City just crazy

Mrs OBumble

John_Rambo wrote: »

Regarding bikes and cars not mixing... the less cars the less accidents!

Do you have any research to support the claim that fewer cars equals fewer accidents? (Fewer being the correct word for discrete units ...)

Is that per journey or per km travelled?

Or is it just fewer accidents which lead to death?

Dies it include near misss?

How is the data collected?

John_Rambo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Do you have any research to support the claim that fewer cars equals fewer accidents? (Fewer being the correct word for discrete units ...)

Is that per journey or per km travelled?

Or is it just fewer accidents which lead to death?

Dies it include near misss?

How is the data collected?

Very few car accidents on pedestrianised roads in comparison to ones with cars, trucks and vans. You don’t need research.

Common sense.

McTigs

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Do you have any research to support the claim that fewer cars equals fewer accidents? (Fewer being the correct word for discrete units ...)

Is that per journey or per km travelled?

Or is it just fewer accidents which lead to death?

Dies it include near misss?

How is the data collected?

You side stepped something a few pages back on dark coloured cars.... what's you opinion on that in relation to bright coloured clothes on cyclists?

Also you mentioned helmets......What is your research evidence that they reduce injury?

Is it fewer deaths or fewer injuries.... or fewer acidents?

How is the data collected?

Mrs OBumble

McTigs wrote: »

You side stepped something a few pages back on dark coloured cars.... what's you opinion on that in relation to bright coloured clothes on cyclists?

Also you mentioned helmets......What is your research evidence that they reduce injury?

Is it fewer deaths or fewer injuries.... or fewer acidents?

How is the data collected?

I'll come back to those questions next time im posting from a desktop. Too hard on the phone.

jjpep

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

John_Rambo wrote: »

Regarding bikes and cars not mixing... the less cars the less accidents!

Do you have any research to support the claim that fewer cars equals fewer accidents?   (Fewer being the correct word for discrete units ...)

Is that per journey or per km travelled?

Or is it just fewer accidents which lead to death?

Dies it include near misss?

How is the data collected?

Some reading on the topic:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
Slightly different topic but interesting anyway: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9729218/Driving-is-five-times-more-dangerous-than-cycling-for-young-men.html

bobbyss

jjpep wrote:

One real scare only. A taxi driver who fallen asleep at the wheel veered towards us from the opposite lane but he stopped in time. Got a bit of a fright although weirdly enough the driver seemed to have a worse one than me.

What if the taxi hadn't stopped in time? Would it have hit you?

Had you been in a car do you think you all would have sustained the same injuries as on a bicycle?

ben.schlomo

ben.schlomo wrote: »

A classic in the nox catalogue of nonsense.

A child driving in an open field with a person in the tractor with them has more chance of being killed by a nuke hitting the tractor than by something happening while driving around the field. The safest place for a child is in the tractor, its kids running around farm yards etc that are in danger.

McTigs wrote: »

And what is your reason for thinking it's "madness" to transport kids on bikes? Is it because of irresponsible drivers (not saying all of course, but enough)?

It only takes one small thing to go wrong and a kid is toast on a bike, yes bad drivers are one part but there are many other things also. Unsighted drivers of bigger vehicles like busses, bad cycling by the person pulling the child around, a driver falling a sleep and hitting them, a driver having a heart attach and hitting them the list is long.

jjpep

bobbyss wrote: »

What if the taxi hadn't stopped in time? Would it have hit you?

Had you been in a car do you think you all would have sustained the same injuries as on a bicycle?

If it hadn't stopped, then yes it would have. Injuries, actually hard to say. Let me explain the full story:

What happened is this, I was on the bike, stopped at the top of t junction at one of the roads that joins the road that runs along the side of the hospital in shantalla. Taxi was approaching, could see him from a good bit away, let's say about 30,40 meters away. He was on far side of the road. He wasn't going very fast and in fact was starting to slow down as I watched. Then started to slowly veer across the road and was pointing at us. At this point he was doing only slightly faster than walking speed. This all seemed a bit wrong. I started shouting at him and moving out of the way and then he stopped dead in the road about 5 or 6 meters or so from us. This was all over the space of maybe 10 seconds or so. He hopped out of the car and was in a bit of a state. Said he had been working all night and had fallen asleep. Said he lived on that street and was going to bed.

Why I say its hard to figure out if we would have been injured worse if we were in the car or not is that I don't know if the collision would have set off the air bags or not. With the slow speed he was going they would probably do more injuries to us than anything else.

Now this is obviously a very particular set of circumstances - if this was all happening at 50 kmph than clearly we would sustain less injuries in a car.

The over arching point though is this: statistics and evidence tell us that on a bike in Ireland we are safe. The short term risk in taking the kid to school on a bike is extremely low and acceptable. When I compare it to the long risks from inactivity such as obesity etc then it makes more sense to me to take her to school on a bike (and for me commute to work) than drive unless there is a compelling reason that day.

Now if everyone, or the majority did the same we would a decrease in the short risk in cycling(see my links in a previous post) and a long term gain of a healthier, fitter society with less money put into the health system to treat preventable conditions that come from unhealthy lifestyles.

McTigs

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

It only takes one small thing to go wrong and a kid is toast on a bike, yes bad drivers are one part but there are many other things also. Unsighted drivers of bigger vehicles like busses, bad cycling by the person pulling the child around, a driver falling a sleep and hitting them, a driver having a heart attach and hitting them the list is long.

OK the last two and any other "black swan" events are too far to remote in possibilty to be considered in arguement. There are "What about's" in everything we do in life.

I believe the first two are all the more reason to encourage cycling in kids. I got my stabilisers off when I was 3 and I've pretty much cycled everyday since, now 44. I learned early through experience about spatial awareness and how to read traffic, how to gauge speed and developed a sense of the road.

My commute to secondary school was ten miles round trip from when I was twelve, later commuted to college and more or less since then to work in urban traffic. It's also my sport hobby, up to 150km spins on rural roads at the weekend. In those 30+ years I have had one single solitary knock with a car (passenger door opened on me in stationary traffic). One. What does that tell me?

It tells me competence on the road is paramount be it car, bike, bus or truck.
The only way to teach kids is to get them out in it. I guarantee you any idiot you see cycling up the left hand of a truck or bus has not been on a bike long and won't be for much longer.

xckjoo

bobbyss wrote: »

What if the taxi hadn't stopped in time? Would it have hit you?

Had you been in a car do you think you all would have sustained the same injuries as on a bicycle?

Had the driver been on a bike instead of a car do you think he'd have hit anything other than the ground if he fell asleep?

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

A child driving in an open field with a person in the tractor with them has more chance of being killed by a nuke hitting the tractor than by something happening while driving around the field. The safest place for a child is in the tractor, its kids running around farm yards etc that are in danger.

But not as safe as if they were in a tank! I'm sold. Tanks for all. Safest way to travel.



I'll lock the kids in the basement the rest of the time. Fewer kids are killed in hit-and-runs when they're locked in the basement. Eventually they'll adapt to their new subterranean lifestyle.

benjamin d

McTigs wrote: »

OK the last two and any other "black swan" events are too far to remote in possibilty to be considered in arguement. There are "What about's" in everything we do in life.

And each of those black swan events are exponentially more likely to affect another car user. The stats don't lie, cycling is safe. Why people insist on arguing otherwise is frankly bizarre given the evidence.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Had the driver been on a bike instead of a car do you think he'd have hit anything other than the ground if he fell asleep?




But not as safe as if they were in a tank! I'm sold. Tanks for all. Safest way to travel.



I'll lock the kids in the basement the rest of the time. Fewer kids are killed in hit-and-runs when they're locked in the basement. Eventually they'll adapt to their new subterranean lifestyle.

I wasn't comparing cycling to driving around the field in a tractor, it was a response to another poster who was calling my post "nonsense" I can only assume suggesting that driving around a field in a tractor is not safe.

xckjoo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

I wasn't comparing cycling to driving around the field in a tractor, it was a response to another poster who was calling my post "nonsense" I can only assume suggesting that driving around a field in a tractor is not safe.

That's fair enough. I was thinking it was fairly obvious that being in the tractor driven by a 10yr old was safer than being in the field beside him .

I thought your comment was more related to it being safer to be in a car/tractor/SUV because it's dangerous on the roads due to all the cars/tractors/SUV's that could potentially hit you.

John_Rambo

bobbyss wrote: »

What if the taxi hadn't stopped in time? Would it have hit you?

Had you been in a car do you think you all would have sustained the same injuries as on a bicycle?

So do we

A- ban bikes because of fatigued, drunk or incompetent drivers may injure them and force them in to cars further snarling up Galway cities streets?

Or

B- reduce the cars?

It’s B.

John_Rambo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

It only takes one small thing to go wrong and a kid is toast on a bike, yes bad drivers are one part but there are many other things also. Unsighted drivers of bigger vehicles like busses, bad cycling by the person pulling the child around, a driver falling a sleep and hitting them, a driver having a heart attach and hitting them the list is long.

Good points. All the more reason we should reduce vehicular traffic in the city, clamp down on parking to improve safe cycle facilities.

_ZeeK_

Copenhagenize your city: the case for urban cycling in 12 graphs

Example of the sort of analysis that goes into planning cycle routes in Copenhagen (an extremely bicycle friendly city).

Very interesting read. Wonder if this level of analysis has ever been done for Galway?

bobbyss

John_Rambo wrote:

So do we

John_Rambo wrote:

A- ban bikes because of fatigued, drunk or incompetent drivers may injure them and force them in to cars further snarling up Galway cities streets?

John_Rambo wrote:

B- reduce the cars?

John_Rambo wrote:

It’s B.

If my child was injured or died by same veering taxi knowing that a car offered more protection-then what of statistics?

jjpep

bobbyss wrote: »

If my child was injured or died by same veering taxi knowing that a car offered more protection-then what of statistics?

Life is not risk free. I gave my rationale for my decisions. You may make different decisions (perhaps you drive your kid to school?) But that is still a decision that contains risk.

Ultimately, we all make our choices and then roll the dice. Such is life.

what_traffic

bobbyss wrote: »

If my child was injured or died by same veering taxi knowing that a car offered more protection-then what of statistics?

Now the title of this thread is apt.

bobbyss

jjpep wrote:

Life is not risk free. I gave my rationale for my decisions. You may make different decisions (perhaps you drive your kid to school?) But that is still a decision that contains risk.

jjpep wrote:

Ultimately, we all make our choices and then roll the dice. Such is life.

I agree.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Good points. All the more reason we should reduce vehicular traffic in the city, clamp down on parking to improve safe cycle facilities.

Except that's not what I meant. I'd be in favour of discouraging any of the child bike trailers etc though as they are awkward and dangerous. They are also a silly thing to see people going around with and I always think of the hardship the person is putting themselves and their kids through as I cruise past but that's just my opinion of course.

Cycling is only for a very small minority of people, cycling with kids in tow for an even smaller minority any talk of reducing vehicular traffic or parking in favour of suiting a tiny minority should be stamped out at the first suggestion. Cycling is never going to be suitable for most people, there is then the smaller group who it may be suitable at times but who have zero interest in it and then there are the tiny minority who cycle regularly. Now I'm not saying they (adult cyclists) should be discouraged not to nor some infrastructure put in place for them (once it's not robbing road or parking space) but in no way should it be given any serious standing ahead of cars and other vehicles.

When/if I have a child I'll be moving from a car to a large SUV not to a bike with a trailer.

benjamin d

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Except that's not what I meant. I'd be in favour of discouraging any of the child bike trailers etc though as they are awkward and dangerous. They are also a silly thing to see people going around with and I always thing of the hardship the person is putting themselves and their kids through but that's just my opinion of course.

You're determined aren't you?

First of all, how are they awkward? Unless you're travelling huge distances they're neater and handier than a car in almost all city centre cases.

Dangerous? Entirely your perception. Statistically safer than a car in multiple ways.

Silly thing to see people going round with? Now we're probably drilling down to the blind prejudice in your heart for cyclists and cycling. Do you mean silly to see them passing you in traffic? Or silly that they're not buying into the ingrained social conditioning that coerces us all into car ownership when most of us could easily do without one 90% of the time?

As for that guff in the second paragraph you added, cycling is the most efficient, space saving, quick, and cheap way for city dwellers to travel. If it's provided for it will be used as the number one transport option in urban areas. Copenhagen, Amsterdam and the likes prove this. Just because you're happy to plant your arse in your huge metal box for two hours a day doesn't mean that should be the default.

what_traffic

The thread that keeps on giving.

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Cycling is only for a very small minority of people, cycling with kids in tow for an even smaller minority any talk of reducing vehicular traffic or parking in favour of suiting a tiny minority should be stamped out at the first suggestion.

This is Outdated 1950/60's road engineering thinking with strains of certain dominant 1930s ideology thrown in as well.

A bicycle is a "Vehicle" in Irish Road Traffic law. So when you see a bicycle on any street or road - it is part of the vehicular traffic.

Discodog

benjamin d wrote: »

YOU have to agree, based entirely on your personal perception, one that is utterly unfounded in evidence or fact and is in truth the opposite of the real story. To be statistically accurate, if you're afraid of kids on bikes you should be absolutely sh¡tting yourself about kids in cars.

Look up the term dangerisation of cycling to see for yourself how deliberate and pernicious the push for this perception is from certain vested interests.

In my experience block capitals means lost argument.

Discodog

what_traffic wrote: »

The thread that keeps on giving.



This is Outdated 1950/60's road engineering thinking with strains of certain dominant 1930s ideology thrown in as well.

A bicycle is a "Vehicle" in Irish Road Traffic law. So when you see a bicycle on any street or road - it is part of the vehicular traffic.

Yes & one with no identification, no qualification to ride & no insurance - even though it is capable of inflicting serious injury

benjamin d

Discodog wrote: »

In my experience block capitals means lost argument.

Well done you

what_traffic

It keeps on giving.

Discodog wrote: »

Yes & one with no identification, no qualification to ride & no insurance - even though it is capable of inflicting serious injury

Yes this 10-15kg vehicle is capable of killing hundreds every year on our roads in Ireland, yet does not on any kind of regular basis unlike <_____>

what_traffic

Discodog wrote: »

Yes & one with no identification, no qualification to ride & no insurance - even though it is capable of inflicting serious injury

Yet people who have identification, have "qualifications" and insurance are inflicting serious injury and deaths on our roads. Whats the point?

J.pilkington

what_traffic wrote: »

Yet people who have identification, have "qualifications" and insurance are inflicting serious injury and deaths on our roads. Whats the point?

Implication of actions is the point.

AndrewJRenko

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

It only takes one small thing to go wrong and a kid is toast on a bike, yes bad drivers are one part but there are many other things also. Unsighted drivers of bigger vehicles like busses, bad cycling by the person pulling the child around, a driver falling a sleep and hitting them, a driver having a heart attach and hitting them the list is long.

Far more children are killed or injured in cars than on bikes.