Careless cyclists.

eeguy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Or, you take account of the prevailing traffic conditions and put yourself at minimum risk, instead of inventing the worst possible case scenario.

I'll propose the alternative that is to live by the rule of law only, and cycle up the inside of a truck that has his left indicator on. Don't worry about getting crushed under the back wheels, it's the truck drivers responsibility to see you.

The problem with your scenario is that you assume there's a few hundred metres to anticipate a car indicating left.

Take any street in Dublin and you'll find that cars will overtake you with maybe 100 metres to a junction, swerve left and indicate halfway through the turn.
Pulling out into traffic is a no no at the best of times.
Personally I tend to avoid cycle lanes for situations like this, and that they're usually full of cars and rubbish anyways.

It's hard to account for every scenario and make a rule for it. Defensive cycling and taking up a position in the road is the most safe way to cycle in the city IMO.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Selection bias would certainly be one of reasons - we "all" see loads of cyclists breaking the lights, but yet the objective Luas red light camera picked up 88% of red light jumpers were motorists not cyclists.

We 'all' see the motorists that dragged us down to 2nd worst position on the European league table for mobile phone abuse, and yet we choose to moan about cyclists. We "all" see the reporting of the three or four people killed by motorists on the road every week, and we instantly forgot - and when the press reports a single incident of a pedestrian injured by a cyclist (ref Gardiner St), we remember the where and when.

This is a cylcing thread, what has mobile phone use among motorists got to do with it? You're determined to drag this off topic. This is exactly the behaviour that it banned on the cycling forum.

trellheim

As a regular Dublin cycler there are a few careless ones who I'm amazed dont get creamed daily , however by and large they don't have the kinetic energy of a saloon car so there's that.

kirving

eeguy wrote: »

It's hard to account for every scenario and make a rule for it. Defensive cycling and taking up a position in the road is the most safe way to cycle in the city IMO.

Absolutely agree with this, it causes far less issue in the long term

AndrewJRenko

Kevin Irving wrote: »

This is a cylcing thread, what has mobile phone use among motorists got to do with it? You're determined to drag this off topic. This is exactly the behaviour that it banned on the cycling forum.

This is a thread about a proposed change to road safety activities and traffic management. We have finite resources in Dept Transport (policy), Road Safety Authority (education) and local authorities (implementation).

Any time and budget spent by these various authorities on implementing the proposed measure will mean reduced time and resources spend on reducing the death toll on the roads caused by motorists. Hence the importance of understanding the actual causes of danger on the road, instead of the George Hook fantasy causes of danger on the road.

But if you do have a problem with any of my posts, I can only suggest that you click the report button and leave moderation to the moderators.

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

there are some cyclists who have very little regard for their own safety in the race to get to work.

i see it a lot with cyclists undertaking HGVs on and around the east link. drives me batty.
the question is, what to do about it - it's not a manouevre you could easily make illegal (and then you'd have the issue of actual enforcement anyway).

the main issue for cyclists (well, i'm probably just speaking for myself) is the disproportionate focus placed on cyclist behaviour in relation to road safety - disproportionate compared to the actual danger caused by such behaviour.

and to be honest, some of the behaviour i see which is illegal doesn't bother me all that much; specifically a couple of junctions near me where i see schoolkids on bikes crossing the junction when the pedestrian light is green. it's probably/possibly safer to do so when there's not going to be any motorised traffic in the junction which is jockeying for position. granted, safer if they clearly observe and allow for pedestrians.

Wishbone Ash

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is a thread about a proposed change to road safety activities and traffic management....

Not exactly - it originated in the North County Dublin Forum and was about cyclists not using the sub way at R132/M1 Junction 4.

AndrewJRenko

ebbsy wrote: »

The reality is that there are areas in Dublin that are not safe for cyclists to travel on. Especially the city centre. It's hard enough to drive around there never mind cycle. You can paint all the cycle lanes you like and then say yep Dublin is a cyclists city, but it's not.

If you're finding it challenging to share the road with other legal road users, this would be a good time to hand over the keys to a competent driver.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Are we 100% sure thst cyclists do not maintain or kill themselves, or are motorists the only ones who hurt cyclists?

There have been a few very rare occasions of cyclists directly causing their own deaths. I follow these matters fairly closely, and I can recall three in about the last five years:

• the guy who cycled onto the M1 while drunk and got killed
• the club cyclist who came off at speed during a fast descent in Wicklow and got killed
• the guy in Cork who ran into the back of the car who parked to ask him for directions

I could possibly have missed a small number of others, but by and large that's about the size of it. Let's be generous and say 1 or 2 cyclists each year cause their own deaths, so that would be about 1% of road deaths. Please explain to me why it's a good idea to focus energy of policy makers, regulators, enforcers and educators on the 1% while we all turn a blind eye to the 99%?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Cyclists who cycle up the inside of a truck are absolutely partially responsible when it comes to getting killed. Legal or not, there is absolutely no justifiable reason why you should do that, and put your life in the hands of a truck driver. Yet I see it every single day.

It sounds you've fallen for the industry line of blaming the victims. If I take up my hobby of machete swinging outside the door of your kids' school, are you going to castigate your kids for getting too close to me, or are you going to solve the real problem?

The real problem is why we think it is OK to let these deadly machines share the streets with our kids, our parents, our friends and our family without taking every possible measure to make it safe? Why don't we make sure these trucks have see-through doors, or better mirrors, or cameras, or extra crew on watch to make sure they don't kill people?

Wishbone Ash

Kevin Irving wrote: »

..I cringe and look away when I see some people squeeze up between two busses, or overtake a parked car without even looking around...

As a regular cyclist, I cringe myself when I see that.

AndrewJRenko

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Not exactly - it originated in the North County Dublin Forum and was about cyclists not using the sub way at R132/M1 Junction 4.

I interpreted this:

At a time when there is a lot of roads signs going up to warn us about giving cyclists enough space when we are over taking them I wonder has anyone thought about putting a few signs to ask cyclists to be careful.

to refer to a broader issue than one particular junction, but perhaps the OP would want to clarify.

TheQuietFella

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I interpreted this:

At a time when there is a lot of roads signs going up to warn us about giving cyclists enough space when we are over taking them I wonder has anyone thought about putting a few signs to ask cyclists to be careful.

to refer to a broader issue than one particular junction, but perhaps the OP would want to clarify.

You would only offend someone!!!!

Wishbone Ash

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I interpreted this:

At a time when there is a lot of roads signs going up to warn us about giving cyclists enough space when we are over taking them I wonder has anyone thought about putting a few signs to ask cyclists to be careful.

to refer to a broader issue than one particular junction, but perhaps the OP would want to clarify.

I assume Leo B was referring to the 1.5 metre signs which have been erected by Fingal CC over the past few weeks on the R127, R128, R122 etc.

(He doesn't generally post outside the DNC Forum).

P_1

magicbastarder wrote: »

i see it a lot with cyclists undertaking HGVs on and around the east link. drives me batty.
the question is, what to do about it - it's not a manouevre you could easily make illegal (and then you'd have the issue of actual enforcement anyway).

the main issue for cyclists (well, i'm probably just speaking for myself) is the disproportionate focus placed on cyclist behaviour in relation to road safety - disproportionate compared to the actual danger caused by such behaviour.

and to be honest, some of the behaviour i see which is illegal doesn't bother me all that much; specifically a couple of junctions near me where i see schoolkids on bikes crossing the junction when the pedestrian light is green. it's probably/possibly safer to do so when there's not going to be any motorised traffic in the junction which is jockeying for position. granted, safer if they clearly observe and allow for pedestrians.

TBH I'd say a few hard hitting ads might be the best way. Put a dummy on a bike on the inside of a truck turning left and then show the results.

dashcamdanny

P_1 wrote: »

TBH I'd say a few hard hitting ads might be the best way. Put a dummy on a bike on the inside of a truck turning left and then show the results.

Not just trucks.

For the most part most cyclists are switched on to the dangers around them. Other are not and leave their survival in other peoples hands. Head phones, Rain hoods and bad weather makes it worse.

This is a wet evening pic. Spot the cyclist.

John_Rambo

P_1 wrote: »

TBH I'd say a few hard hitting ads might be the best way. Put a dummy on a bike on the inside of a truck turning left and then show the results.

They've tried similar campaigns regarding trucks and high vehicles hitting bridges, but even with massive fines they still drive in to them.

P_1

John_Rambo wrote: »

They've tried similar campaigns regarding trucks and high vehicles hitting bridges, but even with massive fines they still drive in to them.

TBH that type of campaign would be more aimed at cyclists than truck drivers.

beauf

eeguy wrote: »

....
Pulling out into traffic is a no no at the best of times.

Personally I tend to avoid cycle lanes for situations like this, and that they're usually full of cars and rubbish anyways.

It's hard to account for every scenario and make a rule for it. Defensive cycling and taking up a position in the road is the most safe way to cycle in the city IMO.

Your posts confuse me. Using cycle lanes, cycling defensively, pulling into traffic, going around left turning vehicles are all normal part of cycling in city traffic.

average_runner

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I do obey the rules.

My point is that a cyclist breaking a red light is mainly going to be a danger to themselves whereas a motorist will be a much greater danger to others. Strangely we rarely have threads complaining about motorists breaking red lights even though it become almost the norm at most junctions.

If you walk around city centre in rush hour you would find A lot more cyclists than cars breaking the lights.

A cyclist can cause serious harm, a friend of mine had his leg broken by cyclists going through red light near Olympia.

Odds are in favour of the cyclist though.

eeguy

average_runner wrote: »

If you walk around city centre in rush hour you would find A lot more cyclists than cars breaking the lights.

A cyclist can cause serious harm, a friend of mine had his leg broken by cyclists going through red light near Olympia.

Odds are in favour of the cyclist though.

This statement is very popular here, but there's absolutely nothing to back it up.
There's plenty of youtube vids where people set up webcams at junctions in Dublin and record the number of cars that Amber gamble or break red lights.

Phibsboro is a great one for it.

Achasanai

average_runner wrote: »

If you walk around city centre in rush hour you would find A lot more cyclists than cars breaking the lights.

A cyclist can cause serious harm, a friend of mine had his leg broken by cyclists going through red light near Olympia.

Odds are in favour of the cyclist though.

A cyclist can cause serious harm, but it's incredibly rare. You do see cyclists breaking lights and things like that on a more regular basis (from what I can see) but it's far far more dangerous when a car breaks a light than when a cyclist does it.

RacoonQueen

If I had a choice of who I was to be in a cyclist / pedestrian collision, I would pick being the pedestrian every time. A cyclist more likely to be seriously hurt if they hit a pedestrian.

jimmycrackcorm

average_runner wrote:

If you walk around city centre in rush hour you would find A lot more cyclists than cars breaking the lights.

Stand at the corner of westmoreland and ó Connell Bridge and you see that pedestrians vastly outnumber everyone else when it comes to breaking the lights.

RacoonQueen wrote:

If I had a choice of who I was to be in a cyclist / pedestrian collision, I would pick being the pedestrian every time. A cyclist more likely to be seriously hurt if they hit a pedestrian.

Sadly the case for the cyclist in the phoenix park who collided with a pedestrian in the cycle track.

Op should try cycling through a roundabout just to appreciate how difficult it is when you're a fraction of the width of a car.

John_Rambo

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the reason there ais no data on that is that they wont look at crashes with an unbiased view. they look at the blaming th emotorist before any eveidence is seen.

ov all the pedestrians and cyclists that died in the last few years , how many have been fully or partially their own fault. its a lot more than is reported in the news.
if you look at dash cam videos on you tube it shows a lot of crashes caused by pedestrians and cyclists. i dont see why that wouldnt apply across the board and happen reguarly.
iv seen some shocking stuff from cylists and pedestrians that could have very easily killed them or caused a crash between other cars

I'd say about less than 1% of them involve cyclists and pedestrians being at fault. More than 99% of dashcam footage on youtube is unbelievably bad driving by car and van drivers unless you're specifically searching for ones that are edited to show bad cyclists. And those ones are very very scant in comparison to the bad driving ones.

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

If you walk around city centre in rush hour you would find A lot more cyclists than cars breaking the lights.

And yet, if you stick an objective camera at a city centre junction, you find a lot more motorists than cyclists breaking the red lights - 88% motorists vs 12% cyclists to be specific, in the case of the Luas red light cameras.

But why the narrow focus on breaking lights? Let's expand your survey to 'red light breaking and speed limit breaking' and tell me if you still find more cyclists than motorists offending? And if we go one step further and include mobile phone abuse (including the four out of five motorists that check their phone at traffic lights), do you still find more cyclists than motorists offending?

the_pen_turner

John_Rambo wrote: »

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the reason there ais no data on that is that they wont look at crashes with an unbiased view. they look at the blaming th emotorist before any eveidence is seen.

ov all the pedestrians and cyclists that died in the last few years , how many have been fully or partially their own fault. its a lot more than is reported in the news.
if you look at dash cam videos on you tube it shows a lot of crashes caused by pedestrians and cyclists. i dont see why that wouldnt apply across the board and happen reguarly.
iv seen some shocking stuff from cylists and pedestrians that could have very easily killed them or caused a crash between other cars

I'd say about less than 1% of them involve cyclists and pedestrians being at fault. More than 99% of dashcam footage on youtube is unbelievably bad driving by car and van drivers unless you're specifically searching for ones that are edited to show bad cyclists. And those ones are very very scant in comparison to the bad driving ones.

That may well be true but my point is that there are videos of cyclist s doing stupid stuff that causes crashes

uck51js9zml2yt

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So that's a No then.

And how seriously was that pedestrian in Gardiner St injured, compared to the pedestrians who were maimed by motorists on that same day?

A quick Google
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/pedestrian-injured-clash-dublin-crash/

She was critically injured due to him breaking the lights.

patrickbrophy18

There are careless members of each road user group and not just cyclists.

Also, the notion of a speed limit for cyclists as well as insurance and theory tests to name but a few is ludicrous as it serves to discourage cycling.

The current rules and laws are barely enforceable as it is.

As a counter balancing argument, as a motorist, I see so much careless driving by ignorant people on their phones or those who insist on driving right up my tail. In any case, these road users are going to do far more damage than a cyclist doing the same.

Yes, it is frustrating seeing cyclists blatantly breaking red lights or going the wrong way up one-way streets. However, they are just putting themselves in danger.

Finally, in light of the recent snow-storms, I have seen that the cycle lanes and tracks as well as pedestrian paths were left uncleared. This only reinforces the perception of marginalizing these road users.

John_Rambo

the_pen_turner wrote: »

That may well be true but my point is that there are videos of cyclist s doing stupid stuff that causes crashes

It is true.

I can't find many videos where cyclists cause crashes, they're there, hidden amongst the millions of them where car drivers cause crashes.

Where do you think the focus should be?

A - the tiny minority of cyclists that cause crashes with minimal human damage?

or

B - the massive majority of cars that cause crashes that end up in fatalities and life long disabilities?

the_pen_turner

John_Rambo wrote: »

the_pen_turner wrote: »

That may well be true but my point is that there are videos of cyclist s doing stupid stuff that causes crashes

It is true.

I can't find many videos where cyclists cause crashes, they're there, hidden amongst the millions of them where car drivers cause crashes.

Where do you think the focus should be?

A - the tiny minority of cyclists that cause crashes with minimal human damage?

or

B - the massive majority of cars that cause crashes that end up in fatalities and life long disabilities?

What harm is wanting to reduce the figures. Rules and refs only effect those that break the rules

jimmycrackcorm

the_pen_turner wrote:

That may well be true but my point is that there are videos of cyclist s doing stupid stuff that causes crashes

There are a lot of videos of stupid stuff.

Madilyn Slow Cupcake wrote:

She was critically injured due to him breaking the lights.

How many cyclists were killed in road collisions last year with cars; how many pedestrians were killed in collisions with cyclist in the last twenty years.