Cyclists deaths

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.

robfitz

Investment in cycling infrastructure is promoted by the government and government body's as a good (the best?) way to provide a safe and comfortable route for cyclists to use.

This investment should help increase the numbers of cyclists.

As most cyclists would tell you, the standard of the cycling infrastructure provided is very poor. The (optional) guidelines that are set by the DTO and DOT are ignored on a regular basis. Worse then
this even the current laws are being ignored.

Yet cyclist are required by law to use cycle tracks where provided.

This cycling infrastructure isn't cheap. I believe the red dash marking costs about 20 Euro a square meter to be laid down, add on the cost of road space, ramps, white lines, traffic signs, design and construction time.

This use of public money is not in the best interests of cyclists and should be reported to the Committee of Public Accounts. http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=182

There should be no need to have a "Strategic Cycle Network". Like all vehicles a bicycle should be able to safely use the existing "Road Network".

Cycling is a safe and enjoyable activity even on the road with motorized vehicles, when practiced with care and attention.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

This cycling infrastructure isn't cheap. I believe the red dash marking costs about 20 Euro a square meter to be laid down, add on the cost of road space, ramps, white lines, traffic signs, design and construction time.

And then they erase the markings & take down the signs once they've added to the stats of "number of km of cycle track constructed"......

BrianD

RicardoSmith wrote:

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:

This is the point I was making all along. Forward visibility is not such an issue with trucks as Zaphod was suggesting with us bus and truck photos. The visibility issue occurs when the truck is turning in either direction and something comes up on the inside of the truck.

BrianD

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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?

Cyclo its all very well to point out these issues but as I said in previous posting the overall average standard of all road users is low in this country and this does not exclude cyclists. Lets be honest the vast majority of cyclists do not have adequate illumination and the vast majority of cyclists do not use hand signals. We could continue this arguement ad infinitum. What I was pointing out that there is a rush to blame thirdy party factors (e.g. blindspots, lack of m-way barriers) etc. rather than looking at the driver or the cyclist one of whom is likely to be 90% responsible for the incident.

I certainly agree with you about why HGV's are on certain streets. One has to wonder why a 40' container truck decides to take a trip down Dame st. Hopefully the tunnel and a HGV management strategy will take the vast majority of these vehicles out of the city centre in Dublin and theat similar management strategies will be introduced elsewhere.

RicardoSmith

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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?

Ha ha some motorists stop at lights. Could you be more one sided in your comments? Can you ever admit that someone other than the motorists is a fault at least some of the time. Even if you play the odds the motorist can't be at fault 100% of the time. 2 funny.

Zaph0d

BrianD wrote:

This is the point I was making all along. Forward visibility is not such an issue with trucks as Zaphod was suggesting with us bus and truck photos. The visibility issue occurs when the truck is turning in either direction and something comes up on the inside of the truck.

Remember the German aupair, Nicole Naumburger, killed in February last year by a very slow moving truck in Cork? She waved to the driver as she pushed a pram across a junction. Driver couldn't see her and drove over her while she managed to push the pram to safety.

Here's a quote from the reporting of the inquest:

Sgt Donovan also carried out tests on the driver's visibility and found that an item had to be 5ft 9ins inches off the ground or 1.72 metres high before it became visible to the driver right in front of the truck. The inquest heard that Ms Naumburger was 1.65 metres tall.

From the overall examination of the truck, in particular the test on driver visibility, the position of the items in the cab and the fact that the driver was turning right, "it is apparent that the driver did not see or realise the presence of the pedestrian," said Sgt Donovan.

Tanya Holst, was run over at the O'Connell bridge/Westmoreland Street junction in October 2001, four months after another female cyclist, Olivia Potterton, had been run over by a truck in the same spot. Tanya Holst was hit from behind by the truck whereas Olivia Potterton was killed by a left-turning truck.

Ms Holst's inquest included the following:

Garda Michael Tracey, a public service vehicle inspector, conducted a series of tests on the Volvo truck involved in the accident. He found there was a three-foot "blind spot" in front of the vehicle, where the driver would be unable to see passing pedestrians or cyclists.

Further, one-third of the windscreen of the truck was blocked by a number of hanging banners and "inessential items", including a plastic mobile phone holder, a teddy bear and other objects were also reducing visibility.

At the inquest of John Ryan, a pedestrian run over by a truck in February 2003, the following was reported:

PSV inspector, Garda Michael O'Donovan, said he conducted a series of sight tests on the lorry and found that a person only became visible to the driver of the lorry when they stood four feet back from the left corner. Any closer to the lorry and the driver could not see them.

All of these inquest conclusions, combined with the repeated occurrence of these fatalities at the same junctions, would indicate that poor truck visibility was a factor in these deaths.

That doesn't mean that improving truck visibility is necessarily the best way to reduce this kind of fatality. I would imagine that more lives would be saved for the same money by improving education and enforcement.

I agree that focusing on engineering problems (like introducing the NCT) may be a less efficient way of avoiding tackling the education and enforcement issues. At the same time, blaming bad/stupid/evil drivers or cyclists or pedestrians doesn't get us anywhere.

robfitz

cyclopath2001 wrote:

And then they erase the markings & take down the signs once they've added to the stats of "number of km of cycle track constructed"......

I'm not sure that I've seen that happen, but I do have a feeling that that there is some double counting going on when a road is rebuilt.

But it's worse then that in some cases, the white lines were never painted or the traffic signs were never erected.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

I'm not sure that I've seen that happen, but I do have a feeling that that there is some double counting going on when a road is rebuilt.

Lanes erased at Thomas Street/Christchurch, also along the East-bound city quays. At the dangerous narrow section in Amiens Street out-bound, removed due to inconvenience to motorists. The sign is still there but is twisted sideways. The markings erased long ago.

Where 1km of cycle lane is laid, this is counted as 2km because they count both sides separately. This is even done where there is only a lane on one side. This accounts for the sudden jump from 160km to 320km of 'cycle lane constructed' that occurred some time ago.

cyclopath2001

RicardoSmith wrote:

Ha ha some motorists stop at lights. Could you be more one sided in your comments? Can you ever admit that someone other than the motorists is a fault at least some of the time. Even if you play the odds the motorist can't be at fault 100% of the time. 2 funny.

This is true, I have occasionally seen motorists stop in good time when then the lights turn amber or red & thought it only fair to give them credit for this correct behaviour. After all, these motorists are risking being rear-ended rather than endanger cyclists & pedestrians.

I've never denied cyclist stupidity as a factor in some accidents. I believe I've been very clear about this in past exchanges.

If I appear one sided, it is because the threat to public safety posed by motorist behaviour is greater than from any other factor.

BrianD

Zaphod - in fairness we talking about cyclists and not pedestrians.

I don't believe that visibility forward is an issue. The unfortunate fact of life is that the Irish population at large jaywalk and seen to be able to misjudge moving vehicles. One could argue that a car or SUV has a equally dangerous blind spot if a child walked out in front of them. Education is the key. I have seem pedestrians do some remarkably stupid things. Only recently I noticed two girls step out onto Nassau St. into a bus bay where a bus was reversing. Fortunately, the bus was being guided and they would have been unaware of the moving vehicle less than 3 m away had the guide not being there.

In regard to red light breaking - it is ingrained in our psyche. Orange light means put the foot down as opposed to coming to a halt. Since the various incidents involving the red line tram in Dublin I have become more conscious of behaviour at red lights. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.