Is it worth it anymore..... ?

Tenzor07 · 24-05-2017 02:43PM

Mr.H wrote: »

You show that 1 in 8 cyclists break red lights. But what is percentage of drivers?

More cyclists per capita break red lights than drivers.

If a cyclist breaks a red light and I got them then I will automatically blamed by the likes of yourself.

I have training to be a driver. It's called a licence. Cyclists don't need one. Hell most don't even know the rules of the road.

To use the road you should have to know the rule

Not sure if the statistics, but purely from observation there's usually 2 to 5 vehicles still proceeding after the traffic signal has turned red.. The impact of which would be felt much more by pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles rather than if a bicyclist did it, which would more likely impact him or her.

A green signal doesn't mean you can proceed without caution, full observation in case of the unexpected must be maintained.

Many people passed a simple 30mins or so test, some 10, 20 or 30 years ago, doesn't stop the speeding, dangerous overtaking, collisions and fatalities that occur every day on the roads...

And respect the rules...

CramCycle · 24-05-2017 02:48PM

Mr.H wrote: »

More cyclists per capita break red lights than drivers.

A farcical claim and also one that cannot be shown. If one cyclists stops at a red light, others can go around him. If one driver stops, all those behind him must stop as well (unless your in a white civic and on your way to a lecture in UCD, in which case you can apparently go into oncoming traffic, break the light and be fine (anecdote))

If a cyclist breaks a red light and I got them then I will automatically blamed by the likes of yourself.

??? I don't think that is remotely true, the onyl case in recent years that comes to mind. The cyclist lied about having a green light and was found guilty after colliding with a car coming through on green.

I have training to be a driver. It's called a licence. Cyclists don't need one. Hell most don't even know the rules of the road.

I know plenty of drivers with no trainign, I know plenty who trained to pass the test and not how to drive safely, and I know even more whose behaviour on the road indicates they either do not know the law or do not care about it or other road users. There behaviour as a population is identical to cyclists.

To use the road you should have to know the rules

Knowing the rules and behaving with manners, respect and safety are clearly two different subject areas in this country.

meeeeh · 24-05-2017 02:58PM

As someone who comes from a country with a lot of reckless driving (much improved now with enormous speeding fines) I find Irish drivers fairly well behaved but often ignorant of rules of the road. It's a lucky motorways here are so empty because a third don't know which lane to take. Similarly I find a lot of roads are just not designed for pedestrians or cyclists. Still that is not an excuse for some fairly stupid behavior especially in urban areas.

AndrewJRenko · 24-05-2017 03:42PM

No

meeeeh wrote: »

I would assume that if you want kids to cycle you want them to know how behave on the roads. That is all.

Anyway the excuse seems to be people are stupid so it's pointless to teach them anything. I give up.

No, it's not that people are stupid. It's just that people make their own decisions about what is in their own selfish, self interests, rather than remembering the advice they got in a course 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.

Cycle training in schools is a good thing, but the idea that it will have any impact on cyclists breaking red lights or other minor annoyances is a fantasy.

Mr.H wrote: »

You show that 1 in 8 cyclists break red lights. But what is percentage of drivers?

More cyclists per capita break red lights than drivers.

If a cyclist breaks a red light and I got them then I will automatically blamed by the likes of yourself.

I have training to be a driver. It's called a licence. Cyclists don't need one. Hell most don't even know the rules of the road.

To use the road you should have to know the rules

82% of motorists break speed limits in the RSA speed survey, if you want to compare per-capita offending. But more importantly, 100% of the 4,500 road deaths for the past 15 years have been at the hands of motorists, compared to 0% for cyclists.

So how's the training/licence thing working out for the 82% of motorists that break speed limits?

Chips Lovell · 24-05-2017 03:45PM

Hold the phone there chief. 100%? Where does this come from. What about people killed going up the inside of trucks and buses?

magicbastarder · 24-05-2017 03:58PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

100% of the 4,500 road deaths for the past 15 years have been at the hands of motorists, compared to 0% for cyclists.

surely there's been examples of cyclists dying as a result of crashes which didn't involve cars?

cython · 24-05-2017 04:18PM

No

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Hold the phone there chief. 100%? Where does this come from. What about people killed going up the inside of trucks and buses?

magicbastarder wrote: »

surely there's been examples of cyclists dying as a result of crashes which didn't involve cars?

Yeah, frankly AndrewJRenko has jumped the shark here: http://irishcycle.com/2016/08/22/woman-in-her-30s-dies-after-her-bicycle-hits-a-ditch-in-co-kerry/

That kind of OTT rhetoric helps neither side, and is only needlessly antagonistic, IMHO.

EDIT: Another one that I recall for a fact was discussed here: http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/03/man-in-critical-condition-after-walkingcycling-collision-on-phoenix-park-cycle-tracks/

I'm sure there are plenty of others as well.

Mr.H · 24-05-2017 04:39PM

Pinch Flat wrote:

By "got them", you mean hit them? So no different than a mortised vehicle breaking a red (you're no automatically blamed, so rest easy).

Yea I meant hit. I'm using the phone so apologies for that bad auto correct.

I really am not anti cyclist. If you spent 10 mins with me in a car you'd see how much I think other drivers are complete morons. I'm not immune to stupidity also of course. No high horse here. We all make the odd stupid choice.

I just think that people should have a better understanding of the rules of the road before being allowed to use it. Sure drivers could improve but at least they have to at the minimum bluff a test. Cyclists don't. People on a horse don't.....

To say we should start enforcing laws on drivers is the easy way out. We need to enforce laws on everyone. Put cameras on lights. Put ref plates on bikes. Make cyclists pass a small "theory test".

I'm not anti cyclist I'm just saying that everyone needs to be better and bringing the standard up by forcing everyone to pass tests is the minimum we should do.

mcgratheoin · 24-05-2017 04:40PM

No

cython wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of others as well.

If we look at the UK figures from the 2009 work - (all that is available afaik) it shows that;

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

I'd imagine that it's pretty similar here.

mcgratheoin · 24-05-2017 04:49PM

No

Mr.H wrote: »

To say we should start enforcing laws on drivers is the easy way out.

No it's not - it's the correct way out. It's the way that would save the most lives and the way that would have the most economic benefit.

I'm not anti cyclist I'm just saying that everyone needs to be better and bringing the standard up by forcing everyone to pass tests is the minimum we should do.

But you're not actually saying that everyone needs to be better - you're saying that the standard of road usage in Ireland would be improved by the sole method of making cyclists pass a test. The minimum we could do is enforce our existing laws correctly, particularly those laws that have been shown to have a large impact on the number of fatalities - i.e. vehicles speeding and drink driving.

AndrewJRenko · 24-05-2017 04:52PM

No

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Hold the phone there chief. 100%? Where does this come from. What about people killed going up the inside of trucks and buses?

You mean the trucks and buses with blind spots, crap mirrors and no cameras? And you want to blame the cyclists???

magicbastarder wrote: »

surely there's been examples of cyclists dying as a result of crashes which didn't involve cars?

cython wrote: »

Yeah, frankly AndrewJRenko has jumped the shark here: http://irishcycle.com/2016/08/22/woman-in-her-30s-dies-after-her-bicycle-hits-a-ditch-in-co-kerry/

That kind of OTT rhetoric helps neither side, and is only needlessly antagonistic, IMHO.

EDIT: Another one that I recall for a fact was discussed here: http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/03/man-in-critical-condition-after-walkingcycling-collision-on-phoenix-park-cycle-tracks/

I'm sure there are plenty of others as well.

Fair points - there have been a tiny number of such deaths not involving motorists, THere was one club cyclist killed in Wicklow on a fast descent iirc. At a guess, those deaths are still in single figures, compared to the 4,500 on the other side.

Mr.H wrote: »

Yea I meant hit. I'm using the phone so apologies for that bad auto correct.

I really am not anti cyclist. If you spent 10 mins with me in a car you'd see how much I think other drivers are complete morons. I'm not immune to stupidity also of course. No high horse here. We all make the odd stupid choice.

I just think that people should have a better understanding of the rules of the road before being allowed to use it. Sure drivers could improve but at least they have to at the minimum bluff a test. Cyclists don't. People on a horse don't.....

To say we should start enforcing laws on drivers is the easy way out. We need to enforce laws on everyone. Put cameras on lights. Put ref plates on bikes. Make cyclists pass a small "theory test".

I'm not anti cyclist I'm just saying that everyone needs to be better and bringing the standard up by forcing everyone to pass tests is the minimum we should do.

You really are anti-cyclist if you want to bring in tests for cyclists (who don't kill people) and leaving things pretty much as they are for motorists (who kill 4 or 5 people each week).

Here's a better suggestion instead of the 'small test for cyclists'. How about a regular test for motorists, say every three years or every five years - seeing as 82% of them seem to have forgotten how speed limits work, and seeing how speed kills - that would be a far more effective measure than a 'small test for cyclists'.

Do you really think there are cyclists or motorists out there that don't know what a red light means?

Chips Lovell · 24-05-2017 04:59PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You mean the trucks and buses with blind spots, crap mirrors and no cameras? And you want to blame the cyclists???

Yes. They're they ones who put themselves in danger. Which is why there's usually a death by misadventure verdict in inquests in these cases.

AndrewJRenko · 24-05-2017 05:06PM

No

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Yes. They're they ones who put themselves in danger. Which is why there's usually a death by misadventure verdict in inquests in these cases.

"I was just waving my meat-cleaver around in the school playground, Garda, and the child just ran straight by me, putting himself in danger".

Why do you blame the victims, instead of the people causing the danger?

Chips Lovell · 24-05-2017 05:12PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"I was just waving my meat-cleaver around in the school playground, Garda, and the child just ran straight by me, putting himself in danger".

I may be wrong, but I doubt a verdict of death by misadventure would be recorded in that situation.

AndrewJRenko · 24-05-2017 05:15PM

No

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I doubt a verdict of death by misadventure would be recorded in that situation.

You're probably right - why do we go so lightly on dangerous machinery on the roads?

Mr.H · 24-05-2017 05:25PM

mcgratheoin wrote:

But you're not actually saying that everyone needs to be better - you're saying that the standard of road usage in Ireland would be improved by the sole method of making cyclists pass a test. The minimum we could do is enforce our existing laws correctly, particularly those laws that have been shown to have a large impact on the number of fatalities - i.e. vehicles speeding and drink driving.

So you don't think people cycle drunk? I know people who regularly do it. I know the same people don't wear safety gear while cycling.

At the moment from the people that use the road, it is cyclists (as a group) who have the least knowledge of the rules of the road.

You may have a drivers license but a lot of cyclists don't. A lot of cyclists do not know the rules of the road. Therefore the people who don't know the rules can cause accidents.

Like my example. If a cyclist runs a red light I will be blamed because I was not observant enough. Now while I should be more observant (this is not real but an example) the cyclist ran a red light and that is the bigger issue. But it isn't looked at that way. The cyclist wasn't fully at fault in that example.

How is allowing people to use the road without knowledge of the rules, OK? Surely that is a huge problem.

Chips Lovell · 24-05-2017 05:33PM

Mr.H wrote: »

If a cyclist runs a red light I will be blamed because I was not observant enough.

No you won't. I can't think of one example of where a motorist has been convicted for hitting a cyclist running a red light.

mcgratheoin · 24-05-2017 08:33PM

No

Mr.H wrote: »

Surely that is a huge problem.

Let me repeat myself. Cyclists are not a problem on the road. Most collisions are not caused by cyclists. Nobody has ever been killed by a drunk cyclist. Most road deaths are not caused by cyclists and do not involve cyclists. The belief that road safety could be significantly improved by licensing and registering cyclists is quite simply inane. It betrays a wilful ignorance of the facts around road deaths in this country, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant about cyclists.

mh_cork · 24-05-2017 08:35PM

Mr.H wrote: »

I really am not anti cyclist.

Mr.H wrote: »

At the moment from the people that use the road, it is cyclists (as a group) who have the least knowledge of the rules of the road.

How is allowing people to use the road without knowledge of the rules, OK? Surely that is a huge problem.

Yes you are anti-cyclist. Saying that cyclists have the least knowledge of ROTR proves that. Its a blanket statement without proof or qualification.

As other posters have said, the record is 4500 deaths that can be attributed to motor vehicles against a handful that can be attributed to cyclists. When the two figures get somewhere close to each other, then the authorities should focus on cyclists tests, licensing or whatever else.

But right now it is sad that you think that resources should be put into some form of test for cyclists rather than focusing on the reasons why people are being killed on our roads - speeding, drunk driving, mobile phone use, etc.

AndrewJRenko · 24-05-2017 08:47PM

No

Mr.H wrote: »

So you don't think people cycle drunk? I know people who regularly do it. I know the same people don't wear safety gear while cycling.

Have you reported these regular drunk cyclists to the Gardai?

And what 'safety gear' did you have in mind, given that there is no legal requirement to wear any particular gear when cycling?

Mr.H wrote: »

At the moment from the people that use the road, it is cyclists (as a group) who have the least knowledge of the rules of the road.

How specifically did you conclude this? Could you please reference the RSA finding that 82% of motorists break speed limits in your answer.

Mr.H wrote: »

You may have a drivers license but a lot of cyclists don't. A lot of cyclists do not know the rules of the road. Therefore the people who don't know the rules can cause accidents.

Is there any chance we could focus our attention on what ACTUALLY DOES happen, rather than what theoretically can happen?

So instead of focusing on how cyclists can cause collisions [even though every analysis of traffic safety data here and internationally shows that they largely don't], could we focus on how motorists DO cause collisions every day, killing 4 or 5 people each week.

Mr.H wrote: »

How is allowing people to use the road without knowledge of the rules, OK? Surely that is a huge problem.

Again, how do you expect a test for cyclists to have any particular impact, given that 82% of licensed/tested/insured motorists opt to break the speed limit?

Chuchote · 24-05-2017 08:48PM

No

Most adult cyclists have passed a test - the driving test.

Knowing the Rules of the Road isn't particularly apposite; more important to know the law behind those rules (which sometimes differs from the RotR, by the way).

I have a suggestion. If someone driving a car is caught using a handheld phone while driving, then the person should have to re-sit the driving test. Ditto for failing to indicate in time. For speeding. For pulling out without checking. For driving straight through a stop sign. For driving dangerously close to other, more vulnerable road users (for instance people pushing buggies). For driving with drink taken. For racing through lights as and after they change to red. For turning without taking account of those in their way. For not using their mirrors with due care for others. For driving through pedestrian crossing when the lights are flashing and people are still walking across.

Because these are actions that actually put people's lives at risk. It's sensible to stop them.

Whereas saying cyclists should sit a test is merely a fancy form of mansplaining.

Tenzor07 · 24-05-2017 08:55PM

Mr.H wrote: »

At the moment from the people that use the road, it is cyclists (as a group) who have the least knowledge of the rules of the road.
You may have a drivers license but a lot of cyclists don't. A lot of cyclists do not know the rules of the road. Therefore the people who don't know the rules can cause accidents.
Like my example. If a cyclist runs a red light I will be blamed because I was not observant enough. Now while I should be more observant (this is not real but an example) the cyclist ran a red light and that is the bigger issue. But it isn't looked at that way. The cyclist wasn't fully at fault in that example.
How is allowing people to use the road without knowledge of the rules, OK? Surely that is a huge problem.

Never heard such sh one t...!

..based on observation, there's very little effectiveness of having a licence to take a car/van/truck out on the roads... So you reckon oul John down the road who passed his test back in 1985 knows the rules of the road better than your average cyclist?

In The Netherlands they have a thing called "strict liability" so the motorist is automatically responsible in a bicycle - car incident, if we had this here then it would have a massive effect on cycling safety, making drivers more conscious of the vulnerable road user..

mh_cork · 24-05-2017 09:03PM

Some earlier posts asked why cyclists RLJ and some replies said it was purely for selfish reasons and there was no safety element. Basically the reasoning was that you were just as safe if you waited in line.

This is not true.

A few years ago I read a research article that looked at cyclists deaths in London. It asked the reason why the rate of male and female deaths was similar when female cyclists made up less than 20% of the cyclists. Therefore a female cyclist was 2.5 times more likely to be killed than a male cyclist.

What it found was that male cyclists were more likely to be involved "T-bone" accidents, where the car hit them from the side. Female cyclists were more likely to get killed with large vehicles turning left at junctions.

They then went back to observe cyclists on the road and found that on average male cyclists either ran red lights or positioned themselves at the front of traffic lines. Female cyclists did not take an assertive position and waited in line.

Their recommendation was that lives would be saved if cyclists were allowed to treat red lights as flashing red, i.e. proceed with caution while still yielding way. More lives would be saved by avoiding the no.1 killer of cyclists in urban areas (getting caught on the inside of a large vehicle) than lost by cyclists ambling slowly through red lights.

I wish I could find the article again, because it combined statistical evidence and observational proof.

I did find this American study that concurs with that. Cyclists run red lights because they consider it safer.
http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/cyclists-break-the-law-to-stay-safe-study-finds

Chuchote · 24-05-2017 09:08PM

No

Very interesting. Haven't found it (yet) but here's one person making the same point:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/10252518/Why-cyclists-should-be-allowed-to-jump-red-lights.html

A conversation [with a shickaloney] followed in which phrases such as ‘oncoming traffic’ and ‘endangering pedestrians’ were given due prominence, to which I, in all honesty, contributed little. Had I been certain of a warmer reception, what I might have said was: ‘Mate I always go through that red light when the green man is on and the pedestrians have crossed. I do it to get to this bit of the road here, just after it narrows, where I turn right, so I can get a small head start on the cars behind me. It gives me a slightly better chance of not being left completely exposed in the middle of the road with cars passing very close, at speed, either side of me. Experience tells me that some of the drivers in those cars will not be thinking of my safety with any great concern. And I’m trying to stay alive.’

Edit: maybe this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm

In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.

Chuchote · 24-05-2017 09:30PM

No

Incidentally, in Paris last week I noticed that, while they do have railings at the edge of some streets, these railings have breaks in them. I'll post a photo later if I think of it.

Slutmonkey57b · 24-05-2017 09:44PM

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Let me repeat myself. Cyclists are not a problem on the road. Most collisions are not caused by cyclists. Nobody has ever been killed by a drunk cyclist. Most road deaths are not caused by cyclists and do not involve cyclists. The belief that road safety could be significantly improved by licensing and registering cyclists is quite simply inane. It betrays a wilful ignorance of the facts around road deaths in this country, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant about cyclists.

Then why does the majority of this thread focus on the behaviour of motorists around rush hour commutes in Dublin, when the graph on page 3 shows unambiguously that cyclist deaths are concentrated outside Dublin...?

If you want to talk about concentrating on facts rather than optics.

Chuchote · 24-05-2017 11:45PM

No

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Then why does the majority of this thread focus on the behaviour of motorists around rush hour commutes in Dublin, when the graph on page 3 shows unambiguously that cyclist deaths are concentrated outside Dublin...?

If you want to talk about concentrating on facts rather than optics.

Probably because the majority of the people posting here are cycling in Dublin, so it's more immediately apposite to their experience.

A huge factor in the lack of road safety must be the tiny sanctions imposed by judges when drivers kill or seriously injure other road users, and the forgiving remarks made about these drivers. It's typical that drivers will pay a small fine, and judges and lawyers will refer to "a momentary lapse in concentration by the motorist".

It's understandable that people sympathise with the trauma suffered by a driver who causes a death, but it really shouldn't be the main response, imho. And I strongly suspect that if someone riding a bike knocked down a young mother and killed her, this would not be the response.

alanjgalbraith · 24-05-2017 11:56PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe we should be pushing for a change to Traffic light sequence? Maybe we need UK type lights that go Amber, then Green instead of our..straight from Red to Green? This would, in effect, legalise those of us who predict the light sequence and move before the light is actually green?

.... and falso or the stopping sequence, where in the UK there is no amber in the sequence (AFAIK).

I ofter wonder if this (Green to Red with no amber) would help stop people accelerating on amber to beat the red light (bikes & cars) ... and make people more cautious when approaching any junction .. I expect there is a study/paper on why we have different traffic light sequences to the UK ...

Anyone got information on our traffic light sequences?

Slutmonkey57b · 24-05-2017 11:56PM

mh_cork wrote: »

A few years ago I read a research article that looked at cyclists deaths in London. It asked the reason why the rate of male and female deaths was similar when female cyclists made up less than 20% of the cyclists. Therefore a female cyclist was 2.5 times more likely to be killed than a male cyclist.

What it found was that male cyclists were more likely to be involved "T-bone" accidents, where the car hit them from the side. Female cyclists were more likely to get killed with large vehicles turning left at junctions.

Doesn't that indicate, however, that the behaviour of both types of cyclists was likely to raise the risk of death, according to the risk of the individual behaviour?

e.g. if a cyclist is going to be "T-boned" by a car, it indicates that they were across the path of an oncoming car; a risk much increased if red lights are ignored/bypassed. Therefore the male cyclist has simply swapped one type of risk (being in a HGV's blind spot) for another (crossing oncoming traffic). Questions of whether one is "less risky" than the other are similar to the same questions we can ask of motorists, is it "less risky" to do 90 in an 80 zone than it is to do 40 in a 30?

And HGV's, in general, are not treated with the appropriate respect for stopping distances, blind spots etc by either motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. In Chuchote's example, cyclist #2 may be following good practice for avoiding blind spots, but is making assumptions when cutting back in front of the HGV about braking distances that may not be realistic or reasonable.

CramCycle · 25-05-2017 03:17AM

mh_cork wrote: »

Some earlier posts asked why cyclists RLJ and some replies said it was purely for selfish reasons and there was no safety element. Basically the reasoning was that you were just as safe if you waited in line.

This is not true.

I remember this study but would disagree with the results. I think they attributed the increased risk of being female with the interpretation that females tended to be more cautious, less risk taking and hence got caught in "dangerous" situations, unlike men who were more likely to break the law.

A far simpler interpretation was that people who jumped red lights were more likely to get T-boned and being on the inside of a large HGV and presuming it can see you and would wait was not a sensible option.

My mind could be playing tricks on me but I was appalled at the interpretation of the data and the recommendations.

Is it worth it anymore..... ?

Comments