Is it worth it anymore..... ?

archer22 · 25-05-2017 07:09AM

Worth what?

Went for my first cycle in couple of months yesterday morning...first thing I met was a clown on the wrong side of the road taking a hairpin bend...then a truck trying to pass a digger on a blind hill, and finally a ****wit who decided to pass me on a narrow road with a car coming on the opposite direction.
All that on a 12 mile spin in a quiet rural area!..so yes I am beginning to think its not worth it anymore

RayCun · 25-05-2017 10:01AM

mh_cork wrote: »

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.

We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago.

There is a big difference between, "it is safer to take the lane at traffic lights" and "it is safer to break traffic lights". One is supported by evidence, the other isn't.

RayCun · 25-05-2017 10:06AM

Chuchote wrote: »

Why is either of those a good idea?

Going up the left of a HGV is clearly bad.

Why go up the right of a HGV? There are blind spots on the right too, and if it starts moving forward, you are on the wrong side of a large vehicle that doesn't know you are there, and doesn't have any reason to believe that anything is there. If it is turning right you are ****ed again.

Why not stay behind?

Chuchote · 25-05-2017 10:30AM

No

In my experience, the problem doesn't come from my cycling up the inside or the outside of an HGV - what am I, crazy? - but from my positioning myself at the front of the road and an HGV then pulling up behind me.

In that case, you're much safer out the front, or if you can do it safely, across the road through the red light and well away from the truck.

CramCycle · 25-05-2017 10:33AM

RayCun wrote: »

Why is either of those a good idea?

Going to the right rather than the left is safer than the left as you have nothing to be pinned against. If the truck goes to turn right, you still have the lane beside you (while not ideal) to move into, you have nowhere to go on the left in many cases.

Why go up the right of a HGV? There are blind spots on the right too, and if it starts moving forward, you are on the wrong side of a large vehicle that doesn't know you are there, and doesn't have any reason to believe that anything is there. If it is turning right you are ****ed again.

I only ever overtake a HGV on the right and even then, only in multi lane traffic where I am in the same position as a car. If the HGV is turning right, it will most likely be in the right lane or straddling both lanes to give itself space and not get overtaken on the wrong side, the same (in reverse) for turning left.

Why not stay behind?

This is obviously the optimal choice, except for the fumes but still the safest in regards getting crushed.

RayCun · 25-05-2017 10:37AM

Chuchote wrote: »

In my experience, the problem doesn't come from my cycling up the inside or the outside of an HGV - what am I, crazy? - but from my positioning myself at the front of the road and an HGV then pulling up behind me.

In that case, you're much safer out the front, or if you can do it safely, across the road through the red light and well away from the truck.

If you're at the lights, and in the centre of the lane, when the truck arrives, they'll see you as they arrive, and you'll move before them anyway. It might feel safer to get a head-start by breaking the lights, but is it actually safer?

(and this situation is about 0.001% of the instances of cyclists breaking red lights)

Chips Lovell · 25-05-2017 10:50AM

mh_cork wrote: »

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.

No, as Chuchote points out, its waiting in the blind spot that puts you in danger. Waiting in line is the safest option by far.

It's one of the many reasons why cycle lanes are a bad idea, as they encourage inexperienced cyclists to move up the inside or wait on the left of traffic at junctions.

Tenzor07 · 25-05-2017 10:55AM

RayCun wrote: »

If you're at the lights, and in the centre of the lane, when the truck arrives, they'll see you as they arrive, and you'll move before them anyway. It might feel safer to get a head-start by breaking the lights, but is it actually safer?
(and this situation is about 0.001% of the instances of cyclists breaking red lights)

I don't think there's a 100% correct answer to that, though I wouldn't be sitting in front of a HGV at a traffic signal anyways..
This is where protected/segregated infrastructure and advanced stop boxes, traffic signals placed at cyclist height with a 20 seconds advance green for cyclists would improve safety greatly and lessen any human error by the trucker...

And not these traffic signals which would mean that truck drivers have a perfect view which the bicycle user doesn't!

You can see in this pic that a UK reg HGV was proceeding to turn through a red light, but thanks to the segregated cycle path any impact from the bad driving:

Tenzor07 · 25-05-2017 10:56AM

Surely you mean:

It's one of the many reasons why Badly designed cycle lanes are a bad idea, as they encourage inexperienced cyclists to move up the inside or wait on the left of traffic at junctions.

Chips Lovell · 25-05-2017 10:57AM

No, I meant cycle lanes, full stop.

Tenzor07 · 25-05-2017 10:58AM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No, I meant cycle lanes, full stop.

Ah, you must subscribe to the principles of "vehicular cycling."

Chips Lovell · 25-05-2017 11:04AM

Not familiar with that. Broadly speaking, I think they enhance the perception among non-cyclists and novice cyclists that cycling is so dangerous, they need to be separated from traffic. And they fuel the belief among some motorists that bikes don't belong on the road.

In many cases, they put cyclists in dangerous positions, such as encouraging them to stay on the left at junctions and also (in conjunction with advanced stop boxes) encourage unnecessary (and sometimes risky) overtaking.

Tenzor07 · 25-05-2017 11:15AM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Not familiar with that. Broadly speaking, I think they enhance the perception among non-cyclists and novice cyclists that cycling is so dangerous, they need to be separated from traffic. And they fuel the belief among some motorists that bikes don't belong on the road.

What's the alternative, remove all cycle related infra? The Grand Canal and Clontarf-Sutton routes for example?

AmberGold · 25-05-2017 11:22AM

No

2016 Motorcyclist Deaths 4
2016 Cyclists Deaths 7

I cant see any stats for '17 but there seems to have been a lot more cyclists killed.

I'd also say a fair amount of motorcyclist deaths don't involve cars but speed. It appears the humble push bike is the new Death Trap due to Distracted Driving.

For this reason I do more on the Turbo, less solo rides ( as I feel motorists notice groups more ) and stay off dual carriageways and long straight roads.

Chips Lovell · 25-05-2017 11:23AM

Noting so radical. Just stop building it and remove most on-road, on-footpath ones whenever roads are being redone. Stuff like the greenways and the coast ones I've no issue with

Tenzor07 · 25-05-2017 11:32AM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Noting so radical. Just stop building it and remove most on-road, on-footpath ones whenever roads are being redone.

Yea so remove the box ticking and mostly dangerous Irish cycle paths and replace them with Dutch/Danish quality design and construction...

Chuchote · 25-05-2017 11:53AM

No

As Professor Arne Bjornbeg says of the Irish health system in a disastrous report

http://www.irishtimes.com/special-reports/irelands-patient-healthcare-system/ireland-below-macedonia-in-healthcare-rankings-1.3084854

"If governments stop trying to reinvent the wheel, in favour of copying proven progress, [health-]reform speed could increase. That would reduce mortality, improve quality of life and save money.”

This largely ignored and hugely important Euro Health Consumer Index 2016 report, ranking Ireland's healthcare disastrously compared to other European countries, makes a point that could be a watchword across the board in Ireland, from drugs policy to prisons to infrastructure to building regulations to buying and selling houses - and to cycling policy: we should look at what works elsewhere and do that.

CramCycle · 25-05-2017 12:13PM

I'd be more in agreement with Jep on this one. Danger to cyclists is generally caused by other road users not obeying the law or they themselves not obeying the law.

If we took all of the money that has been piled into cycle paths in Dublin and just handed it over to enforcement of road traffic law, the risks that people feel would dissipate quite quickly and eventually, good etiquette and behaviour would become the norm.

I won't hold my breath on this though.

Tenzor07 · 25-05-2017 12:16PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd be more in agreement with Jep on this one. Danger to cyclists is generally caused by other road users not obeying the law or they themselves not obeying the law.
If we took all of the money that has been piled into cycle paths in Dublin and just handed it over to enforcement of road traffic law, the risks that people feel would dissipate quite quickly and eventually, good etiquette and behaviour would become the norm.

Well yea, you'd need MPD and strict liability in cycle - motorist collisions, and enforcement for starters...

CramCycle · 25-05-2017 01:09PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well yea, you'd need MPD and strict liability in cycle - motorist collisions, and enforcement for starters...

I am not certain about strict liability. Rumours that it exists in the Netherlands are blown out of proportion is my understanding. It just so happens that they seem to always find in favour of the cyclist because it is nearly always the motorists fault. I believe a legal eagle for Amsterdam council pointed this out in an article before.

Enforcement to me is the way forward until it becomes a societal norm. Makes me sound very right wing but I just can't see a more practical way to get a large swathe of society to change their attitude to wards safety and the law in a short time frame.

ED E · 25-05-2017 01:14PM

Worth what?

CramCycle wrote: »

Enforcement to me is the way forward until it becomes a societal norm. Makes me sound very right wing but I just can't see a more practical way to get a large swathe of society to change their attitude to wards safety and the law in a short time frame.

If only there was any hope of an ounce of enforcement.

Victor · 30-05-2017 12:44AM

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

As a car driver, I'd have to say it depends on which section of the N4 you're talking about. All the way from Kilmainham

The N4 only starts at the M50 junction http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3597/-6.3861

and particularly out past the M50 is effectively motorway and the only reason it isn't officially made one is that they like to keep speed traps there.

You seem to forget the people of Palmerstown trying to get to the village or to / from Chapelizod.

AndrewJRenko · 30-05-2017 12:34PM

No

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well yea, you'd need MPD and strict liability in cycle - motorist collisions, and enforcement for starters...

MPD and strict liability would be great - but enforcement is the real issue. Half-decent enforcement of existing laws on speeding, red lights, parking in cycle lanes would transform the environment for cyclists.

Chuchote · 30-05-2017 03:54PM

No

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

MPD and strict liability would be great - but enforcement is the real issue. Half-decent enforcement of existing laws on speeding, red lights, parking in cycle lanes would transform the environment for cyclists.

And especially holding and using phones in cars, trucks, etc.

Roadhawk · 30-05-2017 04:24PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

MPD and strict liability would be great - but enforcement is the real issue. Half-decent enforcement of existing laws on speeding, red lights, parking in cycle lanes would transform the environment for cyclists.

Enforcement across the board for all road users is the key to having happy journeys

AndrewJRenko · 30-05-2017 09:20PM

No

Roadhawk wrote: »

Enforcement across the board for all road users is the key to having happy journeys

I was focusing on safety rather than happiness. I'm not sure that happiness is a good objective, given the large numbers of small minded people who base their own happiness on causing obstructions, delays and bureaucracy for others, regardless of the safety issues involved.

I love Sean nos · 30-05-2017 09:26PM

Atari Jaguar

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I was focusing on safety rather than happiness. I'm not sure that happiness is a good objective, given the large numbers of small minded people who base their own happiness on causing obstructions, delays and bureaucracy for others, regardless of the safety issues involved.

You're wasting your time and focusing on the wrong word in that statement.

CramCycle · 30-05-2017 09:39PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

Enforcement across the board for all road users is the key to having happy journeys

Have to 100% agree. Not sure it will make journeys happier but will certainly make roads safer in short order.

jimmycrackcorm · 30-05-2017 09:43PM

Another death today. I haven't looked at the stats but I don't recall another year looking as gruesome. It almost feels as though a cyclist will die every couple of weeks.

Chuchote · 30-05-2017 10:22PM

No

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Another death today. I haven't looked at the stats but I don't recall another year looking as gruesome. It almost feels as though a cyclist will die every couple of weeks.

It's become so normative that it no longer leads the news. The first few, there were big demonstrations by cyclists looking for proper infrastructure; the last few, not a dicky-bird.

Although two of the deaths of people on bikes were genuine accidents, I think that all, even these two, were caused by the lack of a Dutch-style separate and protected network for bicycles; of these two, one person had dismounted to cross a notoriously dangerous junction on foot, and one was cycling fast on the hard shoulder of a major road.

The others (if what I've heard and read is correct) included people hit by cars turning at junctions, hit from behind by cars, crushed against railings by a turning truck, colliding with tractors, etc - 99% of the deaths and injuries wouldn't happen if the government of Ireland cared enough to make a safe network.

It doesn't even have to be costly; Janette Sadik-Khan's first separated cycleways in New York were temporary, separated off by planters with flowers in them - when they proved popular both with people on bikes and people living and working on the streets, they were kept and improved.

It may cause some inconvenience to people who like to park their cars on public streets. If I were given the choice between parking a little further away and having a safe place for adults and children to ride bikes, or continuing to take up street space a couple of metres from my home, I know which I'd choose. I think if people actually saw the choice in these terms, they'd choose the same way.

Is it worth it anymore..... ?

Comments