Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

SeanW

07Lapierre wrote: »

WARNING: You may get upset if you read this..

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/cycling-with-babies-and-toddlers/

This may go some way to explaining why the Netherlands does worse than Ireland in terms of some road safety measures:
Worse road fatality statistics per 100,000 population (2.9 vs. 3.8) and per billion vehicle kilometres driven (3.8 vs. 4.7)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

07Lapierre

SeanW wrote: »

Umm ... that's a golf cart ... for use on golf courses ... at relatively low speeds ...

Exactly.. which might explain why it doesn't have air bags/crumple zones etc. etc.

SeanW

I'd imagine that a cyclist can go faster than a golf cart. Plus, bicycles are not limited to golf courses. Besides, that pokey little frame does provide the occupant with some protection.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

That's very true. if a car driver hits a cyclists, the car driver and passengers will be fine. the cyclist on the other hand... well the plastic hat is better than nothing right?

Well that depends, in minor collisions, where you get knocked off the bike then a helmet probably will save you more serious head injuries, in a 120kph accident (say on the motorway where we know cyclists aren't supposed to be, but somehow a few still don't seem to understand this) not so much.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well that depends, in minor collisions, where you get knocked off the bike then a helmet probably will save you more serious head injuries, in a 120kph accident (say on the motorway where we know cyclists aren't supposed to be, but somehow a few still don't seem to understand this) not so much.

Agreed, injuries (to everyone) vary depending on lots of factors...speed being one of the biggest factors. Other factors include lack of observation/awareness, phone use etc.

07Lapierre

SeanW wrote: »

I'd imagine that a cyclist can go faster than a golf cart. Plus, bicycles are not limited to golf courses. Besides, that pokey little frame does provide the occupant with some protection.

Golf carts are allowed on the road in Michegan! God bless America!

https://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/2013/05/27/can-i-ride-my-golf-cart-or-orv-on-the-road/

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed, injuries (to everyone) vary depending on lots of factors...speed being one of the biggest factors. Other factors include lack of observation/awareness, phone use etc.

No argument from me on that, especially about the phone use, is it time we introduced a ban on cyclists using their phones or other mobile devices, I see the Dutch think if worthwhile to delegitimise phone use by cyclists. As of July 2019 you face a €95 fine if they charge you.

https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/goodbye-to-two-wheeled-texting-five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-electronic-device-ban-for-cyclists-in-the-netherlands/

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

No argument from me on that, especially about the phone use, is it time we introduced a ban on cyclists using their phones or other mobile devices, I see the Dutch think if worthwhile to delegitimise phone use by cyclists. As of July 2019 you face a €95 fine if they charge you.

https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/goodbye-to-two-wheeled-texting-five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-electronic-device-ban-for-cyclists-in-the-netherlands/

AKAIK that's already illegal here.

ewc78

07Lapierre wrote: »

Golf carts are allowed on the road in Michegan! God bless America!

https://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/2013/05/27/can-i-ride-my-golf-cart-or-orv-on-the-road/

This is pretty cool in fairness!
https://youtu.be/pcVGqtmd2wM

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

AKAIK that's already illegal here.

Nobody seems have to told Deliveroo, or JustEat, or Cyclone, or Pony Express, or...

Oh, wait, Deliveroo and JustEat don't actually employ anyone except a few office staff, they're all self-employed contractors... :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Nobody seems have to told Deliveroo, or JustEat, or Cyclone, or Pony Express, or...

Oh, wait, Deliveroo and JustEat don't actually employ anyone except a few office staff, they're all self-employed contractors... :rolleyes:

I suspect they already know

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

I suspect they already know

And just don't care.

shootermacg

When are they going ahead with the speed limiters on cars? Speeding in urban areas is the first thing that needs to be addressed.

micar

Casey78 wrote: »

But cyclists acting the dick are of no danger to anyone I thought?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/road.cc/content/news/268501-cyclist-court-accused-dangerous-cycling-following-pedestrians-death%3famp

And rightly so that the cyclist is being prosecuted.

For every article like thjs, I can find 100 relates about a motorist causing the death of a motorist, cyclist or a pedestrian but according to some that's pure whataboutery

Tea drinker

micar wrote: »

And rightly so that the cyclist is being prosecuted.

For every article like thjs, I can find 100 relates about a motorist causing the death of a motorist, cyclist or a pedestrian but according to some that's pure whataboutery

I think we all agree there's plenty of men and women who are either awful or ignorant drivers. I mean you can mention them but it's not really in keeping with the thread title to go down the rabbit hole. A separate thread about motorists being d1cks would be more appropriate for a deep dive on those comments and there's probably several of them, both from a motorists perspective e.g. the dashcam thread or the cyclist perspective.
I don't want to get in to backseat modding so that's it from me on that.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well that depends, in minor collisions, where you get knocked off the bike then a helmet probably will save you more serious head injuries, in a 120kph accident crash (say on the motorway where we know cyclists aren't supposed to be, but somehow a few still don't seem to understand this) not so much.

If you want to understand the challenges of cyclists being around drivers going at 120 kmph and higher, keep an eye on the Garda Traffic twitter account. Sadly, it is very much not a problem restricted to motorways.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1284528246374227970

Spook_ie wrote: »

No argument from me on that, especially about the phone use, is it time we introduced a ban on cyclists using their phones or other mobile devices, I see the Dutch think if worthwhile to delegitimise phone use by cyclists. As of July 2019 you face a €95 fine if they charge you.

What problem are we trying to solve here?

07Lapierre wrote: »

AKAIK that's already illegal here.

AFAIK, it's not illegal for a cyclist to use their phone. It's pretty dumb, but not illegal.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Good to see you advocating ridding the world of "standard" bicycles and pushing for these

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/bicycle-with-roll-cage-could-save-your-life-in-a-car-crash/

Imagine the number of cyclist deaths and injuries we could save, even more with wearing helmets

Maybe rather than imagining, maybe you could tell us - what's your view on the number of cyclist deaths that would be saved by bikes with frames and plastic hats?

SeanW wrote: »

More common than is not the same as common.

I doubt it's common at all for a motorist to suffer a head injury where the car's structural design, a seat belt and airbag are literally of no use whatsoever but a little plastic helmet would have made all the difference? In fact, I'd suggest it's rare.

Nah, not plastic, proper motoring helmets - surely these would make a positive difference. Imagine the number of cyclist motorist deaths and injuries we could save?

https://trackdays.ie/product-category/racewear/

SeanW wrote: »

It's a suggestion, you're free to ignore it. But as a cyclist, you have less protection than a motorist in the event of an accident crash. That's just a fact.

Never said that, rather than modern cars are structurally designed to protect their occupants in case of a crash (things like crumple zones), have seat belts and (for the driver and front seat passenger) airbags.

If all of those fail, then a little helmet isn't likely to make any difference. A helmet is just for if you don't have anything else to protect you.

Yeah, cars have lots of protections built in, and still they are the biggest category of road deaths, so surely that would be best place to start with helmets?

meeeeh wrote: »

And exactly the same if cyclist hits a car. In general (but not always) the cyclists will be worse off. I don't overly care if adults (who are not close to me) don't wear seat belts when driving or helmets when cycling. It won't be me feeding them with the spoon for the rest of their lives. However I find it absolutely despicable when children are not protected properly.

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't say it's useless. You said that and I'm not going to argue with someone whose actions won't affect me. Yes I insist my kids wear helmet when cycling. I try not to be neglectful parent.

Do the parents of the bunch of children that are killed in cars each year despicable, for their failure to provide crash helmets for their children? If it saves one child's life, right?

meeeeh wrote: »

As I said I don't overly care as it won't be me wiping the drool and whatever else.

I always wear helmet, not because I think it's always needed but because I want kids to always wear it.

So when you say 'always', do you mean when you're walking on the street, going out drinking, going up/down stairs, having a shower - all activities that have similar or worse head injury rates to cycling? Why would you focus your helmet wearing solely on cycling?

Casey78 wrote: »

But cyclists acting the dick are of no danger to anyone I thought?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/road.cc/content/news/268501-cyclist-court-accused-dangerous-cycling-following-pedestrians-death%3famp

What made you think that? I don't think anyone said that on this thread. Yes, cyclists are a danger to people. In the UK, cyclists kill 1 or 2 people each year. Motorists kill 5 people each day. In Ireland, cyclists kill 1 person each decade. Motorists kill 2 or 3 people each week. Bees and wasps kill more people that cyclists. That might help you to understand the danger involved.

SeanW wrote: »

Well, accidents crashes involving cyclist have a variety of causes.

Sometimes, as you suggest, accidents crashes are caused by motorists negligently hitting cyclists.

It's also likely that in some cases the cyclist precipitated a collision with a motorist, either by crashing into a car or by disobeying a traffic control (e.g. running a red light) and causing a driver to crash into them.
And of course, we have cases where cyclists crash into stationary objects like parked cars, lamp posts etc.

Collision culpability varies, hence we have things like seat belts and helmets to protect the user in any circumstance. I actually don't care about the legalities of helmets, seat belts etc. I wear a seat belt when I'm driving because it makes sense, regardless of the law. I understand that I might get into an accident that's not my fault. Likewise, I suspect helmets help the cyclist in the case of a low-speed collision. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, just as long as you don't complain if you get avoidably hurt.

And same for non-helmet-wearing motorists, right? Just don't complain if you're not wearing a helmet when the drunk driver crashes into your family - it's your own fault really.

Tea drinker wrote: »

I think we all agree there's plenty of men and women who are either awful or ignorant drivers. I mean you can mention them but it's not really in keeping with the thread title to go down the rabbit hole. A separate thread about motorists being d1cks would be more appropriate for a deep dive on those comments and there's probably several of them, both from a motorists perspective e.g. the dashcam thread or the cyclist perspective.
I don't want to get in to backseat modding so that's it from me on that.

Except it is relevant. The point of the OP was about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians. Every set of road traffic data in the world shows clearly where the actual danger to pedestrians comes from. It's not cyclists.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nah, not plastic, proper motoring helmets - surely these would make a positive difference. Imagine the number of cyclist motorist deaths and injuries we could save?

https://trackdays.ie/product-category/racewear/

You do understand that racing is a totally different problem domain to normal road use - right? It seems strange that I have to explain this to anyone over the age of 5, but here goes:

1. Racers drive on race tracks at the fastest speeds possible, so they are statistically exposed to dangers that "normal" drivers are not.
2. Race cars are designed primarily for that speed. A Formula 1 car looks nothing like a normal transport car and is designed totally differently. As such, it doesn't have the same inherent safety features as a car for transport.

And same for non-helmet-wearing motorists, right? Just don't complain if you're not wearing a helmet when the drunk driver crashes into your family - it's your own fault really.

If a drunk driver crashes into me, that's on them. If I make my outcome in the accident worse by not wearing a seat belt, that's on me.

Except it is relevant. The point of the OP was about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians. Every set of road traffic data in the world shows clearly where the actual danger to pedestrians comes from. It's not cyclists.

Except, as I've proven, there's little risk to pedestrians from Irish motorists either.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

You do understand that racing is a totally different problem domain to normal road use - right? It seems strange that I have to explain this to anyone over the age of 5, but here goes:

1. Racers drive on race tracks at the fastest speeds possible, so they are statistically exposed to dangers that "normal" drivers are not.
2. Race cars are designed primarily for that speed. A Formula 1 car looks nothing like a normal transport car and is designed totally differently. As such, it doesn't have the same inherent safety features as a car for transport.

'totally different problem domain' - would that be similar to the totally different problem domain of motorists vs cyclists? Different speeds, different weights, different momentum, hugely different KSI statistics.

Thanks for the explanation, though those helmets are used in saloon race cars, not F1 cars. If it saves one life, right?

SeanW wrote: »

If a drunk driver crashes into me, that's on them. If I make my outcome in the accident crash worse by not wearing a seat belt, that's on me.

And if you make your outcome in the crash worse by not wearing a helmet, that's on you too, presumably?

SeanW wrote: »

Except, as I've proven, there's little risk to pedestrians from Irish motorists either.

I'd guess the families of the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year might have a different view. Should they not wear helmets too?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do the parents of the bunch of children that are killed in cars each year despicable, for their failure to provide crash helmets for their children? If it saves one child's life, right?


So when you say 'always', do you mean when you're walking on the street, going out drinking, going up/down stairs, having a shower - all activities that have similar or worse head injury rates to cycling? Why would you focus your helmet wearing solely on cycling?

Helmets for kids are advised on EU level and by plenty other organisations. You might be arrogant enough to think you know best but then there are also people who deny Corona exists... Apparently some believe Earth is flat too. It takes all sorts...

However I must admit I find it amusing how it offends you that I wear a helmet while cycling. I'm not encroaching on your rights in any way and yet you feel the need to challenge it. Would it ever occur to you that some of us might get some comfort from wearing helmet when cycling at speed downhill? Should only people like you feel comfortable to cycle?

TaurenDruid

Typical Andrew derailment tactics again. They've done the cars parked on footpaths (repeatedly), the hi-viz for cars, now it's the helmets for drivers.

Transparent and predictable.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

'totally different problem domain' - would that be similar to the totally different problem domain of motorists vs cyclists? Different speeds, different weights, different momentum, hugely different KSI statistics.

Thanks for the explanation, though those helmets are used in saloon race cars, not F1 cars. If it saves one life, right?

Again, I find it strange that I have to explain this when a 5 year old could tell you that race car drivers drive on different "roads" with different vehicles, in different ways and for different purposes than people driving for transport.

But motorists and cyclists use the same roads for the same reasons.

And if you make your outcome in the crash worse by not wearing a helmet, that's on you too, presumably?

Again, I'm going to try one more time to explain this. Motorists driving on public roads in cars designed for transport purposes already have at their disposal a wide variety of safety systems that should be in working order. These protect motorists and their passengers from all but the worst possible, most high impact collisions:

1. Advanced crash-worthiness in car design, such as crumple zones and structural design to prevent the roof from collapsing if the car flips over.
2. Airbags.
3. Seat belts.

The idea that any significant number of motor users are being hurt because they're missing a fourth line of defense seems, at least on a prima facie basis to be beyond absurd.

But to partly concede the point, using a Mini from the 1960s as a "daily driver" might not be a good idea.

I'd guess the families of the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year might have a different view. Should they not wear helmets too?

Actually, all pedestrians have to do is not stagger drunk around unlit roads late at night and have an ounce of cop-on. I proved this in an earlier post. The RSA looked at pedestrian fatalities 2008-2015 and found pedestrian cuplability in 70% of cases.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

That is, the pedestrian's actions or negligence caused the accident. So the claim that every pedestrian fatality is a case of a "motorist killing a pedestrian" is a lie.

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, all pedestrians have to do is not stagger drunk around unlit roads late at night and have an ounce of cop-on. I proved this in an earlier post. The RSA looked at pedestrian fatalities 2008-2015 and found pedestrian cuplability in 70% of cases.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

That is, the pedestrian's actions or negligence caused the accident. So the claim that every pedestrian fatality is a case of a "motorist killing a pedestrian" is a lie.

I have issues with a lot of what's said in that doc. The RSA are certainly no strangers to victim blaming.

"1 in 2 had consumed alcohol". So what? Only pioneers/tee totallers can be considered blameless if someone runs them over? "Oops, ran over the priest after Mass. His fault though for having alcohiol consumed".

"• A third of pedestrians were crossing the road, and 1 in 5 had failed to observe.*". Whatever about the 1 in 5 who failed to observe, are the others to blame simply for crossing the road?

"The majority of pedestrian fatalities take place in darkness, with very low levels of highvisibility clothing being worn*.
• The majority of pedestrian fatalities take place on urban roads"

Whatever about rural roads, do we all have to wear hi-viz for a night on the town now or be considered to blame if a speeding taxi takes us out of it?

"• Older pedestrians are a particularly vulnerable group. ". Guess they weren't able to run across the road quickly enough. Totally culpable.

SeanW

AFAIK, the RSA does not have a mandate to cover for bad drivers. If they say 70%, there's good reason to believe it.

It also bears out my own experience as a daily pedestrian that if you have an ounce of cop-on, you're not in any real danger from those eeeeeevil Irish motorists that Andy endlessly drones on about. I've never had to jump out of the way of a red light jumping motorist, but I've had to do so on a number of occasions from Irish cyclists.

meeeeh

Maybe they shouldn't do the stats. Just in case some get offended by them.

Everything seems to be victim blaming now. Accidents should never be investigated we should just blame the surviving party so we don't offend the dead.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

I've never had to jump out of the way of a red light jumping motorist

my wife works (well, used to work, waiting to find out how permanent the WFH option is) in the city centre, and was saying you do *not* want to use the pedestrian crossings at the grattan bridge/parliament street/wellington quay junction without your wits well honed. she reckons she's witnessed several near fatalities there from motorists taking the piss or possibly genuinely just being dozy and misreading lights.
one of her colleagues witnessed a pedestrian being knocked down, motorist completely in the wrong.
and in the interests of balance, she's also shouted at cyclists too at the junction.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Helmets for kids are advised on EU level and by plenty other organisations. You might be arrogant enough to think you know best but then there are also people who deny Corona exists... Apparently some believe Earth is flat too. It takes all sorts...

However I must admit I find it amusing how it offends you that I wear a helmet while cycling. I'm not encroaching on your rights in any way and yet you feel the need to challenge it. Would it ever occur to you that some of us might get some comfort from wearing helmet when cycling at speed downhill? Should only people like you feel comfortable to cycle?

Where exactly did I challenge you wearing a helmet? If you want to wear a helmet, knock yourself out (pun intended).

If you're going to have a go at parents who choose not to wear helmets on bikes, then be prepared for people to question why you don't have a go a parents who choose not to wear helmets in cars, where the majority of deaths (incl head injuries) happen?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Again, I find it strange that I have to explain this when a 5 year old could tell you that race car drivers drive on different "roads" with different vehicles, in different ways and for different purposes than people driving for transport.

But motorists and cyclists use the same roads for the same reasons.

Again, I'm going to try one more time to explain this. Motorists driving on public roads in cars designed for transport purposes already have at their disposal a wide variety of safety systems that should be in working order. These protect motorists and their passengers from all but the worst possible, most high impact collisions:

1. Advanced crash-worthiness in car design, such as crumple zones and structural design to prevent the roof from collapsing if the car flips over.
2. Airbags.
3. Seat belts.

The idea that any significant number of motor users are being hurt because they're missing a fourth line of defense seems, at least on a prima facie basis to be beyond absurd.

Some drivers seem a little confused about the distinction you're making between a road and a race track.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1271931940292173824

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1285572903749255170

Surely a crash helmet would offer some additional protection if you're going to take a hit from one of these geniuses at 200 kmph?

But more importantly, it is clear the very distinct difference between the level of analysis applied to rationalise motorists NOT wearing helmets and the level of analysis applied to requiring cyclists to wear helmets. That's a big difference.

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, all pedestrians have to do is not stagger drunk around unlit roads late at night and have an ounce of cop-on. I proved this in an earlier post. The RSA looked at pedestrian fatalities 2008-2015 and found pedestrian cuplability in 70% of cases.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

That is, the pedestrian's actions or negligence caused the accident. So the claim that every pedestrian fatality is a case of a "motorist killing a pedestrian" is a lie.

Nice victim blaming there. You might want to look at the stats again. 3/4 of the pedestrians killed were on lit roads. The reference to 'drunk' does not reflect the measurement in the report of alcohol consumed. But hey, any desperate measure to avoid drivers taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal, eh?

Zebra3

meeeeh wrote: »

Accidents should never be investigated we should just blame the surviving party so we don't offend the dead.

What accidents?

Please show us an accident that happened on Irish roads.

Go on, just one.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some drivers seem a little confused about the distinction you're making between a road and a race track.

Let's see ... 200+kph, no license, no tax, no insurance. I think you'll find that nearly all motorists would condemn this kind of behaviour unequivocally. But hey, in your mind, I'm sure this proves ... something. But again, I'm not sure what.

Surely a crash helmet would offer some additional protection if you're going to take a hit from one of these geniuses at 200 kmph?

No. It wouldn't. As I've explained before, cars already have crash-worthy design, seat belts and airbags. I find it very difficult to believe that a helmet would be likely to offer much when all three of these defenses have failed. Simply put, if someone wallops you at 200kph, you're probably up the creek.

Nice victim blaming there. You might want to look at the stats again. 3/4 of the pedestrians killed were on lit roads. The reference to 'drunk' does not reflect the measurement in the report of alcohol consumed. But hey, any desperate measure to avoid drivers taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal, eh?

The 70% figure comes from the RSA - take it up with them. So the claim that "motorists are killing pedestrians" is a lie - at least where it is applied to all pedestrian fatalities.

Also the claim that motorists "are not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" is also a lie. Hit and runs are not common, the RSA found that the majority of culpable motorists DID take responsibility.

GT89

Im all for better cycling facilities but unfortunately on Dun Laoghaire seafront where half the road is now a cycle lane there are still cyclists cycling on the bloody road. Why when they now have a perfectly safe cycle path. I bet it that sometimes cycle lanes are unsafe but where there is perfectly good segarated cycle are there still cyclists on the road.

In these cases the use of the cycle lane should be mandatory and clearly indicated by signage this can be agreed between councils and cycle groups surely.