cyclists cycling aginst the flow of traffic on cycle lanes, where there is not a contra flow bus lane I think is mad, Ive come across cyclists doing that and in the dark, or where someone appears like that around a corner, someone doing that is putting themselves at a pointless risk, its even less understandable, when there is a lane on the other side of the road.

I think there really needs to be more motorbike traffic Gardai, motorbikes so they can get around easily and monitor things in heavy traffic, I think where anyone breaches the rules of the road but where it has not resulted in something serious, rather than just fining people and sending them on their way, they should maybe have a nominal fine and have to take some kind of road/traffic/other road user awareness class, maybe pay for their own attendance and have it recorded. If something like this had video clips showing other users perspective or what ifs like if this was your child, might make people think, any further or other breaches where the awareness class is the same, means they should retake the awareness class with a ban on driving until its completed and so on on an increasing sliding scale. Without education, just simply fining or banning people wont fix problems, but it should apply to all road users.

doozerie wrote: »

I completely agree that enforcement is necessary but at best it is a blunt instrument that gets applied after the fact so basically after someone has already done something potentially dangerous and which is covered by the Rules of the Road. Apart from the fact that the Rules of the Road don't cover all behaviour anyway, I'd prefer that fellow road users didn't endanger me and others in the first place.

So my preferred approach is education first, to encourage understanding and empathy. Far too many people (not just motorists but cyclists and pedestrians too) adopt an approach of not giving a toss about anyone else while using the roads. Education for all road users of their potential impact on others would address the unreasonable behaviour of some, and hopefully many, of those people I believe. And for the rest who simply choose to be ignorant and/or obnoxious regardless, effective and consistent enforcement is necessary.

Enforcement without education will never be an effective solution, in my opinion.

Agreed

doozerie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why do I even have to write that down.

Penance?