The state of comments online about road traffic deaths and cycling

SeanW

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why were there 50+ on the bicycle death last week with many of them blaming the cyclist? The 84 year old pedestrian killed the other day had 3 comments I think.
How come people aren't going on about motorists they saw speeding or breaking lights, so it's no wonder the teenager died?
There's no point discussing this with you I know, but I just find the whole thing fascinating, the hatred that is aimed at cyclists.

I'm asking because I genuinely did not understand the problem. I had to look up the first article and on a prima facie basis, 3 comments along the lines of "RIP" seemed appropriate. Is your problem with these comments specifically or comments on other articles? Or both?

Then there were things that I found disturbing, like when you said "It's a teenager, ffs." Not he - it. And that after a bunch of speculation about him drinking or speeding.

I also want to repeat my question regarding the case in Charleville specifically, because you seem to have avoided that. Do you seriously expect a so-called "Main Street" that forms part of a major intercity thoroughfare can function effectively as a street with 10,000-20,000 through movements a day?

MJohnston wrote: »

When it comes to road safety, there’s very little cyclists *can* do to help themselves.

Well they could start by obeying road laws.

Unfortunately driver education doesn’t really work, for whatever reason, and the Garda have decided to not bother enforcing road laws in general.

Yes, it's all doom-and-gloom and everything is so horrible ... Yet Ireland has among the safest roads in the world, provably so by every measure and to a large degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

Yet Ireland has among the safest roads in the world, provably so by every measure and to a large degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

you say every measure, but keep repeating a single stat.
so i'll keep repeating the shark filled pool analogy.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

you say every measure, but keep repeating a single stat.
so i'll keep repeating the shark filled pool analogy.

Actually no, not just a single stat but a variety of measurements. Absolute numbers (like 148 died last year) are of little use in comparing road safety in one country vs. others because countries have different population sizes, some countries are more rural others more urban etc. That's why you have to look at not just absolute fatality counts, but fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants, per 100,000 vehicles and per billion kilometres driven. These add context to the absolute numbers. My defense of Irish drivers comes from the fact that our fatality statistics compare well with the international context under all of these headings.

More broadly though, if I understand your analogy correctly, it's that Irish roads are actually very dangerous, ergo people opt not to cycle (pedestrians don't have any such issue) and so don't get killed. Whereas in other countries where things are "safer" more people would cycle and then get killed ... so we should be like those countries where more people die?

My response to that would be very simple:

1. The supposed shark filled pool analogy does not apply to active travel as a whole - as a lifelong pedestrian in Ireland's major cities, towns and countryside, fear of horrible Irish motorists doesn't stop me from walking wherever I want, and it doesn't stop countless thousands of others from walking wherever and whenever they want or need. The data bears out my experience that if you have a bit of cop-on you're probably going to be OK.
2. The fact that people are not dying is a good thing in and of itself, surely?
3. The fact that people are not dying, ipso facto, is evidence that at least some decisions are being made correctly.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

you say every measure, but keep repeating a single stat.
so i'll keep repeating the shark filled pool analogy.

Yet people will swim in a large pool (The sea) with a large number of sharks, so your analogy is that we need a bigger pool ( more roads )?

whisky_galore

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Also why do Journal commenters only comment on road accident articles if bicycles are involved?

Because motorists and cyclists hate one another, isn't it obvious?

Thelonious Monk

whisky_galore wrote: »

Because motorists and cyclists hate one another, isn't it obvious?

I am both and I don't think I hate myself

whisky_galore

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I am both and I don't think I hate myself

I'll cut your spaghetti into small pieces for you to eat... because SOME cyclists and SOME motorists hate each other.

Stark

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I am both and I don't think I hate myself

I'm both though I usually find myself arguing against the motorist views as that's where the bulk of the entitlement culture seems to be on display.

Thelonious Monk

whisky_galore wrote: »

I'll cut your spaghetti into small pieces for you to eat... because SOME cyclists and SOME motorists hate each other.

Well I would say most cyclists drive. It's just when you see all the vitriol aimed at cyclists and victim blaming when there's a cycling accident, you'd start to think there's an irrational hatred of them out there.
Anyway, these conversations go on forever with no resolution. They seem to be slowly improving cycling facilities in Dublin and hopefully separate cycling infrastructure will lead to a better relationship between motorists and cyclists if they can't bother each other.

Zebra3

Anyone who thinks the roads are safe must never cycle.

I haven't been killed yet while out cycling, yet the amount of close passes I get while cycling for 30 minutes on the road is absolutely frightening.

But you know, the cars haven't actually hit me yet, so all is well. :rolleyes:

jackofalltrades

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would seem that there was a pedestrian facility within 20 yards and that it wasn't speed as the cause but blind spots on HGVs and pedestrians crossing where it's convenient for them .

Blind spots shouldn't exist in this day and age.
It's madness that we accept large vehicles driving around where the driver can't see what's going on around them.

Duckjob

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Blind spots shouldn't exist in this day and age.
It's madness that we accept large vehicles driving around where the driver can't see what's going on around them.

When driving around rural Netherlands last year, one of the things that struck me was the attention to sight-lines. They simply don't allow roads not to have a clear line of sight when there's a junction, a roundabout etc. We just don't "get" the importance of proper sight-lines here

AndrewJRenko

Zebra3 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the roads are safe must never cycle.

I disagree. The roads are quite safe.

It's the bloody drivers that are dangerous.

Spook_ie

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I stand by that, with all the victim blaming that goes on and the hatred for cyclists displayed.
There was a man on an electric scooter killed last night, again 50+ comments.
I just don't get why people are so quick to judge if there's a bike or scooter involved, but zero interest if it's just the usual cars killing other motorists or killing pedestrians.
Anyway this is all off topic, but I would think more 30kp/h areas would save lives.

Yep loads of comments about drunk drivers, scumbag hit n run etc.

https://www.thejournal.ie/death-scooter-user-co-meath-5215455-Sep2020/#comments


Wonder where they've all ****ed off to now?

https://www.thejournal.ie/escooter-meath-5216545-Sep2020/#comments

SeanW

Yeah the comments were hilarious. The initial comments were full of speculation about hit and run drivers, there was one poster in particular (Fun Gerry) who was just ranting about "cars need to go" "he was murdered" and then some bizarre conspiracy theories about how the "car industry" was silencing him.

It will surprise precisely nobody this this fellow did not post under the updated article when the investigation showed this to be most likely a single vehicle accident (like a lot of our fatal accidents).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I disagree. The roads are quite safe.

It's the bloody drivers that are dangerous.

Again, the facts don't really support your narrative. Some road profiles, by their very nature, decrease or increase the risk to all road users, all other things being equal. Things like the post above that you thanked, talking about how Dutch junctions have much better sight lines.

Or, where you have a large traffic flow, e.g. Cork-Limerick, such flows are safer on something like a motorway, as opposed to being funneled through small towns, like Charleville and it's main street.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

MODERATOR NOTE: Moved the first 22 posts here to a new thread as few of them relate to speed limits in Dublin and thus off-topic on the 30km/h thread.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-hit-by-truck-charleville-5212906-Sep2020/

This man was killed today. I had a look at the street he was killed on, typical straight road going through a typical car dominated town. We don't know the details but this kind of thing should not be happening in a town centre. If you look at the street here, you'll see it's just a straight road that you could put the foot down on if you wanted, even though it's a town centre. The street should not be designed like this, it should not be possible to floor it on a main street of a town.
I would guess this man's death could have been avoided if the street wasn't designed purely for cars.

Again, I have to ask the OP:

1. Do you expect Charleville Main "Street" to be able to function effectively as a street - under any circumstances - when it also forms part of the main Cork-Limerick road?
2. Do you not see a problem with ramming 10,000-20,000 through vehicles per day through a town's main street?
3. What is your position on the proposed M20 motorway?

07Lapierre

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah the comments were hilarious. The initial comments were full of speculation about hit and run drivers, there was one poster in particular (Fun Gerry) who was just ranting about "cars need to go" "he was murdered" and then some bizarre conspiracy theories about how the "car industry" was silencing him.

It will surprise precisely nobody this this fellow did not post under the updated article when the investigation showed this to be most likely a single vehicle accident (like a lot of our fatal accidents).

Again, the facts don't really support your narrative. Some road profiles, by their very nature, decrease or increase the risk to all road users, all other things being equal. Things like the post above that you thanked, talking about how Dutch junctions have much better sight lines.

Or, where you have a large traffic flow, e.g. Cork-Limerick, such flows are safer on something like a motorway, as opposed to being funneled through small towns, like Charleville and it's main street.

Again, I have to ask the OP:

1. Do you expect Charleville Main "Street" to be able to function effectively as a street - under any circumstances - when it also forms part of the main Cork-Limerick road?
2. Do you not see a problem with ramming 10,000-20,000 through vehicles per day through a town's main street?
3. What is your position on the proposed M20 motorway?

We’ve more than enough motorways. We need better public transport. We need to invest in public transport, improve broadband in rural areas to allow more workers to work from home or at least work locally. Etc.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

We’ve more than enough motorways. We need better public transport. We need to invest in public transport, improve broadband in rural areas to allow more workers to work from home or at least work locally. Etc.

Yeah more PT between Limerick and Cork will solve the fundamental problem of Charleville in that everything goes down the main street.

beauf

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

....
Also why do Journal commenters only comment on road accident articles if bicycles are involved?

Journal is really a cesspit for comments. Its entirely pointless reading it, its full of tolls and baiting. Best not to read it. Same with boards. Just put the usual suspects on ignore and the thread immediately improves. Indeed lightens the whole mood as they are just out to sow misery.

The media focus on click bait, means they have a anti cyclist agenda as it populist.

But what this has done, is to sow the idea that its dangerous to cycle and you must drive everywhere. I was remined this, in a recent discussion where people objected furiously to the idea of a 5 min diversion in a car, kids walking 25 mins, or indeed cycling 15 mins. End result congestion all over. Complaining about gridlock, but no concept of the idea that you don't want traffic, don't be traffic. Just doesn't seem to sink in.

What is needed is a cultural mindset shift. We are long way from that. The medias anti cycling agenda, just reinforces this constantly.

Let people be traffic, just do your own thing. That includes never reading comments on social media like the journal, from crazy people.

Thelonious Monk

There was a girl knocked off a bike by a bus on Parnell st yesterday, the comments on the article on Facebook were from grown men and women with pictures of their kids in their profile pictures and using their real names, expressing their delight in the accident, and hoping that the bus driver was ok. These are fellow Irish people making these comments about the poor girl. So yeah, never going down that rabbit hole again, found it quite upsetting.

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

The media focus on click bait, means they have a anti cyclist agenda as it populist.

also, many of the main news shows on radio are sponsored by car companies (or maybe it just seems that way), so radio stations are not likely to have segments critical of motorists.

beauf

People have to want space less dominated by cars. Thus far they don't.

Unless its gets a momentum behind it, like the changes for equality etc. Its not going to change.

Thelonious Monk

beauf wrote: »

People have to want space less dominated by cars. Thus far they don't.

Unless its gets a momentum behind it, like the changes for equality etc. Its not going to change.

Some do, some dont, it still doesn't justify the vitriol out there.

beauf

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Some do, some don't, it still doesn't justify the vitriol out there.

A lot of that is armchair warriors getting their jollies from winding people up.

07Lapierre

beauf wrote: »

People have to want space less dominated by cars. Thus far they don't.

Unless its gets a momentum behind it, like the changes for equality etc. Its not going to change.

It’s a vicious circle. People “want” cars because we’ve engineered it that way. Introducing bike lanes, widening pavements etc is just the start. We need to encourage people to live and work locally, so that kids can cycle or walk to school and parents can get by with one family car. None of this will happen until people want it to happen and it certainly won’t happen in our lifetime.

beauf

Depends how you plan your life. You can choose to live beside schools and public transport. People move for work etc.

But yeah all the dots have to line up...

Thelonious Monk

07Lapierre wrote: »

It’s a vicious circle. People “want” cars because we’ve engineered it that way. Introducing bike lanes, widening pavements etc is just the start. We need to encourage people to live and work locally, so that kids can cycle or walk to school and parents can get by with one family car. None of this will happen until people want it to happen and it certainly won’t happen in our lifetime.

I can't see how this can ever happen in rural/small town Ireland with one offs and ribbon development, but I think they are happy to drive everywhere. There's less excuse for driving everywhere in Dublin and Cork and other urban areas, and this is where the real traffic chaos is.

07Lapierre

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I can't see how this can ever happen in rural/small town Ireland with one offs and ribbon development, but I think they are happy to drive everywhere. There's less excuse for driving everywhere in Dublin and Cork and other urban areas, and this is where the real traffic chaos is.

Agreed. That's what i mean by "we've engineered it that way". Example, a lot of people commute by car into Dublin for Naas, Dunboyne, Kells etc. they were lured/forced to live in these towns due the lack of affordable housing in Dublin. It will take generations to solve this problem.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah more PT between Limerick and Cork will solve the fundamental problem of Charleville in that everything goes down the main street.

A fast efficient, affordable rail link would remove a lot of vehicles from the roads.

beauf

There are two issues here.

#1 The actual issues.
#2 The media feeding the trolls.

Just filter out #2, don't read it.

Thelonious Monk

beauf wrote: »

There are two issues here.

#1 The actual issues.
#2 The media feeding the trolls.

Just filter out #2, don't read it.

The problem is that when the media feeds the trolls it makes the actual issues harder to solve and much more likely to be ignored to keep the status quo