Increase in road deaths - questions need to be asked

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950205#Comment_121950205

Cool enough to pay extra for the ninja look?

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a28845406/bmw-x6-vantablack/

zell12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950193#Comment_121950193

Hearse Road, really?

magicbastarder

Indeed!

https://www.duchas.ie/en/cbes/4428188/4384847/4510047

creedp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950853#Comment_121950853

It's pure speculation as it would never happen. I find it amusing that some posters find it agregious that one category of road users are advised to be safe while at the same time spend all their energy complaining about another category of user for not being safe.

Every road user should operate in a safe manner and just because a proportion of one category flouts road safety advise does not give another category the right to flout the same laws coz look at those guys.....

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951159#Comment_121951159

There's no right for anyone to flout any laws, but if you're trying to fix a problem, using data to show you the major issues to be fixed, the major areas for attention is generally accepted as a sensible, effective approach.

If the RSA had a data driven approach, they'd have one tweet for cyclists for every thousand tweets for motorists. The attention they give to cyclists is WAAAAAAY out of proportion to the problem they're trying to solve.

Charles Babbage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950773#Comment_121950773

No it does not. Thousands of motorists are suspended each year, no cyclist is. There is a difference between insufficient enforcement and no enforcement.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951200#Comment_121951200

Do you think through what you post? Thousands or drivers are suspend from driving because the laws dictate that their licence is suspended. Other road users including cyclists don't require to be permitted to use the roads under licence.

I'm surprised people need to be reminded of this FFS!

As for enforcement, there is bugger all enforcement right across the board. However, and without wanting to sound like @AndrewJRekno most enforcement that does happen is targetted towards the larger road user group who coincidentally have the potential to do the greatest harm. Nonetheless, there is plenty of enforcement of people on bikes but as with people in cars, it falls waaaaaay short of what is actually required.

eggy81

phone use on lap while driving seems to be a huge problem. When driving a van with a slightly higher seating position it really exposes how many people are doing it. It’s absolutely rampant. Has to be causing lots of accidents. Along with speed and drink and drug driving obviously.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950773#Comment_121950773

Apples and Oranges, they still have the legal requirement to have lights to make them selves more visible and having them fitted and not turned on during the hours of darkness is an offence.

Not having them turned on doesn't equate to cyclists and pedestrians not using hi viz and/or lights in circumstances where they might be desirable so please don't join AJR and his hi Viz for cars argument as it doesn't hold water.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950853#Comment_121950853

Dunno why not try it and see, or at least stop trying to discourage RSA/Schools/Parents etc from putting their kids etc. in HiViz if they want to, because at the end of the day that is all that your arguments do. Discourage people from wearing HiViz

Charles Babbage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951226#Comment_121951226

Perhaps it is time that some licencing of cyclists was introduced.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951285#Comment_121951285

Why are you discouraging people from putting hiviz on their dark colour cars? You're the one who refuses to wear hiviz when jumping out of your taxi into traffic iirc. Hiviz for thee but not for me, right?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951304#Comment_121951304

Genius idea. 55 deaths already this year, 13 more than same period last year. One of the 55 was a cyclist.

And you want to distract policy makers and legislations for a generation on some pipe dream of licencing cyclists ?

Do you work for the RSA by any chance?

Here's what's happening in smarter countries:

https://discerningcyclist.com/cycling-to-work-schemes-other-countries/

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951159#Comment_121951159

what you're saying is that you're unable to process any argument based on a premise which has not already happened as a matter of fact.

'can you imagine if..?'

'no, i cannot imagine anything'.

and yes, every road user should operate in a safe manner. no one is excusing shithousery on the roads. but do you know how many people have been killed by cyclists on the roads since the year 2000? one confirmed, with a possible second one. out of a total of just shy of 6,000 in the same period. fewer than 0.1% of fatalities in ireland are a result of road users being killed by cyclists*

when the RSA advise cyclists on their behaviour, it's to protect themselves. when they advise motorists on their behaviour, it's to protect others.

*this is not including cyclists who had died as a result of their own mistakes. motorists tend to kill themselves and others. cyclists (when responsible for a death) tend to kill themselves.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951200#Comment_121951200

How's that 'thousands of motorists being suspended' working out?

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-banned-motorists-driving-licences-surrendered-2020-5298982-Dec2020/

There's a reason why we have different laws and regulations for 10-20kg bikes doing 10-30 kpmh and 1-5 tonne cars doing 10-200 kmph.

And there IS enforcement of traffic laws against cyclists.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950952#Comment_121950952

Indeed, however the story that I heard was more that as a gesture when a member of the staff at Newbridge house died the hearse would travel the "Hearse Rd" for the Cobbes to pay respects to their workforce or if not staff then they would be taken via the Hearse Road for a blessing by the Arch Bishop of Dublin Charles Cobbe who resided at Newbridge at the behest of his cousin Charles Paulet the Lord Lieutenent of Ireland.

creedp

Grand that's your opinion and youre entitled to it.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951192#Comment_121951192

Perhaps that's symptomatic of the loudest vessel or squeakiest wheel, which I'm sure most people would agree would be cyclists, the sheer number of column inches and mentions that they self generate and replicate ad infinitum is beyond belief. For proof just look at any thread on Boards and the same cyclists come out and bombard the thread with their wittisms that they've gleaned from other posters. Another example look at X (twitter) and take a note of the number of people who repost a tweet. It is honestly something that any propagandist would be proud of achieving.

I can almost guarantee that people on X are posting about HIViz on cars every time someone mentions HiViz for fecking Horses, never mind people.

AndrewJRenko

Do you not read your own posts?

the same cyclists come out and bombard the thread with their wittisms that they've gleaned from other posters.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950221#Comment_121950221

It's not very palatable I agree, but is it effective?

Go to any building site, factory or farm, and from day 1 you are trained, and responsible for looking after yourself. You never assume the forklift driver see you even though they should, and you wear your reflective hi-vis, even though you shouldn't have to. As a result of personal responsibility and awareness of danger (among lots of other things admittedly), workplace deaths have been steadily falling for 20+ years.

The blowback that the RSA receive I think is for two reasons.

1) Cyclists deliberately misinterpreting messaging to get offended. Nothing unusual there, it's happens on every single Garda post about motorists, every post from a government minister about any topic. Just the usual online moaning. The difference with post regarding cycling is that there is government pressure to increasing cycling for a load of reasons (traffic, CO2, obesity, hearth health, etc) so they delete the tweet.

2) The RSA can't actually back up their messaging with data. They can't back up their messaging to car drivers either.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121950839#Comment_121950839

Working for a company who makes car lights, switches, and dashboards, among other things, crappy "auto-lights" drive me absolutely insane, and I've actually said it to headlight designers. I honestly believe that some vehicle designers deserve jail time for cheap, confusing switchgear which has not doubt caused fatalities. Even Boeings MCAS caused total confusion, in pilots who had actually trained in it.

But this "lack of evidence" argument is a total fallacy to be honest. Don't be drawn into making conclusions one way or another.

It's very similar to the "helmets are not designed to protect in a collision with a vehicle" being touted that they are useless. Now I know full well that head injuries alone make up a small proportion of cyclist deaths, but the messaging is utterly disingenuous from people who are confusing their ideology around hierarchy of controls (which I actually agree with) above physics. If I posed a similar question to the manufacturer of a military helmet - they would never ever guarantee that it would protect me from a bullet.

Any questioning, and they muddy the waters at an individual level, looking for cast iron guarantees that someone, somewhere will never ever be strangled by their helmet strap, or that rotational injuries can occur, and so too at a macro level, by comparing helmet rates with road deaths in the Netherlands vs USA. It's a very well worn path that goes absolutely nowhere.

So, I decided to take part in the "lack of evidence" game too. I sent an FOI to the RSA, and surprise surprise, they have no evidence that "exceeding the speed limit" actually resulted in any fatal collisions. Amazing really, when you consider that we pay €15M per year for speed camera, which only catch drivers above the limit, and we have no evidence that they cause any deaths.

Uncle Pierre

Am going back a few posts for this one, where somebody referred to my "defence" of the RSA. I actually find that amusing, as I've a certain view and many criticisms of the RSA myself. My so-called "defence" of them was simply to wonder at how somebody could be so annoyed at them offering what appears to be accepted as the eminently sensible advice that cyclists should make sure their brakes, lights, etc. are in good working order.

Meanwhile, it's an excellent post by @kirving above and it answers those who are scoffing at how "they (the RSA) don't have any data to show the benefit of high viz". They don't have any data to show the prevalence of excessive speeding in fatal collisions either.

What sort of data re. high viz do people think is actually feasible to obtain? To get a valid direct measure, you'd need an exercise along the lines of the following:

• Send a test group of people (the larger the group, the better - let's say 1,000 people) out walking in a selection of danger spots in the dark while not wearing high viz. See how many are injured or killed.
• Then send another group of the same size out again some other night in the same places, with similar weather conditions, traffic levels, etc., but this time wearing high viz. See how many are injured or killed.
• Compare the two results for a measure of how effective wearing high viz was in reducing injuries and deaths.

I somehow can't see that exercise getting the go-ahead.

Uncle Pierre

As an aside, if I as a motorist wanted to get the hump at a well-intentioned RSA tweet in the way some cyclists have done here, I could do so with this one:

I'd get the hump over how they say "let's all slow down", because I don't speed myself. The only penalty points I've ever had were so long ago that things were measured in miles per hour, and were for doing 46mph in what was then a 40mph zone over Ferrycarrig Bridge outside of Wexford town, around 10 p.m. one night when the road was empty apart from myself. I've never had a crash or collision of any sort in 35 years of driving, which shows I drive at appropriate speed, with due regard to the conditions and other traffic of all sorts, and always poised to take evasive or preventative action if somebody else happens to do something reckless and dangerous.

I'd maintain that they're clearly implying that all motorists drive too fast if they're saying "let's all slow down", and I'd get the hump over how they're claiming that I'm part of the speeding problem when I'm clearly not.

But I'm mature and sensible enough not to get the hump, because I recognise that in general, "slow down, wear your seatbelt, never drive under the influence and never use your phone while driving" is good advice for motorists.

Just as "make sure your brakes and lights are in good working order" is good advice for cyclists, and is not worth getting the hump over either.

Sam Russell

I posted in the politics forum.

Deaths on the roads is rising over the last few years with this year heading for 200 deaths and a huge number of victims suffering from life altering injuries.

So what can the Gov do about it?

1. Those who have never passed a test should be required to sit one or give up driving. This cohort are now getting on in years. This test should be lenient , but include the knowledge of the rules of the road, and be free of charge. Retest would be the standard test.
2. On licence renewal, applicants should pass an eyesight test. This could be as simple as applicants (once a decade) be required to present themselves at renewal and the clerk says 'Could you please read the letters on the screen behind me?' which would take a minute. Failure would require an optician's test cert.
3. Anyone banned from driving should set a retest appropriate to the offence, plus an eyesight test.
4. Gardai concentrate resources to make sure those that are banned do not drive.
5. The proposed average speed cameras are placed on every stretch of motorway plus dangerous stretches of N roads and they talk to each other so that average speed applies to the whole journey, not just a stretch between Neenah and Bird Hill. At the same time each camera will check the vehicle for Motor Tax, NCT, Insurance, and possible driving licence problems.
6. Any serious motor collision causing injury should require all the drivers involved be tested for drugs and drink.

Eyesight is tested before the original licence is granted, perhaps at 17 years of age, and not tested again for most drivers until they are 70 years of age. Eyesight changes significantly over the years - particularly between 40 and 50 years of age.

Most collisions on the road occur when the other vehicle "comes out of nowhere". Either inattention or poor eyesight is to blame. Well, eyesight tests will eliminate one of those - driving tests will help with the other.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951775#Comment_121951775

Quote: I'd maintain that they're clearly implying that all motorists drive too fast if they're saying "let's all slow down", and I'd get the hump over how they're claiming that I'm part of the speeding problem when I'm clearly not.

Well, there used to be signs on the road (they could still exist) saying :SLOW, followed a bit further down the road saying: SLOWER.

So they assumed either you ignored the first one, did not understand it, or could go slower. You choose.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951755#Comment_121951755

They could do two kinds of tests;

1. Lab based simulator tests, comparing driver's ability to recognise pedestrians and cyclists, with and without hiviz
2. Actual real-world tests, comparing the number of incidents that arise for those that wear hiviz and those that don't. This is a bit more tricky, as it requires an element of self selection, and requires long term monitoring, which is difficult to incentivise. But it can be done.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951775#Comment_121951775

The difference between you getting the hump as a motorist and cyclists getting the hump as cyclists is that motorists do actually kill 3-4 people on our roads each week, whereas cyclists don't.

If you spend any time on the road, you know that compliance with traffic laws is atrocious; speeding, mobile phone use, faulty lights, failure to indicate, red light jumping and more.

Uncle Pierre

@AndrewJRenko - I fully agree that too many motorists regularly speed, use their phone while driving, drive with faulty lights, fail to indicate properly, jump red lights, and many other things too. I've never suggested otherwise.

My point simply remains that telling cyclists to make sure their brakes and lights are in good working order is good and sensible advice.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951487#Comment_121951487

Thanks for making the enquiry. This is what many of us suspect, that the RSA is not fit for purpose in terms of many of it's varied roles.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121953079#Comment_121953079

Testing hi-vis / reflective isn't really possible in a lab environment, in you cant really replicate point sources of light or reflectivity with a display, so you need some optical system, well beyond the complexity of what a flight simulator would use for example. I design optical test equipment for ADAS cameras, and it's generally very large, or unbelievably expensive, so it's not really something which would be practical.

As you say, real world testing has it's own issues. There have been studies which suggest an improvement, but they just get dismissed due to self-selection, behavioral changes among the hi-vis/reflective clothing wearers, and can never be a double-blind study, unless doctors/Gardai were to publish the clothing choices of crash victims - which invariably leads to comparisons to womens clothing choices (to keep it PG).

The anti-hi-vis (or more kindly, pro-hierarchy of controls) groups have ensured that it's an untestable hypothesis.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121953030#Comment_121953030

Yes, and if you wanted to get the hump over that, you could think "are they implying I'm stupid and didn't understand the word 'slow' in the first place, or that I'm careless and reckless in that I didn't obey it?"

Or you could interpret those signs in the way they're generally intended - first slow down a bit because you're beginning to approach something like a sharp bend or a blind junction, and then slow down a bit more because you're now much closer to it.

Again, no need to get that hump if you're mature and sensible and don't have an attitude of "everyone is wrong but me".

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121953344#Comment_121953344

Slow is a descriptive word that implies less speed.

Slower is comparative word that suggests that whatever speed you going at, it is too fast. The problem with a comparative in this instance is - Compared to what? Of course, it really means you are going too fast.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121953392#Comment_121953392

Again, all depends on interpretation and how much you're looking for a reason to get the hump.

Interpreting it like you appear to do is one thing. First, you'd see it as "SLOW DOWN! YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST!", and then as "YOU DIDN'T SLOW DOWN ENOUGH! SLOW DOWN SOME MORE, YOU MUPPET!"

Or, you could interpret it the other way - slow down a bit as you begin to approach something like a sharp bend or blind junction, and then slow down a bit more as you get closer to it. Again, eminently sensible advice. And if you're already doing so before you see the signs, no need to interpret them the way you do, and certainly no need to get that hump that I keep mentioning.