Careless cyclists.

AndrewJRenko · 24-03-2018 8:20pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the one part of the debate that i find hilarious. the 'dressed like they were in the tour de france' line.
people seem bizarrely focussed on the fact that many cyclists wear clothing which is specifically designed for the activity of cycling.

It is indeed hilarious and bizarre, partly for the reasons you outline, and partly because no-one seems to have a problem with the mammies in lycra for the school run, or the Lidl run or all the other things they do that don't involve running and cycling. But one lycra-encased-arse on a bike, and all hell breaks lose.

LeoB wrote: »

I dont know the answer to how many accidents have been caused. Does anyone have an accurate number? I doubt it.

There's a reason why no-one has an accurate number - most likely because the number is zero, or if the number is a bit higher, it hasn't happened often enough to become noticed. I've followed these matters fairly closely for 5-ish years, and I've never come across a Court report or a Coroner's Inquest report or a Garda request for help/information relating to the circumstance that you outline. So it's a fair bet that this is a non-issue or at very worst, an insignificant issue.

LeoB wrote: »

Need to point out again sadly for the anti brigade, that is ant car or anti bike that this is about safety for people.

If you really are concerned about safety, you might like to focus on the real issues that we know about as priority - the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week on our roads. There's a great opportunity to solve this problem with some fairly straightforward changes in culture and societal attitudes - instead of going searching for problems that don't exist.

Lumen · 24-03-2018 10:49pm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

TL;DR - lead by example, or don't go around pointing fingers. You'll see that the perceived "hatred" for cyclists will magically disappear.

I've been riding by example for ten years and yet the number of stupid rants about cyclists has increased.

Why should I have to answer for the faults of others? Why do I get people accosting me at social functions to rant about cyclists because they've heard that I cycle a lot? I don't get that **** from cyclists when they hear that I drive a car. So who is being unreasonable?

beauf · 24-03-2018 10:59pm

LeoB wrote: »

I dont know the answer to how many accidents have been caused. Does anyone have an accurate number? I doubt it.

Need to point out again sadly for the anti brigade, that is ant car or anti bike that this is about safety for people.

Stay safe this weekend folks.

Helmets for drivers and pedestrians is also about safety for people.

So is safety shoes for walkers. I've no figures, but it must be true.

Tenzor07 · 25-03-2018 7:44pm

Lumen wrote: »

I've been riding by example for ten years and yet the number of stupid rants about cyclists has increased.

Probably just down to the proliferation of social media type forums and the fact that you don't need to be able to operate a P.C to post comments online, just a phone, so much more simple to sprout a load of one sided carp on subjects a lot have very little if any experience of...

monument · 25-03-2018 8:10pm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

This kind of comparison is EXACTLY part of the problem; The fact people don't die doesn't mean that the act (ignoring lights and pedestrian crossings) doesn't happen, nor makes it less problematic, nor less infuriating - especially when the violation is committed by someone who constantly points fingers at other categories. It's the same position of someone taking a different stance of other people speeding and himself doing it, because he "never killed anyone".

Being so aware of the danger of the road, you'd expect cyclists to lead by example, but it doesn't happen. Basically a number (the most, I'd say based on pure personal observation) do to pedestrians what they say drivers do to them; The result is different just because of the masses and energies involved.

TL;DR - lead by example, or don't go around pointing fingers. You'll see that the perceived "hatred" for cyclists will magically disappear.

Given the masses and energies involved, I’d expect motorists to “lead by example” more than anybody else.

Not only would the "hatred" for motorists some people have would magically disappear, but thousands of lives would be saved.

kirving · 25-03-2018 9:12pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, helmets should definitely be compulsory for motorists, given that about 50% of head injuries occur in cars vs about 2% on bikes, even with airbags and seatbelts and all the other safety measures.

The evidence of the value of cycling helmets is sketchy at best. In Australia, compulsory helmets has succeeded in deterring casual cycling, taking lots of teenagers, female cyclists and older cyclists off their bikes and back into there cars, adding significantly to traffic load and reducing population health. Be careful what you wish for.

How does that compare per km driven/cycled, or, per hour of use? In a thread about cyclists, how is that of relevance anyway?

Having been hospitalised with a cycling related head injury which would have been far worse without a helmet, I choose to wear one, and I can't see why you (anyone) wouldn't.

I would never make them compulsory however as I agree that it would discourage cycling. As for the macro public health benefits, that means very little when your own head meets the pavement.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But beware of the 'sure they're all the same' false equivalence. Only one group of road users kills 3 or 4 people each week on the roads. Here's a hint: it's not cyclists or pedestrians.

And in all cases of pedestrians and cyclists dying on the roads, none were even partially at fault, ever?

07Lapierre · 26-03-2018 3:58pm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

.

And in all cases of pedestrians and cyclists dying on the roads, none were even partially at fault, ever?

There were 15 cyclists killed on our roads last year. From what I read (and this is just my opinion), there were two fatalities where the cyclist's may have contributed to the accident due to their own inexperience. I didn't read anything about the other 13 incidents that would indicate who was at fault. IMO, it could also be argued that if the truck drivers involved were more experienced/cyclist aware, they would have exercised more caution when turning left. It could also be argued that the layout of the junctions were dangerous (for cyclists)

I also remender last year reading about a schoolboy that was killed while crossing the road. And i recall reading about a pedestrian that collapsed onto the road and was run over by a car, but that was a few years ago.

Not sure what can be deduced from such small numbers though. Our roads are dangerous places unless your surrounded by a metal box, airbags etc.?

AndrewJRenko · 26-03-2018 7:47pm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

How does that compare per km driven/cycled, or, per hour of use? In a thread about cyclists, how is that of relevance anyway?

What's that got to do with anything? If you want to reduce head injuries, surely starting where the vast majority of head injuries are happening is the obvious place to start?

07Lapierre wrote: »

There were 15 cyclists killed on our roads last year. From what I read (and this is just my opinion), there were two fatalities where the cyclist's may have contributed to the accident due to their own inexperience. I didn't read anything about the other 13 incidents that would indicate who was at fault. IMO, it could also be argued that if the truck drivers involved were more experienced/cyclist aware, they would have exercised more caution when turning left. It could also be argued that the layout of the junctions were dangerous (for cyclists)

I also remender last year reading about a schoolboy that was killed while crossing the road. And i recall reading about a pedestrian that collapsed onto the road and was run over by a car, but that was a few years ago.

So in summary;

Cycling deaths/injuries are a small percentage of overall deaths on the roads (about 5% of deaths)
Cycling deaths/injuries caused by cyclists are a tiny percentage of cycling deaths

So why the obsession with all the terrible things that cyclists do - when the real source of the real danger on the roads is very clear - crap drivers, speeding drivers, texting drivers (like the Porsche guy who passed me today with zero hands on the wheel, two hands on the phone), drinking drivers.

magicbastarder · 26-03-2018 9:06pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So why the obsession with all the terrible things that cyclists do

because most drivers (most people?) see cycling as closer to driving than to walking. which, to be fair, has some basis in logic - bikes use the road and are subject to many of the same laws.
whereas cyclists probably see themselves closer to pedestrians on that spectrum.

but a large part of it is the 'i'd do the same in that situation' blind eye many motorists turn to the behaviour of other motorists. running an amber or red light, doing 65 in a 50 zone - you're not going to criticise another driver for doing something you know that you do yourself. but for most motorists, there's no 'arrah, sure i do that myself and it's fine' reaction with the behaviour of cyclists, because they simply don't do that themselves. so when they see a cyclist breaking the ROTR, the reaction is consistently negative.

Carawaystick · 27-03-2018 10:57pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not sure what can be deduced from such small numbers though. Our roads are dangerous places unless your surrounded by a metal box, airbags etc.?

Or our roads are dangerous places because you're surrounded by metal boxes. Remove them and very few people would be killed on the roads.

jaxxx · 27-03-2018 11:01pm

I don't know if this is just a Limerick thing or not, but the amount of cyclists in the city that cycle the wrong way, even on one way streets is getting scary!

dashcamdanny · 28-03-2018 1:47pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Or our roads are dangerous places because you're surrounded by metal boxes. Remove them and very few people would be killed on the roads.

Remove them and not body would be able to travel anywhere.

Why should the world revolve around a few folks who like to cycle on the road?

Why not remove the bikes so no cyclist will get hurt?

Effects · 28-03-2018 1:57pm

jaxxx wrote: »

I don't know if this is just a Limerick thing or not, but the amount of cyclists in the city that cycle the wrong way, even on one way streets is getting scary!

Nah, that happens in Dublin all the time and is something I've got a big issue with.

I once saw a woman with a baby strapped to her front and a child in a carrier on the back cycle the wrong way up Francis St, Dublin 8.

Captain Flaps · 28-03-2018 1:57pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Remove them and not body would be able to travel anywhere.

Why should the world revolve around a few folks who like to cycle on the road?

Why not remove the bikes so no cyclist will get hurt?

You say that as though there should be a way to prevent cyclists from using the road? I like to cycle there and I have just as much right to use it as any motorist (I'm one of those also).

dashcamdanny · 28-03-2018 2:09pm

Captain Flaps wrote: »

You say that as though there should be a way to prevent cyclists from using the road? I like to cycle there and I have just as much right to use it as any motorist (I'm one of those also).

I said it like what?

Cycle away. Im not preventing you . Just dont expect others to show you the red carpet. You are traffic like everyone else.

Deal with it.

Fighting Tao · 28-03-2018 2:15pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I said it like what?

Cycle away. Im not preventing you . Just dont expect others to show you the red carpet. You are traffic like everyone else.

Deal with it.

When I drive I expect people to drive around me with care. I expect the same from drivers when I’m on the bike. Are my expectations too much for you?

monument · 28-03-2018 2:17pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Remove them and not body would be able to travel anywhere.

Why should the world revolve around a few folks who like to cycle on the road?

Why not remove the bikes so no cyclist will get hurt?

First, I don’t think anybody was actually saying that we should remove cars off the road... but let’s answer your question in theory...

If we take the above as a given and say that I also am not suggesting removing all cars from the roads:

It’s completely nonsense to say removing cars would mean that nobody would be able to travel anywhere. The vast bulk of daily trips people make are within cycling or even walking distance, electric bicycles increase the range even further for the average person.

Buses, trams and trains could make up a lot of the rest of the slack.

For the vast majority of people the level of car use we have is a luxury we as a society can't afford to continue (that doesn’t say everyone has to give up driving).

Why not ban cycling? Because the benefits to society outweigh the risk even more than the benefits to the individual outweighs the risks.

Captain Flaps · 28-03-2018 2:20pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I said it like what?

Cycle away. Im not preventing you . Just dont expect others to show you the red carpet. You are traffic like everyone else.

Deal with it.

As a fellow road user, I accommodate you by keeping well over to the left and using cycle lanes where safe to do so. I don't HAVE to do this, I do it primarily for my own safety but also out of consideration for fellow road users in faster vehicles. If that's not appreciated I'm more than happy to cycle dead in the centre of the lane as I'm perfectly entitled to do (after all, I'm traffic like everyone else), but I suspect that would anger you even more. Maybe have a think about which way the red carpet is going here, eh?

dashcamdanny · 28-03-2018 3:08pm

monument wrote: »

First, I don’t think anybody was actually saying that we should remove cars off the road... but let’s answer your question in theory...

If we take the above as a given and say that I also am not suggesting removing all cars from the roads:

It’s completely nonsense to say removing cars would mean that nobody would be able to travel anywhere. The vast bulk of daily trips people make are within cycling or even walking distance, electric bicycles increase the range even further for the average person.

Buses, trams and trains could make up a lot of the rest of the slack.

For the vast majority of people the level of car use we have is a luxury we as a society can't afford to continue (that doesn’t say everyone has to give up driving).

Why not ban cycling? Because the benefits to society outweigh the risk even more than the benefits to the individual outweighs the risks.

You are talking from a city dweller point of view.

I dont think you understand that there is life outside the pale.. With little of no public transport and where cars are fine and a necessity. And society can afford them just fine. As can their owners. Little old Dorothy does not really fancy cycling 12 miles in the rain to the nearest Centra for a pint of milk.

Why ban anything? What gives anyone the right. If you read the quote I posted its was obvious is was being facetious when suggesting banning cycles.

I am saying that if you fancy your chances cycling down a country road mixing it up with artics and cars, then well for you. Good luck... You will need it. You are basically leaving your entire survival in the hands of complete strangers.

monument · 28-03-2018 3:41pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You are talking from a city dweller point of view.

I dont think you understand that there is life outside the pale.. With little of no public transport and where cars are fine and a necessity. And society can afford them just fine. As can their owners. Little old Dorothy does not really fancy cycling 12 miles in the rain to the nearest Centra for a pint of milk.

Why ban anything? What gives anyone the right. If you read the quote I posted its was obvious is was being facetious when suggesting banning cycles.

I am saying that if you fancy your chances cycling down a country road mixing it up with artics and cars, then well for you. Good luck... You will need it. You are basically leaving your entire survival in the hands of complete strangers.

I don’t live in a city centre or the pale. Best to actually tackle my post and not they to focus on me.

Do you avoid driving on roads where the speed limit is over 80km/h... what about 120km/h? A car hasn’t as chance against a truck.

Once speeds gets to a certain (depending on road user type), everyone on the road is basically leaving their entire survival in the hands of complete strangers. You just don’t see that as clear as you should.

07Lapierre · 28-03-2018 3:59pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You are basically leaving your entire survival in the hands of complete strangers.

That's why we all have a duty of care to look out for other road users.

With Great power comes great responsibility! HGV drivers have the most, followed by Buses/Rigid Trucks, followed by Vans, then cars, then Motorbikes, then Cyclists and finally Pedestrians.

AndrewJRenko · 28-03-2018 6:56pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You are talking from a city dweller point of view.

I dont think you understand that there is life outside the pale.. With little of no public transport and where cars are fine and a necessity. And society can afford them just fine. As can their owners. Little old Dorothy does not really fancy cycling 12 miles in the rain to the nearest Centra for a pint of milk.

Why ban anything? What gives anyone the right. If you read the quote I posted its was obvious is was being facetious when suggesting banning cycles.

I am saying that if you fancy your chances cycling down a country road mixing it up with artics and cars, then well for you. Good luck... You will need it. You are basically leaving your entire survival in the hands of complete strangers.

If Little old Dorothy doesn't fancy cycling 12 miles in the rain for her pint of milk, she can wait for an hour or two by which time the rain will have passed. If that still doesn't work, she can get an eBike to take down the road very quickly with very little effort. If that doesn't work, she can do what her carless sister does, and hitch a lift, or get a taxi, or get the rural transport bus, or order online at Tesco.ie and let them deliver, or whatever.

But if she really wants to drive, that's grand - let her drive - and just not kill someone else on the road. If she doesn't have room to pass, let her wait until she has room.

ED E · 28-03-2018 7:27pm

Cargo bike pulling a trailer with another cargo bike on top.

29512624_2129124654029091_7226193678948947349_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=c2777f967d0a6bfb26d82e263f32dca7&oe=5B2CA5CE

29512624_2129124654029091_7226193678948947349_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=c2777f967d0a6bfb26d82e263f32dca7&oe=5B2CA5CE

If cars were hypothetically banned we'd very quickly adapt.

Effects · 28-03-2018 9:30pm

ED E wrote: »

Cargo bike pulling a trailer with another cargo bike on top.

What kind of cargo bike is that one?

RobertFoster · 28-03-2018 10:37pm

Effects wrote: »

What kind of cargo bike is that one?

The blue one is a Riese & Müller Load electric cargo bike. Starts at €5,099. I can't make out the one on the trailer.

Pinch Flat · 28-03-2018 10:41pm

Effects wrote: »

Nah, that happens in Dublin all the time and is something I've got a big issue with.

I once saw a woman with a baby strapped to her front and a child in a carrier on the back cycle the wrong way up Francis St, Dublin 8.

Sounds like more cycling contra flows are needed. Not condoning what the lady did, but Dublin has tried to accommodate the private car at every juncture with a “finger in the dam” approach to traffic management - no lefts / rights, one ways and corcuituous routes.

Careless cyclists.

Comments