Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How are more people not killed on our Roads

Options
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Actually vehicles are becoming safer, cars need to be of better quality and its more difficult to get a license.

    150+ killed on Irish roads in one year is still very high considering that 150 were killed in 2016 across Europe due to religious terrorism and look at the amount of money spent to combat that and the wall -to wall coverage its gets on tv/newspapers and online forums..i mean people are voting in fascists into office and losing many of their rights because they are worried about Islamic terrorism but the same number killed on Irish roads is considered small!


  • Options
    #183
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    I think the RSA campaigns have helped over the years.
    Years and years ago they must have realised that people will never obey the rules here. They just pull out from sideroads, have no lane discipline on motorways, can't handle roundabouts, potter along at 60 kmh and general have no awareness or forward planning.
    Reading the road ahead is just not a concept.
    So for years the RSA just ran "Speed Kills!" as their entire campaign and strategy for road safety.
    The thinking was that cars get safer all the time, if we just slow them down it might result in bumper cars, but less people will get killed.
    And if you see some people drive and you think all they need is a sparkler tied to their antenna, you'd be right.

    Someone asked me about sticking to the speed limit, well I now live in Germany, so it's easy, because everyone else keeps to the limits. And there's speed cameras everywhere.
    I find it a big difference. Here people stick to the rules, because they are regarded as something to help us coexist.
    In Ireland people see the rules as an obstacle and something that curtails their freedom to do whatever the hell they want. Something to break, or get around.
    For that reason driving in Germany and Austria, Switzerland, Italy and other countries I drive in are far easier to drive around in, because other road users are considerate and the flow of traffic is much better.


  • Options
    #184
    Patrick2010
    Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    I think the RSA campaigns have helped over the years.
    Years and years ago they must have realised that people will never obey the rules here. They just pull out from sideroads, have no lane discipline on motorways, can't handle roundabouts, potter along at 60 kmh and general have no awareness or forward planning.
    Reading the road ahead is just not a concept.
    So for years the RSA just ran "Speed Kills!" as their entire campaign and strategy for roaid safety.
    The thinking was that cars get safer all the time, if we just slow them down it might result in bumper cars, but less people will get killed.
    And if you see some people drive and you think all they need is a sparkler tied to their antenna, you'd be right.

    Someone asked me about sticking to the speed limit, well I now live in Germany, so it's easy, because everyone else keeps to the limits. And there's speed cameras everywhere.
    I find it a big difference. Here people stick to the rules, because they are regarded as something to help us coexist.
    In Ireland people see the rules as an obstacle and something that curtails their freedom to do whatever the hell they want. Something to break, or get around.
    For that reason driving in Germany and Austria, Switzerland, Italy and other countries I drive in are far easier to drive around in, because other road users are considerate and the flow of traffic is much better.

    Thought there were no speed limits on the autobahn? And Italian drivers considerate?? They must be the maddest in Europe.


  • Options
    #185
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    imme wrote: »
    How are many more people not killed on Irish roads.


    Pedestrians crossing, bad lane discipline, fast cyclists... these are all problems in urban areas where speeds are low and driving is rather safe.


    People die at higher speeds, and usually outside urban areas. The big drop in deaths in the past 10-15 years is because many of those more dangerous trips are now on motorways, the safest roads.


    In Dublin city, one big improvement has been the Port Tunnel, trucks used to squash cyclists quite regularly, but now they are off the Quays and onto a motorway more quickly.


  • Options
    #186
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Patrick2010 wrote: »
    Thought there were no speed limits on the autobahn? And Italian drivers considerate?? They must be the maddest in Europe.

    There is indeed no speed limit on some of the autobahn. There is indeed none where I commute. Your point being?
    Italians are fine, never had problems there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Liam McPoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    One thing I've noticed on the increase is people driving with ear buds in and/or full on head phones on. When you have music being played directly into your ears you do not have full concentration, whether walking, running, cycling or driving. It's a practice that should be outlawed and treated the same as mobile phone usage.


  • Options
    #188
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Business Cat wrote: »
    One thing I've noticed on the increase is people driving with ear buds in and/or full on head phones on. When you have music being played directly into your ears you do not have full concentration, whether walking, running, cycling or driving. It's a practice that should be outlawed and treated the same as mobile phone usage.

    They use it for phone calls. It's weird seeing them hold the phone up in front of their face while doing it as well.


  • Options
    #189
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I presume you find the vast majority of other motorists either speed past you or queue up behind you, with occasional beeping or flashing. It's really not easy to stick to the speed limit when so many others ignore it.

    Sorry to see you've come down with a rather horrible dose of peer pressure.


  • Options
    #190
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I stated that Cyclists are the only road users that can't accept any criticism which, based on you/your posts alone, is entirely accurate.

    I cycle and I drive. I drive a lot more than I cycle.
    I passed my driving test here in Ireland (in my early 30s), and I passed my cycling test back home in Germany (during elementary school). So I would have used bicycles as my main means of transport for some 25 years in Germany, and a car for the last 15 year now.

    When I started cycling here, I did adhere to all the rules of the road, same as I had done back in Germany for near on 30 years. But I learned really really quickly that in order to survive in Ireland, you have to anticipate drivers actively going out of their way trying to kill you.
    To give you an example, I had learned that when you're on a bicycle, and you hear a car coming up behind you, you move as far as you can to the side of the road to allow the car space to overtake you. I always have done that in Germany.
    I did that here when I started cycling, too. But do you know what happened? Cars started to actually follow me over.As I moved to the side of the road, they pulled in on top of me. Preferably if there was a hedge or a wall, leaving me no safe space.
    After the 4th or 5th time that happened, I decided I needed to take preventive measures, and that my life was worth a tiny bit more than the rules. So now when I hear a car approaching and I'm cycling along somewhere without a footpath or a lawn next to me, I will pull out into the road instead. So now, if the overtaking car wants to pull in on top of me, I have somewhere to go and stay safe.

    Please do feel free to criticise me for this.

    Just to point out, I don't break red lights, neither in my car nor on the bike. I hate both cyclists and drivers doing that. But personally, I see far more drivers doing it than cyclists.


  • Options
    #191
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    We'd do better if the no-phones-or-texting-while-driving laws (if they exist) were enforced. Fecker that took out my mirror while zooming by on a winding road was on the damn phone driving with one hand. Didn't get his registration # unfortunately.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Liam McPoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    They use it for phone calls. It's weird seeing them hold the phone up in front of their face while doing it as well.

    People use cans for phone calls?


  • Options
    #193
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Business Cat wrote: »
    One thing I've noticed on the increase is people driving with ear buds in and/or full on head phones on. When you have music being played directly into your ears you do not have full concentration, whether walking, running, cycling or driving. It's a practice that should be outlawed and treated the same as mobile phone usage.
    What's the difference between loud music on ear buds or headphones, and loud music on a surround sound 6-speaker stereo system?


    And why would you assume they're listening to music? Maybe they're listening to a podcast, or to white noise or to whichever piece of gammon on Newstalk is complaining about the menace of cyclists?


  • Options
    #194
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Business Cat wrote: »
    People use cans for phone calls?

    Yeah. Mine have a mic inline. Not everyone ponies up the extra for bluetooth.

    I don't get why they don't just use speaker phone if they've to take a call. Personally, I'd be inclined to find a safe spot to pull over.


  • Options
    #195
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    mikemac2 wrote: »
    93% of drivers believe they are above average

    Roughly 50% are


  • Options
    #196
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Igotadose wrote: »
    We'd do better if the no-phones-or-texting-while-driving laws (if they exist) were enforced.
    They exist and people get points on their licence for it.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What's the difference between loud music on ear buds or headphones, and loud music on a surround sound 6-speaker stereo system?
    Headphones are more immersive. More "in your head". Unless you have a subwoofer the size of a dustbin turned up to 11 and the molecules in your windscreen are rearranging themselves a car stereo is less of a distraction.
    And why would you assume they're listening to music? Maybe they're listening to a podcast, or to white noise or to whichever piece of gammon on Newstalk is complaining about the menace of cyclists?
    Listening to a podcast or talk radio would be more distracting than music. More concentration required to listen.

    Personally speaking I'd ban headphone use for all road users.
    Dravokivich wrote: »
    I don't get why they don't just use speaker phone if they've to take a call. Personally, I'd be inclined to find a safe spot to pull over.
    TBH D, I switch my phone to airplane mode when I drive. I have tried hands free before, but whatever way what passes for my brain is wired up I find it incredibly distracting. To the point of being dangerous. It should be like talking with a passenger, but for me it's really not. That's just me mind you, though I doubt I'd be unique in this?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #197
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Headphones are more immersive. More "in your head". Unless you have a subwoofer the size of a dustbin turned up to 11 and the molecules in your windscreen are rearranging themselves a car stereo is less of a distraction.

    Listening to a podcast or talk radio would be more distracting than music. More concentration required to listen.

    Personally speaking I'd ban headphone use for all road users.
    I'm not sure the 'immersive' effect applies to talk radio or podcasts or whatever. I've found myself tapping on a driver's window a few times, maybe 10cm from the driver's ear, or setting off the 120 db Hornit just there, and they don't hear a thing due to the obviously loud car stereo.


    I've we're going to ban headphones, we need to ban car audio systems too.

    But if we really want to reduce deaths on the road, we should be focusing on the existing laws about speeding, drink driving, seat belts etc.


  • Options
    #198
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I'm not sure the 'immersive' effect applies to talk radio or podcasts or whatever. I've found myself tapping on a driver's window a few times, maybe 10cm from the driver's ear, or setting off the 120 db Hornit just there, and they don't hear a thing due to the obviously loud car stereo..
    Maybe they were deliberately ignoring you... But if you can't see the obvious difference between headphones and external speakers I don't know what to say to you really. As for podcasts and the like? If you drive around for an hour with music radio on and I asked you what songs were played, chances are high you might recall one or two, if I ask you the subjects discussed over an hour of talk radio or a podcast chances are high you'll be able to list them. You were more actively concentrating on them.
    But if we really want to reduce deaths on the road, we should be focusing on the existing laws about speeding, drink driving, seat belts etc
    God forbid we look at more than the obvious. Too often driving is seen and practiced as an almost background task. Something you do while listening to the radio, fiddling with and viewing the increasingly large touch screens(Teslas. WTF? How are those screens legal?) taking calls on handsfree etc. The levels of distraction are going up, not down. Research shows that even getting alerts on your phone and not responding to them breaks our concentration. From that link:

    “Although these notifications are generally short in duration, they can prompt task-irrelevant thoughts, or mind wandering, which has been shown to damage task performance,” the study authors say. “We found that cellular phone notifications alone significantly disrupted performance on an attention-demanding task, even when participants did not directly interact with a mobile device during the task.”

    Participants were found to perform significantly worse on a task when their phones were buzzing or ringing — they were three times more likely to make mistakes, the research found. The volunteers didn’t know in advance they would be getting alerts from the research team.

    In fact, the level of distraction was comparable to actually answering a phone call or writing a text message, which could have serious implications for how we use our phones in the future (when driving for example). If you really want to keep your mind on a task, just ignoring your smartphone notifications isn’t enough — you need to disable them altogether.    Emphasis mine.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #199
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Wibbs wrote: »

    TBH D, I switch my phone to airplane mode when I drive. I have tried hands free before, but whatever way what passes for my brain is wired up I find it incredibly distracting. To the point of being dangerous. It should be like talking with a passenger, but for me it's really not. That's just me mind you, though I doubt I'd be unique in this?

    Yeah I'd be of the same mind. I don't let a conversation on a call interfere in my driving. The driving is first and foremost. When on a call while driving, I've regularly tuned out of the conversation on the back of it. And tried to keep them very short and on point, such as if plans for meeting up varied. Wouldn't be catching up on gossip.

    With regards to your later comments, if my phone is buzzing for a text, as far as I'm concerned, nothing important nor urgent is expressed via text, so it can wait till later, sometimes the following day :o

    A phone call, I'll try to find somewhere to pull in, to get back to it.


  • Options
    #200
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Wibbs wrote: »
    TBH D, I switch my phone to airplane mode when I drive. I have tried hands free before, but whatever way what passes for my brain is wired up I find it incredibly distracting. To the point of being dangerous. It should be like talking with a passenger, but for me it's really not. That's just me mind you, though I doubt I'd be unique in this?

    Never been a problem for me, be that with a handsfree kit or a Bluetooth headset in (one) ear.
    I bought a Pumpkin Android head unit and as soon as I sit in my car it automatically connects to my phone via Bluetooth. I find it no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
    There will probably be a storm of outrage now.
    But people who text or Facebook should be shot.


  • Options
    #201
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Maybe they were deliberately ignoring you... But if you can't see the obvious difference between headphones and external speakers I don't know what to say to you really. As for podcasts and the like? If you drive around for an hour with music radio on and I asked you what songs were played, chances are high you might recall one or two, if I ask you the subjects discussed over an hour of talk radio or a podcast chances are high you'll be able to list them. You were more actively concentrating on them.

    God forbid we look at more than the obvious.
    I've had the 'trying to ignore' thing occasionally too, so I know what that looks likes. These people were generally surprised when I finally managed to get their attention by waving or whatever, so they just didn't hear a knock at their window, due to their immersive audio experience.


    So if people are actively concentrating on podcasts or talk radio played over their car speakers, surely this would be an equivalent problem?


    The problem with looking at 'more than the obvious' is that it becomes a distraction from dealing with the obvious at best, and avoidance of dealing with the obvious at worst. Just look at the breadth and frequency of ideas from motorists to 'fix' cycling, while ignoring the obvious of slowing down, stopping drinking and putting the phones away.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I've had the 'trying to ignore' thing occasionally too, so I know what that looks likes. These people were generally surprised when I finally managed to get their attention by waving or whatever, so they just didn't hear a knock at their window, due to their immersive audio experience.


    So if people are actively concentrating on podcasts or talk radio played over their car speakers, surely this would be an equivalent problem?


    The problem with looking at 'more than the obvious' is that it becomes a distraction from dealing with the obvious at best, and avoidance of dealing with the obvious at worst. Just look at the breadth and frequency of ideas from motorists to 'fix' cycling, while ignoring the obvious of slowing down, stopping drinking and putting the phones away.

    It's not an either, or scenario.
    There are rules in place for motorists and cyclists. We don't get to decide which ones we want to obey and which ones we want to ignore.
    "But! But! Motorists" and "But! But! Cyclists" are not valid excuses for breaking any of them. I'm not interested in ANY arguments along those lines and neither will a Gard be, when he stops a car or a bike and bloody fcuking right he won't be.
    Anyone with even the emotional maturity of a six year old should be able to grasp this astonishingly simple concept. Anyone else, kindly take the fcuking bus.


  • Options
    #203
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Anyone with even the emotional maturity of a six year old should be able to grasp this astonishingly simple concept.
    You'd think that... TBH I rarely enough have issues with cyclists. I give them a wide berth out of road manners and safety reasons. They're just way more vulnerable and they're a pretty minor threat to me in a car. I'd have more WTF? moments with other drivers. They could kill me. So I can see why cyclists would have more WTF? moments with cars.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #204
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Wibbs wrote: »
    You'd think that... TBH I rarely enough have issues with cyclists. I give them a wide berth out of road manners and safety reasons. They're just way more vulnerable and they're a pretty minor threat to me in a car. I'd have more WTF? moments with other drivers. They could kill me. So I can see why cyclists would have more WTF? moments with cars.

    And I can fully agree with that.


  • Options
    #205
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    It's not an either, or scenario.

    It really is. We have finite Garda resources. Every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Every RSA and Dept Transport hour spent considering new laws for cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    It's a classic political distraction.


  • Options
    #206
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It really is. We have finite Garda resources. Every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Every RSA and Dept Transport hour spent considering new laws for cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    It's a classic political distraction.


    It’s a rare encounter to find someone who seems capable of reason and argument so indelibly fixated on making something an either or scenario.

    Again, being careful as a cyclist and being careful as a motorist are not mutually exclusive and surely if everyone at the helm of either mode of transport adhered to that we possibly would have less deaths on the road?

    Like others have said as a motorist I’m rarely annoyed by misbehaviour of cyclists, nowhere near the same degree I would be by that of other motorists. I can only speak for myself when I say that whenever I sit in my car, I don’t break the speed limit and I keep within the law ALWAYS. I’m fully aware others don’t. Likewise, when I’m on my bike I take every precaution to abide by my rules of the road mainly to keep myself safe but also so as to avoid any accident that might hurt anyone.

    In summary I think another poster put it very well when s/he said as a nation we view rules as something to be broken not as ideas to follow for our common good. If we could collectively shake this off and maybe all behave a bit better on our shared routes then we might eventually reduce road deaths.


  • Options
    #207
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    Again, being careful as a cyclist and being careful as a motorist are not mutually exclusive
    Fully agree.


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    surely if everyone at the helm of either mode of transport adhered to that we possibly would have less deaths on the road?
    Mmmm, let's dig a bit deeper here. Do we actually have evidence that supports this? The underlying assumption is that the behaviour of the person killed is a direct factor in the death.



    In the case of motorists, yeah, this is a fairly valid statement. Given that about 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists or passengers, and that the causes of road deaths involving motorists are well established (speeding, drink driving, seat belts, driver fatigue) - yes, better behaviour will result in less death on the road.


    In the case of cyclists, international research shows that cyclist/motorist collisions are more often than not, primarily the fault of the motorist 70% up to 92% motorist fault depending on which international research you look at.



    Let's be generous to motorists and say that it's 50:50, for the sake of argument. So cyclist behaviour is a factor for about 2% or 3% of road deaths (half of all cyclist deaths), whereas motorist behaviour is a factor in 80%+ of road deaths (all motorist deaths, half of cyclist deaths and a bunch of pedestrian deaths).



    So yes, it is technically true to say that 'if we all behave', then there will be less road deaths - but this is a long, long way off equal responsibility. Certainly, any suggestion that enforcement or legislative resources should be focused on 2% to 3% of the problem instead 80% of the problem would be foolish and futile.


  • Options
    #208
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It really is. We have finite Garda resources. Every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Every RSA and Dept Transport hour spent considering new laws for cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    It's a classic political distraction.


    It’s a rare encounter to find someone who seems capable of reason and argument so indelibly fixated on making something an either or scenario.

    Again, being careful as a cyclist and being careful as a motorist are not mutually exclusive and surely if everyone at the helm of either mode of transport adhered to that we possibly would have less deaths on the road?

    Like others have said as a motorist I’m rarely annoyed by misbehaviour of cyclists, nowhere near the same degree I would be by that of other motorists. I can only speak for myself when I say that whenever I sit in my car, I don’t break the speed limit and I keep within the law ALWAYS. I’m fully aware others don’t. Likewise, when I’m on my bike I take every precaution to abide by my rules of the road mainly to keep myself safe but also so as to avoid any accident that might hurt anyone.

    In summary I think another poster put it very well when s/he said as a nation we view rules as something to be broken not as ideas to follow for our common good. If we could collectively shake this off and maybe all behave a bit better on our shared routes then we might eventually reduce road deaths.

    Unfortunately cyclists will always be of the opinion that because they have a lighter vehicle that it excludes them from following rules laid out.


  • Options
    #209
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Fully agree.




    Mmmm, let's dig a bit deeper here. Do we actually have evidence that supports this? The underlying assumption is that the behaviour of the person killed is a direct factor in the death.

    Well, let's dig indeed.
    If I cycle and I break lights, don't look where I cycle and just blindly cycle out onto the main road without looking, my behaviour will definitely result in death. Mine.
    As.far as I'm concerned that's slam dunk as an argument and only an aspiring Darwin Award candidate or complete imbecile could possibly argue otherwise.
    Maybe you're arguing from the point of view that cyclists don't generally cause death and injuries in other road users, and that may be true.
    But I'm still going by the "don't be a cnut" principle in traffic. And I like to arrive alive.
    If you really argue that your own behaviour has no bearing on your personal safety, you are a fool or trolling.
    Well, as long as you only act the dick on your bike, with a bit of luck only you will end up a 20 foot red smear and the roads will be a tiny bit safer


  • Options
    #210
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Patww79 wrote: »
    Unfortunately cyclists will always be of the opinion that because they have a lighter vehicle that it excludes them from following rules laid out.


    Or to be clearer, some cyclists will fortunately be of the opinion that because they have a lighter, slower vehicle that isn't the same kind of vehicle that kills 3 or 4 people each week, it excludes them from having to listen to lectures from those who do kill 3 or 4 people each week. It also excludes them from listen to 'but we ALL have to be careful' arguments that are largely designed to divert attention from those motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week.

    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Well, let's dig indeed.
    If I cycle and I break lights, don't look where I cycle and just blindly cycle out onto the main road without looking, my behaviour will definitely result in death. Mine.
    As.far as I'm concerned that's slam dunk as an argument and only an aspiring Darwin Award candidate or complete imbecile could possibly argue otherwise.
    While I wouldn't disagree with your hypothetical, my main point is that this doesn't happen very often if at all. So arguments that are based around this hypothetical are weak, by comparison with arguments that ask motorists to stop speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving and put on their seat belts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    While I wouldn't disagree with your hypothetical, my main point is that this doesn't happen very often if at all. So arguments that are based around this hypothetical are weak, by comparison with arguments that ask motorists to stop speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving and put on their seat belts.

    It doesn't happen often that cyclists who don't pay attention get killed?
    That seems like a very reckless attitude to have.


Advertisement