Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 01:52PM

RayCun wrote: »

yes, yes, I know - the chances of a cyclist going through a red light resulting in someone's death are vanishingly small. Guess what? The chances of a car going through a pedestrian light and causing someone's death, or going through an it-was-amber-a-minute-ago light and causing someone's death, are also vanishingly small.

that's a false equivalence.
your two 'vanishingly smalls' are markedly different in scale, despite the way you've phrased it.

RayCun · 21-04-2017 01:52PM

Lemming wrote: »

Yes.

Serious question - what is your source for this?

RayCun · 21-04-2017 01:57PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a false equivalence.
your two 'vanishingly smalls' are markedly different in scale, despite the way you've phrased it.

That is surely the only way to compare them.
If 100 cyclists do x, and Y happens 3 times, meanwhile 1,000,000 drivers do x and Y happens 100 times that means it is much more likely that a cyclist doing x will have result Y.

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 01:58PM

you've plucked those figures out of nowhere to suit your argument though. while asking for a source in your previous post?

i'm not going to argue against hypothetical figures which are designed to suit that argument.

RayCun · 21-04-2017 02:02PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you've plucked those figures out of nowhere to suit your argument though. while asking for a source on the previous point?

yes, obviously, those are numbers off the top of my head - nor did I say what x and Y were, or even if Y was a bad thing. x could be "travel a coast road" and Y could be "get a really great view of the sunset"

Roadhawk · 21-04-2017 02:04PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Just an FYI

(My understanding is)
The last recorded pedestrian death due to a collision with a cyclist was in 2002.
The last recorded pedestrian cyclist death due to a collision with a pedestrian was in 2015 (this took place on a cycle lane).

Of course you are right, cyclists break red lights and this is an annoyance and potentially dangerous to pedestrians. However, its not part of the conversation around high level risks on the road, from a statistical perspective (in other words, its not a significant cause of severe accidents).

But its still illegal, and should be summons accordingly !!!

Why does it always boil down to how many deaths are directly caused from an offense. Thats like saying that cars using bus lanes is not really an issue because it doesn't directly cause fatality... only that its annoying for some road users? Yet if a gard sees a car in a bus lane you can guarantee its dealt with.

If there is an offense committed then it should be acted upon.

oxygen · 21-04-2017 02:05PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think its a very fair point. You are sat at a pedestrian light on O'Connell St with 6 buses, a few vans and taxi drivers you can

(I) wait for the green light and wait for the ten heavy duty vehicles to take off around you, some will be pulling in 50 yards down the road, you'll be overtaking them into busy traffic.

or

(II) break the red light, (at little risk to pedestrians based on historic statistics of accidents reported) and you are in a completely empty road to the next minute or two.

They already have multiple traffic lights specifically for cyclist that are still synced exactly to the normal traffic lights!?! How pointless is that. Other countries have these lights and they give cyclist a head start to either get ahead of the traffic a little or get into their required junction before the traffic starts pilling on top of them.

Dublin City Council have stated that these were installed as an awareness measure, but I dont believe that for a second. I think they were installed with the purpose of giving cyclist a head start and its either been objected to or its tied up in bureaucracy. Letting cyclist get a bit ahead improves safety for everyone involved.

http://irishcycle.com/2014/07/03/dublin-city-installs-bicycle-traffic-lights-without-headstart-safety-function/

mr spuckler · 21-04-2017 02:07PM

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction.

raycun - this might be of some interest to you. focused moreso on the deaths of women cyclists in london but is a starting point. there's another analysis i've read showing that on several occasions cyclists had stopped in front of lorries at traffic lights - but out of visibilty of the driver. when the light goes green the lorry has driven over the cyclist in front of them. i can't find this link but will try to dig it out.

Tombo2001 · 21-04-2017 02:09PM

RayCun wrote: »

That is surely the only way to compare them.
If 100 cyclists do x, and Y happens 3 times, meanwhile 1,000,000 drivers do x and Y happens 100 times that means it is much more likely that a cyclist doing x will have result Y.

I don't have the statistics needed to answer the question above.

However, I have heard it quoted that the last recorded incident of a pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist was in 2002; in the entire country.

Now as we all know, plenty of cyclists break the lights in Dublin, regularly. No-one has been killed as a result in the past 15 years.

I was living in Cabra for much of the 'noughties' - over a 5 year period, on one road alone there were two separate incidents where kids were killed by motorists at pedestrian lights. For sure, one of them was a motorist breaking a red light, I am not sure about the details of the other, but it was while the child was crossing the road at a pedestrian light.

That's just on one road alone, not the entire city or the entire country.

Tombo2001 · 21-04-2017 02:10PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

But its still illegal, and should be summons accordingly !!!

Why does it always boil down to how many deaths are directly caused from an offense. Thats like saying that cars using bus lanes is not really an issue because it doesn't directly cause fatality... only that its annoying for some road users? Yet if a gard sees a car in a bus lane you can guarantee its dealt with.

If there is an offense committed then it should be acted upon.

That's fine.

And in the spirt of equivalence, prosecute every jaywalker and every motorist who drives at 51k an hour in a 50k zone.

its all illegal. And there is not a single motorist in the country who would escape prosecution in this scenario, or a single pedestrian.

Roadhawk · 21-04-2017 02:11PM

oxygen wrote: »

They already have multiple traffic lights specifically for cyclist that are still synced exactly to the normal traffic lights!?! How pointless is that. Other countries have these lights and they give cyclist a head start to either get ahead of the traffic a little or get into their required junction before the traffic starts pilling on top of them.

Dublin City Council have stated that these were installed as an awareness measure, but I dont believe that for a second. I think they were installed with the purpose of giving cyclist a head start and its either been objected to or its tied up in bureaucracy. Letting cyclist get a bit ahead improves safety for everyone involved.

http://irishcycle.com/2014/07/03/dublin-city-installs-bicycle-traffic-lights-without-headstart-safety-function/

Without even clicking on that article i can already tell you who it was written by ...

You also have to consider if an early green light for cyclists would be beneficial to implement. Most i see dont really stop anyway so it would kind of be a waste of time/money.

mr spuckler · 21-04-2017 02:12PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction.

raycun - this might be of some interest to you. focused moreso on the deaths of women cyclists in london but is a starting point. there's another analysis i've read showing that on several occasions cyclists had stopped in front of lorries at traffic lights - but out of visibilty of the driver. when the light goes green the lorry has driven over the cyclist in front of them. i can't find this link but will try to dig it out.

and here's another example where they were stopped at the lights and it seems one of the conclusions was that the cyclist should have cycled faster to avoid being crushed by the truck. note there's a photo in that article of the moment the truck is about to hit the bike.

RayCun · 21-04-2017 02:15PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction.

raycun - this might be of some interest to you. focused moreso on the deaths of women cyclists in london but is a starting point. there's another analysis i've read showing that on several occasions cyclists had stopped in front of lorries at traffic lights - but out of visibilty of the driver. when the light goes green the lorry has driven over the cyclist in front of them. i can't find this link but will try to dig it out.

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

mr spuckler · 21-04-2017 02:18PM

RayCun wrote: »

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

i think it's both, but in your post on the previous page you asked about evidence of incidents where they were stopped at lights. in the sun link you'll see the cyclist was ahead of the truck as they were in the other examples i've mentioned.

Alanstrainor · 21-04-2017 02:18PM

RayCun wrote: »

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

Blind-spot sensors should be made mandatory on all trucks. They are relatively commonplace on new cars these days, no excuses for them not being on trucks.

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 02:19PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

However, I have heard it quoted that the last recorded incident of a pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist was in 2002; in the entire country.

Now as we all know, plenty of cyclists break the lights in Dublin, regularly. No-one has been killed as a result in the past 15 years.

i hope you're not conflating the two statements above, one as a logical conclusion of the other?

Roadhawk · 21-04-2017 02:20PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That's fine.

And in the spirt of equivalence, prosecute every jaywalker and every motorist who drives at 51k an hour in a 50k zone.

I dont think the "jaywalking" law exists in Ireland but i do know its illegal to cross a road with a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing(think its 15 meters).

Tombo2001 wrote: »

its all illegal. And there is not a single motorist in the country who would escape prosecution in this scenario, or a single pedestrian.

Yet so many offending cyclists go unpunished when jumping reds, having no lights (at night), cycling up/down Grafton/ Henry street...even in front of gardai...why the double standard?

Tombo2001 · 21-04-2017 02:20PM

RayCun wrote: »

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

What that boils down to is that there is no safe place for the cyclist.

There are parallel discussions going on here.

One is, what is the technically correct thing to according to the Rules of the Road or legally speaking.

The other conversation is, what is the safe thing for road users, particularly in this case cyclists. And the safe thing here is a separate off-road cycle lane. Which don't exist in Dublin, to a large degree.

ED E · 21-04-2017 02:21PM

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Blind-spot sensors should be made mandatory on all trucks. They are relatively commonplace on new cars these days, no excuses for them not being on trucks.

Problem is getting truckers to upgrade.

The US had uproar when cities insisted that older, high emissions, artics be banned from the city core and thus the port. Trying to get logistics companies to upgrade their fleet would meet a lot of lobbying resistance.

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 02:21PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why does it always boil down to how many deaths are directly caused from an offense. Thats like saying that cars using bus lanes is not really an issue because it doesn't directly cause fatality... only that its annoying for some road users? Yet if a gard sees a car in a bus lane you can guarantee its dealt with.

some laws are there for safety reasons, some for functional reasons. it's clear the 'private car in bus lane' one is a functional one, whereas the 'not breaking reds' is primarily a safety based one, so it muddies the waters to compare them.

Annie get your Run · 21-04-2017 02:21PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

and here's another example where they were stopped at the lights and it seems one of the conclusions was that the cyclist should have cycled faster to avoid being crushed by the truck. note there's a photo in that article of the moment the truck is about to hit the bike.

Oh god

how awful, I can't even express my anger over the victim blaming in that case.

It seems to me there are definitely lethal junctions that need to be 'fixed'. I don't break red lights either on the bike or in the car but I'm not sure I'd be so law abiding if I had a highly dangerous junction on my commute.

Tombo2001 · 21-04-2017 02:21PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

I dont think the "jaywalking" law exists in Ireland but i do know its illegal to cross a road with a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing(think its 15 meters).

Yet so many offending cyclists go unpunished when jumping reds, having no lights (at night), cycling up/down Grafton/ Henry street...even in front of gardai...why the double standard?

And so many motorist go unpunished for breaking the speed limit - far more than the incidence of cyclists breaking red lights.

There is no double standard.

Most motorists go unpunished for petty offences. As is the case with cyclists.

Are you in favour, as a motorist, of every motorist receiving a fine, whenever they exceed the speed limit by miniscule amount? As you do, and I do, and everyone else does?

Lemming · 21-04-2017 02:23PM

RayCun wrote: »

Serious question - what is your source for this?

From TfL's annual Collisions & Casualties report 2014

In 2014 HGVs accounted for four per cent of all traffic but 38 per cent of cyclist
deaths and 25 per cent of pedestrian deaths. A longer term study shows that
between 2008-2014 HGVs accounted for 53 per cent of cyclists deaths.

And referenced from a BBC article:

In November 2013, six cyclists were killed on London streets within a two-week period, bringing the number of cyclists killed in London in the year to 14, nine of which involved a heavy goods vehicle (HGV)

And if memory serves me, almost all of those deaths were at the Elephant & Castle and involving HGVs due to a large volume of construction work nearby. As it was these deaths that spurred TfL and the Met to start a task force investigating WHY HGVs were killing so many cyclists and has lead to much public discussion around how to improve visibility from HGVs.

RayCun · 21-04-2017 02:25PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think it's both, but in your post on the previous page you asked about evidence of incidents where they were stopped at lights. in the sun link you'll see the cyclist was ahead of the truck as they were in the other examples i've mentioned.

they all seem to be the same (tragic) example

There are several articles about women cyclists being particularly at risk, and the argument is made that men are more likely to move to the box at the front of traffic while women are more likely to hug the kerb, and be stuck on the inside.

Roadhawk · 21-04-2017 02:25PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

some laws are there for safety reasons, some for functional reasons. it's clear the 'private car in bus lane' one is a functional one, whereas the 'not breaking reds' is primarily a safety based one, so it muddies the waters to compare them.

You are kind of right...

But think of it this way...cyclist breaks red light, car with green light has to slow down to avoid cyclist, cars behind first car forced to slow/stop, less cars get through lights = More traffic... it also has a functional importance.

Tenzor07 · 21-04-2017 02:26PM

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction..

You're right, this thread is going waayy off... And getting into another debate on cyclists and red lights... If that's going to happen then go to the Motoring forum and start another thread on Casual speeding, bus lane use, mobile phone use, no insurance/NCT issues, bad vehicle brakes, worn tyres.. drink driving... See how far you get over there..

RayCun · 21-04-2017 02:26PM

Lemming wrote: »

And if memory serves me, almost all of those deaths were at the Elephant & Castle and involving HGVs due to a large volume of construction work nearby. As it was these deaths that spurred TfL and the Met to start a task force investigating WHY HGVs were killing so many cyclists and has lead to much public discussion around how to improve visibility from HGVs.

Yes, but I asked

I know large vehicles turning left are a major cause of death, but are they killing cyclists who were sitting in front of them at a light, waiting for green, and were run over by a vehicle which took off quicker from the light?

mr spuckler · 21-04-2017 02:27PM

RayCun wrote: »

they all seem to be the same (tragic) example

There are several articles about women cyclists being particularly at risk, and the argument is made that men are more likely to move to the box at the front of traffic while women are more likely to hug the kerb, and be stuck on the inside.

actually the one i'm looking for implies that men move further ahead of trucks at junctions whereby 2 women killed in close proximity to each other had moved right in front of the truck, in the advance stop box, and the truck had gone straight over them because the driver didn't know they were there. truck was going straight on in both cases.

Tenzor07 · 21-04-2017 02:28PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

You are kind of right...

But think of it this way...cyclist breaks red light, car with green light has to slow down to avoid cyclist, cars behind first car forced to slow/stop, less cars get through lights = More traffic... it also has a functional importance.

Hang on, was the cyclist wearing hi-vis/helmet/lights... Was the car driver speeding or on the phone?

RayCun · 21-04-2017 02:29PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

One is, what is the technically correct thing to according to the Rules of the Road or legally speaking.

The other conversation is, what is the safe thing for road users, particularly in this case cyclists. And the safe thing here is a separate off-road cycle lane. Which don't exist in Dublin, to a large degree.

But the answer can be the same for both questions. If there is a HGV ahead of you, and a road where they might turn left, stay behind them. It's safe and legal.

Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Comments