Cyclists deaths

robfitz

Five cyclists deaths in less then two months and three cyclists deaths in about a week.

2005-02-15, 60s, Female, Swinford, Co Mayo, Truck
2005-02-09, 79, Male, Thurles, Co Tipperary, Car
2005-02-08, 32, Male, East Wall Road & Annesley Bridge, Dublin, Truck
2005-01-20, 27, Male, East Wall Road & Alexandra Road, Dublin, Truck
2004-12-30, 70s, Male, Grand Canal Place & Echlin Street, Dublin, Truck

The total cyclist deaths for last year was 12, we aren't even two months into the year and we are already up to a third of last years total.

We're already up to 55 dead since the start of the year. http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/nroadstats.html

newgrange

That junction at Annesley Bridge is a nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians. For a while back there, they stopped trucks going down that part of East Wall Road altogether, but they seem to have allowed them back.

Hopefully the long-awaited tunnel will reduce the numbers of trucks taking that turn - though at the moment, there is no reason why they could not take the Alfie Byrne Road to and from the docks.

robfitz

I checked out the accident site yesterday before a meeting with the DTO and Dublin Cycling Campign, it was somebody from the a local residents group or even the DTO which hold me the cyclist was killed by a left turning cement truck.

Unfortunately having the port tunnel would not have helped in this case, the cement depot is no more then 100 meters from the left turn, so the cement trucks need (want?) to turn left at that junction.

Zaph0d

Maybe these truck-bike deaths would be less common if the front of a truck looked more like this:


instead of this:


I don't know of any reason other than driver comfort and tradition that trucks have such poor close up visibility.

impr0v

This doesn't really surprise me. Even cycling in a non-urban situation, on a wide road with hard shoulders in the middle of a clear day, it's amazing how little room and/or respect you are given by idiot drivers. It's almost as if they view you as a rival that should be intimidated out of competing for their road space.

BrianD

Zaph0d wrote:

Maybe these truck-bike deaths would be less common if the front of a truck looked more like this:


instead of this:


I don't know of any reason other than driver comfort and tradition that trucks have such poor close up visibility.

Would you care to elaborate on your posting? Bear in mind that in the pictures shown in the posting the driver is in virtually the same position. More glass on the bus but thats superficial.

RicardoSmith

When I'm cycling I give all of these trucks a very wide berth. Too many cyclists cut up the inside of them, or take chances cutting through traffic. With the best of intentions all road users can't look 360 degress 100% of the time, and all road users have blind spots.

MrPudding

BrianD wrote:

Would you care to elaborate on your posting? Bear in mind that in the pictures shown in the posting the driver is in virtually the same position. More glass on the bus but thats superficial.

I think the point he is trying to make is that in the truck the bottom of the windscreen is about 3 feet above a persons head would be. The aircoach has a windscreen ending much lower down. I presume this may give the driver a better chance of seeing someone at that corner. After all it is easier to see through glass than metal.

MrP

RicardoSmith

Is the front of the truck the problem. I would have assumed to the sides and behind was the biggest problem.

BrianD3

The reason why trucks have high windscreens is mainly down to economics. Manufacturers place the engine as far forward as possible and place the driver above it is in order to maximise cargo space while keeping the overall length of the truck as short as possible. Buses are different as there are different priorities/requirements when carrying passengers. Passengers have to be accomodated in reasonable comfort and there is a lot of wasted space above and below them. The engine in a bus is often under the floor and well back from the driver. Also, the big front overhang on buses that allows the driver to sit well forward of the front axle (and therefore sit lower) would never be accepted in a arcticulated lorry as the overhang would be wasted space. Whereas in buses passengers can be put in the overhang.

BrianD3

BrianD

Well I think Zaphod was entirely missing the point! There is not much difference in the forward visibility enjoyed by either the bus driver or a truck driver. Most of the windshield area is not usable by the bus driver as its obscured by the dash. Granted that a truck driver is generally seated higher than a bus driver. Most incidents involving cyclists and trucks are not resulting from the driver not seeing the cyclist in front of him. They occur when the truck driver is turning left.

I am aware that HGV's particularly artics have blind spots more so than any other vehicle on the road. I remain unconvinced that these blindspots are the primary cause of the many deaths involving cyclists. I believe that mediocre standard of driving by motorists (as a generic group) in Ireland is equally matched by poor cycling techniques by our two wheeled friends. Unfortunately, a simple error of judgement or careless moment will cause almost certain death for a cyclist.

I know its difficult cycling in poor weather conditions, uneven surfaces and inconsiderate motorists but how do so many cyclists end up in the blind spot of a left turning HGV? If a truck slows down, indicates and begins a left turn why do some cyclists continue on oblivious to this? Should they not be slowing down and 'tailing' the truck until it completes the turn? Maybe getting to read that sign that says 'do not pass on inside if truck is turning left'? Perhaps the HGV drivers are equally oblivious to the cyclist, don't indicate etc. but the golden rule is the smaller vehicle yields to the larger one and I thought that self preservation would establish that!

RicardoSmith

Bad driving made worse by chronic traffic congestion.

Enduro

Perhaps the HGV drivers are equally oblivious to the cyclist, don't indicate etc.

In my experience, that is the biggest issue. There are many many drivers of Trucks, buses, and especially cars, that seem to think that there is no need to indicate to turn left. Most of these types of drivers have a tendancy to compound this by not bothering to look either, or in the case of the occasional (but not rare) complete idiot, to deliberately decide to ignore the cyclist (or pedestrian) and make their turn anyway.

In the case of HGVs and buses this non-indicating is particularly dangerous. Bearing in mind that the law dictates that cylists should use cycle lanes, and that these are usually on the left of traffic, you can presumably see how cyclist get slaughtered because of this type of dangerous driving.

Apart from never ever undertaking a truck/bus (unrealistic in normal Dublin rush hour traffic), there is very little that a cyclist can do if these idiots continue to not bother indicating.

jman0

BrianD wrote:

Well I think Zaphod was entirely missing the point! There is not much difference in the forward visibility enjoyed by either the bus driver or a truck driver. Most of the windshield area is not usable by the bus driver as its obscured by the dash. Granted that a truck driver is generally seated higher than a bus driver. Most incidents involving cyclists and trucks are not resulting from the driver not seeing the cyclist in front of him. They occur when the truck driver is turning left.

I am aware that HGV's particularly artics have blind spots more so than any other vehicle on the road. I remain unconvinced that these blindspots are the primary cause of the many deaths involving cyclists. I believe that mediocre standard of driving by motorists (as a generic group) in Ireland is equally matched by poor cycling techniques by our two wheeled friends. Unfortunately, a simple error of judgement or careless moment will cause almost certain death for a cyclist.

I know its difficult cycling in poor weather conditions, uneven surfaces and inconsiderate motorists but how do so many cyclists end up in the blind spot of a left turning HGV? If a truck slows down, indicates and begins a left turn why do some cyclists continue on oblivious to this? Should they not be slowing down and 'tailing' the truck until it completes the turn? Maybe getting to read that sign that says 'do not pass on inside if truck is turning left'? Perhaps the HGV drivers are equally oblivious to the cyclist, don't indicate etc. but the golden rule is the smaller vehicle yields to the larger one and I thought that self preservation would establish that!

Seems there are assumtions being made regarding cyclists deaths and culpability here. Particularly in regards Left turning vehicles.
What about those Left turning motorists that overtake the cyclist approaching the turn, then turn directly in front of them.

Also, it is unclear if the vehicles were actually turning at the time, maybe they were approaching the turn and manoevered farther to the left side of the road, getting into the turning lane if there is one (and inventing one when there isn't).

Metrobest

I think the reason that cyclist deaths have increased is two-fold: first, an increase in the number of cyclists on the road; second, the extraordinarily arrogant attitude of drivers who think the road is theirs to own.

Without a proper cycling infrastructure deaths will only go up. Something has got to be done to protect cyclists. Trucks and double decker buses are lethal weapons. I've often been stuck in a row of buses/trucks and wondered how I came out of it alive. The galling thing is that Dublin could be such a beautiful city to cycle in. The streets are flat, the architecture pleasant, the rain (surprisingly) rare.

But no. Instead we get pieces of red paint (dubbed: 'cycle lane') which do not even allow cyclists travel two-abreast. Cars are legally allowed park in these 'lanes' during the off-peak, when they are most neccessary. Taxis pull in and out freely, and big double decker buses come crashing in in front of you. In this climate the only miracle is that more aren't killed.

And don't get me started on what the City Council calls "cycle track". Essentially, these "tracks" exist in part of the road where they couldn't even be bothered painting the chalk. At the junction of the M4/M50, at the roundabout where you enter the M50, I spotted a sign saying "cycle track". Goodness knows how the City Council expects a cyclist to navigate this death trap of a roundabout, but isn't it brazen that some actually sat down and had the nerve to pretend that this was part of the Xkm of "cycle track" in Dublin.

BrianD

jman0 wrote:

Seems there are assumtions being made regarding cyclists deaths and culpability here. Particularly in regards Left turning vehicles.
What about those Left turning motorists that overtake the cyclist approaching the turn, then turn directly in front of them.

Also, it is unclear if the vehicles were actually turning at the time, maybe they were approaching the turn and manoevered farther to the left side of the road, getting into the turning lane if there is one (and inventing one when there isn't).

Well the blind spot that is often spoken about only comes into play with the truck starts articulating i.e the driver can no longer see the length of the vehicle as he would if he were going in a straight line. I understand what you are saying about 'beating' a cyclist to a junction and cutting him off. On the other side of the coin I find it very fustrating where I have indicated to go left and have to proceed slowly and a cyclist still comes up on the inside.

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

but the golden rule is the smaller vehicle yields to the larger one and I thought that self preservation would establish that!

The may be a good idea when attacked by a motorist, but it is is not in fact a rule. Here are some rules:

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—
... ( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

robfitz

Metrobest wrote:

first, an increase in the number of cyclists on the road;

Based on information I have access to from the DTO. The number of cyclists has decresed about 16 % for the DTO region (26330 1996 Census to 22028 Census 2002). DTO Canal Cordon counts for the same period have shown a general downward trend (about 13%), with a leveling in 2003.

I don't have numbers for 2004.

MrPudding

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The may be a good idea when attacked by a motorist, but it is is not in fact a rule. Here are some rules:

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—
... ( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

Cool. You can quote these rules as they scrape you out of the tyre tread of a lorry.

It is hugely annoying when drivers ignore the rules of the road. It can also be dangerous. Anytime I am driving or riding a bike or even walking I constantly watch other road users. Making sure you follow the rules of the road is not enough, you need to watch every other punter on the road as well. It is unfortunate but we have to make allowance for other peoples ignorance, stupidity and lawless behaviour.

At the end of the day it is better to be alive than right. You are absolutly right in what you say but being right will not stop some tosser from running you over.

I appreciate that this is porbably a stupid idea but would it work better if the cycle lanes worked in reverse to the cars? What I mean is if bikes rode on the right. This would get rid of the problem of lorries turning left into cyclists in their blind spots. Please don't be too hard on me for this idea, I am trying.

MrP

BrianD

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The may be a good idea when attacked by a motorist, but it is is not in fact a rule. Here are some rules:

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—
... ( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.

Can you give me the ones that talk about undertaking and passing on the left! Just for the benefit of the two wheelers!.

Let me say again, the golden rule is that the smaller vehicle yields to the larger. Not only is it polite but can often keep you alive!

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

Can you give me the ones that talk about undertaking and passing on the left! Just for the benefit of the two wheelers!.

Sure, here they are:

"A driver may only overtake on the left—
( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,
( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

BrianD wrote:

Let me say again, the golden rule is that the smaller vehicle yields to the larger. Not only is it polite but can often keep you alive!

I disagree that this is a rule, but I agree that it is a good idea not to challenge a motorist wielding a lethal weapon.

It would most polite for the motorist to obey the law and to practice patience, discipline and consideration for the safety of others.

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote:

I appreciate that this is porbably a stupid idea but would it work better if the cycle lanes worked in reverse to the cars? What I mean is if bikes rode on the right. This would get rid of the problem of lorries turning left into cyclists in their blind spots. Please don't be too hard on me for this idea, I am trying.
MrP

Numerous problems with this:

1: Most cycle lanes only operate on a part-time basis (Mon-Sat 7am-7pm). Could get dangerous if you're cycling in one at 6:59pm and when just after 7pm when cars would be allowed drive in them and park on them.

2: Lights from oncoming cars would be dazzling. If you want to see what I mean, try the Clontarf coastal track, where no provision has been made for lighting & cyclists are forced by law to ride on unlit tracks with car headlamps dazzling them.

3: Pedestrians wouldn't be looking the right way when crossing.

4: Even if the cycle lanes were 24x7, drivers would still drive and park on them.

robinph

Let me say again, the golden rule is that the smaller vehicle yields to the larger. Not only is it polite but can often keep you alive!

Is the rule not more like the driver of the larger vehicle never bothers to look out for any vehicles smaller than them.

RicardoSmith

Its great that there are no bad cyclists in the country. They all use lights, bright coloured clothes and obey the rules perfectly. Equally its amazing that all motorists are bad drivers too. :rolleyes:

Wait at any junction in Dublin with a large vehicle turning left and you'll have rake of impatient cyclists undertaking him even as he turns the corner. In fact I think I could count on one hand the number of times I've ever seen a cyclist waiting in line for a large vehicle to make a left turn. Thankfully I have seen an increasing number of Guards stopping Cyclists for breaking lights. But I'd say its a never ending task.

Enduro

Ricardo.
Firstly, there are plenty of bad cyclist who break multiple laws, and put their own lives and health in danger in the process. As a cyclist, I would be delighted if the Gardai threw the book at these guys. Also, there are plenty of drivers who drive in a safe legal manner with consideration for all other road users. I don't think I've ever read a post here which explicitly said otherwise.

Now having said that, can you accept that there are a lot of cyclists who do dress up like a christmas tree (even though there is no legal requirement to wear a reflective jacket), who do obey the rules of the road, don't break red lights, and don't undertake vehicles which have indicated that they will be turning left?

Can you also accept that there are plenty of dangerous drivers who needlessly endanger the lives of cylists throught their reckless selfish actions?

And can you accept that these cyclists (the law abiding ones) deserve protection from reckless motorists who put their lives in danger (or do their lives not matter as much as preventing minor irritation to impatient motorists)?

(I'm not trying to imply that the lawbreaking cyclists desrve to get mangled)

Thankfully I have seen an increasing number of Guards stopping Cyclists for breaking lights. But I'd say its a never ending task.

Enforcing all laws, traffic related or not, car related, cycle related etc is a never ending task. Thats why they're still there! How many cars break traffic light laws, e.g. Amber = prepare to stop, and not accelerate to beat the red. I must literrally see hundreds of cars break the law every day.

RicardoSmith

You mean like

jman0 wrote:

Fair play to you, I hate these fecking motorists they behave as if cyclists have no rights and the gards are useless.

or

test999 wrote:

Why are motorcyclists thugs?

Theres usually a lot more usually posted by people with names like CarsAreEvil and BikesAreBad etc.

The sarcasm in my post was meant to infer that there are good and bad on both sides. So that in the case of accidents at least some of them can be attributed to stupidity, or poor judgement on the part of the victim.

DubTony

After coming across this thread, I decided to count the number of cyclists I saw today in the area where I was working.

I had to leave the job several times to get stuff from a van and a car. Both were parked on a side road about 50 metres from where I was working.

The first cyclist I came across was a female in her 20's. I walked from parking my car to the main road and spotted her on the far side of the road. I walked slowly down the road in the direction she was headed waiting for a gap in the traffic. A car horn blew behind me. I looked around to see a car stopped and the cyclist waving an apology as she crossed his path. She then cycled onto the footpath and went past me.

An hour later I was getting some stuff from the van which at this point was directly outside where I was working. As I closed the back door of the van and stepped up onto the path, a cyclist came toward me ... on the footpath.

The next 3 cyclists I saw passed by on the road without incident.

The sixth cyclist was an old dear cycling on the road and approaching a red light. She crossed the road, went up on the path and turned right at the junction.

The seventh was a man in his 40's leaving his garden. He cycled his bike down to the junction on the footpath. The light was red. He stopped, looked to his right and cycled on through the red light.

Later, on my way home I stopped at a shop. As I left the shop a teenage cyclist sped past the door of the shop on the path.

I counted a further 7 cyclists. 2 of these were on the road immediately adjacent to a cycle lane. Only 3 of the 7 had a light on the bike, (It was dark)

Of 15 cyclists I noticed today, more than half broke the law in some manner. I have no problem with cyclists. But I firmly believe that most of those involved in accidents have only themselves to blame.

Tony

Bee

DubTony wrote:

But I firmly believe that most of those involved in accidents have only themselves to blame.

Tony

Only most? The idiots that have given cycling a bad name in Dublin deserve to be jailed.

The infrastructure (what infrastructure!) imposed by DCC's Traffic morons is lethal to cyclists. You just have to look at the growth in Footpath extensions coupled with rain filled kerbs due to road ramps that force the cyclists further out onto the road into cars/trucks.

Remember the carnage on O'Connell bridge when DCC built the footpath out and then was forced (tho' would never admit liability!) in withdrawing it again, Some cycle joke lanes are so inept they only encourage cyclists to break the law.

The law needs to be imposed heavily on cyclists who break it as the majority of cyclists that can be witnessed on DCC's traffic tapes can be seen ignoring it most of the time.

Bee

robfitz

I really like this thread.

As a Dublin based cyclist, I would agree with people that a (large?) number of cyclists have very poor road skills, fail to comply with the law and compeletly disregard for there own and others saftey. But this also applies to a (large?) number of motorists and pedestrians. (I don't claim to be an angle on the roads either).

Every road user has a duty of care to themselves and to every other road user. (http://www.irishstatuebook.ie/ZZA14Y1993S67.html)

We all need to respect and be patient of other peoples needs, and when the law is broken it needs to be enforced.

What we do have is poor laws, poor education, poor design, poor implementation, poor maintenance, poor enforcement, and poor personal responsibility. Which leads to cycle tracks which are more dangerous then using the road, or people breaking speed limits which they feel are to low.

A quick comment:

cyclopath2001 wrote:

1: Most cycle lanes only operate on a part-time basis (Mon-Sat 7am-7pm).

Cycle tracks operate 24 hours unless there is a information plate which indicates otherwise. People assume that it's 7 to 7 or ignore it anyway. (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI274Y1998.html, Section 6)

RicardoSmith

Have to agree with robfitz 100%

Zaph0d

BrianD wrote:

Would you care to elaborate on your posting? Bear in mind that in the pictures shown in the posting the driver is in virtually the same position. More glass on the bus but thats superficial.

I got the impression having been inside both types of vehicle (aircoach and truck) that the coach had better driver visibility. I could be wrong. the coach driver is closer to the road and has a lower windscreen so may have better close up visibility in the forward direction.

This may not be true for side visibility.

Also the coach driver seems more vulnerable in case of an accident than a truck driver and this may have alter his driving behaviour.

It seems more than bad luck when two cyclists are killed by trucks in less than three weeks at the same junction.

RicardoSmith

Well its pure speculation unless we get more details of how it happened.

BrianD

Zaph0d wrote:

I got the impression having been inside both types of vehicle (aircoach and truck) that the coach had better driver visibility. I could be wrong. the coach driver is closer to the road and has a lower windscreen so may have better close up visibility in the forward direction.

This may not be true for side visibility.

Also the coach driver seems more vulnerable in case of an accident than a truck driver and this may have alter his driving behaviour.

It seems more than bad luck when two cyclists are killed by trucks in less than three weeks at the same junction.

Where I was challenging you was that in the specific photos given there is not much difference in the position of the driver though I agree on average truck drivers sit higher up then bus drivers. This is a position not dictated by safety but the design of both vehicles - passengers want a good view and space is needed underneath for luggage and trucks need to have the cab over design for various reasons.

Truck drivers aren't running over cyclists 'head on' so forward visibility isn't an issue. It is an issue for pedestrians who walk immediately in front of a truck and to alesser extent a bus. The incidents appear to occur when the truck is turning particulary if it is an articulated truck. Rigids and buses don;t seem to suffer as badly.

It is funny that in many road traffic incidents something else is blamed - if only there was no blindspot on the truck, if only we had motorway barriers, if only there was better road marking. It seems that we never look at our own behaviour that is usually the biggest factor in an incident. We are road usage standards are very low in this country - whether we are a pedestrian, cyclist or driver. It's time to stop blaming the blind spots and motorway barriers and bring up our own standards of driving/cycling/walking.

Metrobest

RicardoSmith wrote:

Its great that there are no bad cyclists in the country. They all use lights, bright coloured clothes and obey the rules perfectly. Equally its amazing that all motorists are bad drivers too. :rolleyes:

Wait at any junction in Dublin with a large vehicle turning left and you'll have rake of impatient cyclists undertaking him even as he turns the corner. In fact I think I could count on one hand the number of times I've ever seen a cyclist waiting in line for a large vehicle to make a left turn. Thankfully I have seen an increasing number of Guards stopping Cyclists for breaking lights. But I'd say its a never ending task.

You take a perverse pleasure in seeing the Gaurds hassle innocent cyclists, but not a word about the thousands of motorists who flout daily the traffic laws, endangering cyclists' lives.

No cyclist wants to break a red light. No cyclist wants to get in the way of cars. What cyclists want is proper infrastructure: kerbed-off cycle lanes, seperate traffic lights for cyclists, contra-flow cycle lanes at appropriate places. You're only seeing things from a driver's point of view and you think you own the road. A dangerous attitude.

I'm not condoning cyclists who witlessly flout the law...

But some of traffic lights in Dublin are a joke. For example the junction of Patrick Street/Christchurch. Cyclists are simply left to fend for themselves. There are no signs telling cyclists which lane to be in for turning left, right, or going down the hill. When navigating this junction, the cyclist is advised to move about two seconds before the light goes green, giving valuable time to signal 'right' to the impatient vehicular traffic. Call this law-breaking if you please, but such measures are the only protection the cyclist has.

The bottom line is, if adequate cycling infrastructure was in place, bikes and cars would not have to interact. Both could peacefully co-exist.

RicardoSmith

Metrobest wrote:

You take a perverse pleasure in seeing the Gaurds hassle innocent cyclists, but not a word about the thousands of motorists who flout daily the traffic laws, endangering cyclists' lives.

RicardoSmith wrote:

....Thankfully I have seen an increasing number of Guards stopping Cyclists for breaking lights. ...

How is a cyclist braking a red light an innocent cyclist?
How is stopping someone braking the law hassle?
How is being glad that someone is stopped from
....killing themselves and punished for breaking the law perverse?

Not a word because theres enough people who always vilify the motorists and the thread title is about cyclists not motorists?

Cyclists breaking lights is endangering lives, theirs and anyone hit by a vehicle who is taking avoiding action.

On my way to work I had a cyclist cut diagonally across a junction through the traffic and go behind me (I saw him in the mirror) and then cycle the wrong way up one side of the road. Thats not unusal around the city center.

If you had less cyclists ignoring all the rules of the road, and more using simple common sense, then less would get killed.

Be interesting to see if you watched at a set of lights somewhere like ranelagh, the percentage of cyclists that break the lights vs the percentage of other motorists.

Capt'n Midnight

RicardoSmith wrote:

Be interesting to see if you watched at a set of lights somewhere like ranelagh, the percentage of cyclists that break the lights vs the percentage of other motorists.

By comparison there was a survey which found that 98% of motorists broke the 30mph limit.

It's rare for cyclists to break lights unless they are staying in the leftmost lane which if it was a cycle lane would bypass the lights anyway. Also given a choice I'd rather not be starting off from the lights beside motorists at the same time. Either sneak ahead or stop in the centre of the lane in front of them so they can't fail to notice you, and then pull in.

The drop in cycling is scary considering the average speed of traffice in Dublin and that we are nearly double our koyoto limit. How much are the fines and would they justify subsidising cyclists ?

DubTony

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

It's rare for cyclists to break lights unless they are staying in the leftmost lane which if it was a cycle lane would bypass the lights anyway.

A bit like "it's rare for motorists to break the speed limit except for on an off ramp which should be free flow anyway".

We can assign that sort of nonsense mumbo-jumbo logic to almost anything and try to justify it.
You're talking out of your **insert suitable body part here**

Tony

Enduro

Dubtony. Simple question here.

There are many places where there is a cycle lane on a footpath and there are traffic lights on the road. If the lights on the road are red should a cyclist on the cycletrack on the footpath have to stop? I'm not trying to be smartarse here. This is the kind of dilemma that is throw at cyclist every couple of yards on Dublin's dangerous cycle lanes.

I honestly don't know what the legally correct answer is. The cycle paths are so dangerous and crappily designed that I doubt it even is legally defined.

BrianD

Interesting question. I would speculate that if the cycleway is on the path and to the left of the trafficlights (as you travel) I would say use you can proceed. You would not be able to right.

RicardoSmith

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

By comparison there was a survey which found that 98% of motorists broke the 30mph limit.

It's rare for cyclists to break lights .....

True. Wonder where they took the survey though...

Rare for them to break lights.... :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

Enduro wrote:

Dubtony. Simple question here.
I honestly don't know what the legally correct answer is. The cycle paths are so dangerous and crappily designed that I doubt it even is legally defined.

Where the cycle lane is on the road, cyclists must stop at any red light, indeed, so must motorists & some do.

The laws that restrict cyclists to use cycle lanes are well-defined and are biased to favour motorists. Essentially, the ideal of giving cyclists a safe part of the road to use has been subverted to restrict their movements and facilitate motorists.

Unfortunately, the laws are quiet when it comes to penalties for non-compliance by local authorities, functionality, surface quality and how exactly the minimum width is measured.

mackerski

Enduro wrote:

There are many places where there is a cycle lane on a footpath and there are traffic lights on the road. If the lights on the road are red should a cyclist on the cycletrack on the footpath have to stop?

For most situtations I can envisage, "yes". Think about it - you don't stop the traffic on the road for the crack (though some of the folks on this discussion probably would...). If there's a red light for traffic, it can be for two reasons:

1. Pedestrian light. Cars are stopped so pedestrians on the footpath can cross the road. To do so, they must cross the cycle path. Cyclists must be stopped for this to be safe.

2. Junction. To be fair, some junction layouts (right-only, say), would allow an on-path cycle track to keep flowing. But a cyclist has to be stopped for a crossroads if the cars are stopped.

Dermot

Victor

BrianD wrote:

Truck drivers aren't running over cyclists 'head on' so forward visibility isn't an issue. It is an issue for pedestrians who walk immediately in front of a truck and to alesser extent a bus. The incidents appear to occur when the truck is turning particulary if it is an articulated truck. Rigids and buses don;t seem to suffer as badly.

The rear wheels of an articulated vehicle follow a much tighter turning circle.

BrianD

Sorry Victor, I don't follow what you are trying to say.

RicardoSmith

BrianD wrote:

Sorry Victor, I don't follow what you are trying to say.

Basically the rear wheels on a trailer turn tighter then a long truck or bus. So if you go up the inside of the truck with a trailer then theres a greater chance of being stuck.

Which why they take the turn wider and have a sign on the back warning people of this and not to go up the inside. However stupid people see the gap and go whoooo opportunity to cut inside. Meanwhile the drivers looking to see that he makes the turn on the outside and as he looks back to the inside which was clear a second ago theres suddenly a cyclist appeared there and then....

Squish... :eek:

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

However stupid people see the gap and go whoooo opportunity to cut inside. .... and then....

Squish... :eek:

Or innocent people are overtaken by reckless truck-drivers, chatting on their hand phones.

Or the truck has unnecessary decorations blocking the view through the cab window.

Or the truck fails to indicate & a cyclist moves up in the cycle lane believing it is safe.

Or a pedestrian is standing on the footpath believing it to be safe & then the truck cuts the corner & mounts the footpath.

Perhaps trucks of this type should not be on small unsuitable streets?

newgrange

Or a pedestrian is standing on the footpath believing it to be safe & then the truck cuts the corner & mounts the footpath.

That happens a lot at that Annesley Bridge junction - it's lethal. The turn is too sharp for trucks. Many's the time you see some poor old dear stagger backwards out of the way at the last minute.

I can't see why they didn't continue their ban on trucks turning left there. So the Readymix complex (soon to close, though too late for that poor man last week) is 100m from the bridge turn - no reason why their trucks couldn't be made take the long way round via Alfie Byrne. Pedestrians have had to walk out of their way for years to find safe places to cross - no harm a few trucks being slightly inconvenienced.

cyclopath2001

On the Dublin City Quays, westbound, just after O'Connell Bridge, it's quite dangerous as the cycle lane ends abrubtly and does not start again until 2km later even though the stretch from O'Connell Bridge to Heuston Station is one of the most hazardous I know. Speed limits are rarely respected or enforced along it and lane changes are done free-style as motorists jockey for position.

Very often, after crossing the O'Connell Bridge junction, I've been overtaken by trucks & cars at the point where the road starts to narrow before the HalfPenny bridge, they then move in to the left, before the whole vehicle has passed you and try to force you against the side of the parked buses or try to make you collide with the kerb at the pedestrian crossing.

I've often thought that if trucks were restricted to the outside lane on the quays, it would be much safer for cyclists.

The City Quays are part of Dublin's "Strategic Cycle Network", but I don't know what that means.

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

On the Dublin City Quays, westbound, just after O'Connell Bridge, it's quite dangerous as the cycle lane ends abrubtly and does not start again until 2km later even though the stretch from O'Connell Bridge to Heuston Station is one of the most hazardous I know. Speed limits are rarely respected or enforced along it and lane changes are done free-style as motorists jockey for position......

Part of the reason for this is at each of the bridges the lanes switch from 2 lane + bus lane to 2 lanes or 3 lanes at random. All the vehicles which are in lane before the bridge find themselves between lanes or in no lane as they cross the bridge. So chaos ensues.

Who ever is responsible for this need to do some jail time. Its criminal. A 2yr old could mark the roads better. 3 lanes into 2 into 3 lane back into 2. Absolutely stark raving mad.

shoegirl

Enduro wrote:

In my experience, that is the biggest issue. There are many many drivers of Trucks, buses, and especially cars, that seem to think that there is no need to indicate to turn left. Most of these types of drivers have a tendancy to compound this by not bothering to look either, or in the case of the occasional (but not rare) complete idiot, to deliberately decide to ignore the cyclist (or pedestrian) and make their turn anyway.

The main problem I've seen is that a lot of motorists don't look into their left hand mirrors to see if there are smaller vehicles on their inside. Also they don't take in the presence of cyclists on the road, even when ahead of them. As a result many poor drivers overtake a cyclist and then turn left - something which is a serious breach of the traffic code, and something that motorists should be made more aware of. (I do remember this being pointed out to me as particularly dangerous when learning to drive, but never since).

RicardoSmith

shoegirl wrote:

....I do remember this being pointed out to me as particularly dangerous when learning to drive, but never since....

Just curious, who you expect to have pointed this out to you since doing test?

I reckon most people who do this see the cyclist, but don't care once they get ahead of the cyclist. The same people cut in front of other traffic too. If you see someone ignoring one law, if you happen to be behind them for a while you'll see that they'll consistently break the law. Some people don't care as they know they'll get away with it 99% of the time.