Speed van

raxy · 23-12-2019 12:38PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Every detail of every road death is reported in Coroner's Inquests, in RSA research, in Court if a party is prosecuted. No details are withheld for reasons of 'sensitivity'. We're not in the 1950s now.

No cyclist has been killed as a result of breaking a red light in Ireland certainly in the last five years, and probably since the turn of the century.

So you must have some evidence to back up this claim? Because you've posted it twice but still failed to back it up with any source for your claim. You've also back tracked from ever to 5 years.

punisher5112 · 23-12-2019 12:58PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Every detail of every road death is reported in Coroner's Inquests, in RSA research, in Court if a party is prosecuted. No details are withheld for reasons of 'sensitivity'. We're not in the 1950s now.

No cyclist has been killed as a result of breaking a red light in Ireland certainly in the last five years, and probably since the turn of the century.

Good to hear that you're not one of the bus drivers who thinks it's OK to pass a child cycling within 20-30 cm.

https://twitter.com/Paul1980Reilly/status/1208049420215996416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1208049420215996416&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stickybottle.com%2Flatest-news%2Fboy-cycling-school-dublin-ireland-parking%2F

Up to you the cyclist to make sure it's safe to move out... The van shouldn't have been there, I would be more annoyed of that

punisher5112 · 23-12-2019 12:59PM

How is it everything turn into a cyclist debate....

Start a new thread.

893bet · 23-12-2019 01:01PM

ba_barabus wrote: »

You're looking at it wrong. Speedometers in cars over read. Every car will do this slightly differently. If you go over 100kph you'll get points but as to how far over your car is reading I don't know. My 2013 Avensis reads 10kph over at 100kph according to Google maps.

Some do some don’t. Perhaps the wheels and tyres were changed and now it’s reading under.

Not an assumption I would rely on.

AndrewJRenko · 23-12-2019 01:16PM

punisher5112 wrote: »

How is it everything turn into a cyclist debate....

Start a new thread.

I was just making the point that driving while blind isn't a great idea. Others seem keen to broaden the debate.

Casey78 · 23-12-2019 01:19PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I was just making the point that driving while blind isn't a great idea. Others seem keen to broaden the debate.

Lol. It's never your fault is it....which is pretty typical of cyclists

raxy · 23-12-2019 01:25PM

893bet wrote: »

Some do some don’t. Perhaps the wheels and tyres were changed and now it’s reading under.

Not an assumption I would rely on.

Google maps also has a disclaimer that it should not be used as a speedometer as it relies on mobile data & is an estimate of speed rather than a true value. If your coverage drops at all the speed will be incorrect.

AndrewJRenko · 23-12-2019 01:29PM

Casey78 wrote: »

Lol. It's never your fault is it....which is pretty typical of cyclists

It's not cyclists that kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads.

raxy wrote: »

So you must have some evidence to back up this claim? Because you've posted it twice but still failed to back it up with any source for your claim. You've also back tracked from ever to 5 years.

You must have evidence that no cyclist has been captured by an alien flying saucer and anally probed?

It's a bit tricky to prove a negative. If you want to see the actual causes of road deaths, they are on the RSA website. Cyclist deaths are fairly rare, and tend to be very widely reported, like this one;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/inquest-hears-cyclist-53-died-after-collision-with-passing-car-1.3666585

I didn't say 'ever' btw, I said 'in living memory', and I stand by that.

But if it has happened, it would be remarkably easy to prove me wrong with five minutes of digging on your favourite search engine. I'll wait.

Casey78 · 23-12-2019 01:30PM

Take a day or two off from your Whataboutery Andrew. Its Christmas. Surely even a miserable aul bollix like you will cheer up around this time of the year?

illumin · 23-12-2019 01:42PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I was just making the point that driving while blind isn't a great idea. Others seem keen to broaden the debate.

No, you pointedly made this thread about dangerous motorists rather than answering the ops question as you have an agenda. Please take it elsewhere and have a Happy Christmas.

AndrewJRenko · 23-12-2019 01:42PM

Casey78 wrote: »

Take a day or two off from your Whataboutery Andrew. Its Christmas. Surely even a miserable aul bollix like you will cheer up around this time of the year?

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it all the attention it deserves.

Casey78 · 23-12-2019 01:45PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it all the attention it deserves.

Don't mention it, glad to help.
Happy Christmas

ba_barabus · 23-12-2019 02:51PM

893bet wrote: »

Some do some don’t. Perhaps the wheels and tyres were changed and now it’s reading under.

Not an assumption I would rely on.

They leave the factory reading under. There is a legal maximum EU limit of 10% allowable. They never read over and are only spot on accurate if you have them calibrated.

I know UK police forces have them calibrated, not sure the Gardai do.

You're right about changing things from standard having an effect, wheels and tyres being a big one. Mine is standard however.

ba_barabus · 23-12-2019 02:53PM

raxy wrote: »

Google maps also has a disclaimer that it should not be used as a speedometer as it relies on mobile data & is an estimate of speed rather than a true value. If your coverage drops at all the speed will be incorrect.

Thats true too but as I've passed many speed vans and speed traps ive never had an issue so I take it it's fairly accurate.

kirving · 23-12-2019 03:24PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You should have assessed their position, their location, their trajectory and how much damage they can possibly do to you. It's called anticipation.

You adjust your position and speed accordingly.

You know full well that no matter how much anticipation you do, someone will still do something stupid beyond all realms of common sense, or even potentially anticipated behaviour.

You're going to great lengths to conjure up ways to blame the driver and excuse any and all stupid actions by the more vulnerable road user.

At this rate, I'm sure you'd find a way to blame a train driver if someone walked on the tracks at night.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Genius, what could possibly go wrong - except perhaps a cyclist or motor cyclist on the right of the lane preparing for a right turn.

The advice from the RSA is:"If dazzled by sun glare, watch out for pedestrians and cyclists, slow down and be prepared to stop".

If you can't see what's in front of you, stop driving, or indeed cycling.

So keep to the left of my lane, where cyclists are far more likely to be? Gotcha.

You know full well too, that it's often safer to continue driving, slowly and carefully, than it is to stop in the middle of the road, but you've got to turn it into an argument.

Any advice for the OP, instead of taking an opportunity to a go at the 99.9995% drivers who didn't kill a cyclist last year? I would suggest too that cyclists actions may have contributed to some of these, but that info is not published.

When cycling, particularly in winter, I make sure to have lights on in the daytime in case of low sun and more shadows created by it. Same with driving. "Auto" lights are often inadequate in northern hemisphere winters.

AndrewJRenko · 23-12-2019 10:33PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

You know full well that no matter how much anticipation you do, someone will still do something stupid beyond all realms of common sense, or even potentially anticipated behaviour.

You're going to great lengths to conjure up ways to blame the driver and excuse any and all stupid actions by the more vulnerable road user.

At this rate, I'm sure you'd find a way to blame a train driver if someone walked on the tracks at night.

It's not really a motorists vs cyclists issue. it applies as much to cyclists as to motorists. It is an 'any road user' vs pedestrians issue. I learnt it the hard way on the bike many years ago when I didn't leave enough margin while passing a pedestrian, who stepped out at the wrong time leaving me winded and road rashed.

You really do have to watch for pedestrians and expect the unexpected.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

So keep to the left of my lane, where cyclists are far more likely to be? Gotcha.

You know full well too, that it's often safer to continue driving, slowly and carefully, than it is to stop in the middle of the road, but you've got to turn it into an argument.

Any advice for the OP, instead of taking an opportunity to a go at the 99.9995% drivers who didn't kill a cyclist last year? I would suggest too that cyclists actions may have contributed to some of these, but that info is not published.

When cycling, particularly in winter, I make sure to have lights on in the daytime in case of low sun and more shadows created by it. Same with driving. "Auto" lights are often inadequate in northern hemisphere winters.

I didn't say anything about stopping in the middle of the road. When you need to stop, you need to stop safely and appropriately.

I've already given advice to those drivers, about stopping when blinded, but let's not pretend that dangerous driving is a minority issue. We have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits here. We have a majority of drivers using their phones while driving. We have the vast majority of red light jumping being done by drivers, not cyclists.

raxy · 23-12-2019 11:14PM

Some more wild accusations.
I shouldn't bite really, a troll is a troll but I assume you have a source for your latest list of accusations?
98% of drivers?
Give your hearsay a rest!

sdanseo · 23-12-2019 11:23PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's almost as it people exaggerate the risk and danger involved, and turn a blind eye to the 88% of red light jumpers that are on four wheels, not two.

http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

It's almost as if you've chosen to turn a blind eye to the fact that the link you posted takes no account of how many cyclists in total vs motorists went through the sample intersection.

If bikes accounted for 1% of all vehicles, for example, it would make cyclists 15 times more likely to break the lights (at a junction with a tram line, where they might naturally feel more vulnerable doing so compared to a quiet pedestrian crossing).

I can only preach anecdotes, but this year I'd say I've seen five drivers run a red. I'd have lost count by the end of January saying the same about cyclists.

AndrewJRenko · 23-12-2019 11:31PM

raxy wrote: »

Some more wild accusations.
I shouldn't bite really, a troll is a troll but I assume you have a source for your latest list of accusations?
98% of drivers?
Give your hearsay a rest!

Wildly taken from the RSA Speed Survey 2018. You'll find the 98% figure at the top of Appendix 1.

So no, you probably shouldn't have bitten.

raxy · 23-12-2019 11:51PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wildly taken from the RSA Speed Survey 2018. You'll find the 98% figure at the top of Appendix 1.

So no, you probably shouldn't have bitten.

So you selected 1 figure from a report & apply it to an entire section & call it fact?
1. That is a sample of 140 drivers so a poor representative sample to begin with.
2. There are 5 urban speed limits there with the % speeding reducing to 49%.

I'm not saying speeding isn't an issue but your argumentative attitude & clearly biased views do not help. You also made 2 other accusations in your post but sure you can point to 1 inaccurate figure for 1 point you've made in this whole thread so give yourself a pat on the back!!

AndrewJRenko · 24-12-2019 12:44AM

raxy wrote: »

So you selected 1 figure from a report & apply it to an entire section & call it fact?
1. That is a sample of 140 drivers so a poor representative sample to begin with.
2. There are 5 urban speed limits there with the % speeding reducing to 49%.

I'm not saying speeding isn't an issue but your argumentative attitude & clearly biased views do not help. You also made 2 other accusations in your post but sure you can point to 1 inaccurate figure for 1 point you've made in this whole thread so give yourself a pat on the back!!

Eh, it's not 'a report'. It is THE national speed survey carried out by THE national, statutory road safety body. Honestly, quibbling over whether the speeding rate is 49% or 92% isn't really a great place to be.

The phone use figure comes from the Liberty Insurance survey released over the summer.

https://www.completecar.ie/car-news/article/9354/Two-thirds-of-Irish-drivers-admit-to-mobile-phone-use

It's in line with the findings of the Aviva pan-European survey of a year or two back which had Irish drivers 2nd worst in Europe for checking social media while driving.

The source of red light jumping figure was referenced earlier in the thread.

I really wonder why people get so upset when these findings are referenced. Did they actually come as a surprise to you? Do you not see this stuff happening all around you every time you're on the road?

raxy · 24-12-2019 12:51AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh, it's not 'a report'.

Why don't you try reading the front page!! Free speed study survey REPORT 2018.

As I said it's not that some of the points you raised are not valid (in another conversation). The problem is you, you'll notice that nobody has posted in support of you or your opinions in this entire thread.

AndrewJRenko · 24-12-2019 09:20PM

raxy wrote: »

Why don't you try reading the front page!! Free speed study survey REPORT 2018.

Apologies, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that it's not a report. It is indeed any report. I'm pointing out that it's not any old report. It is THE report on speeding from THE national statutory road safety body. It is the most reliable set of data on the matter of speeding. If you go back over the previous reports from the last ten years, you'll see a common trend of more than half of drivers breaking speed limits.

raxy wrote: »

As I said it's not that some of the points you raised are not valid (in another conversation). The problem is you, you'll notice that nobody has posted in support of you or your opinions in this entire thread.

And why would that be relevant? I don't come here to make friends. I come here to discuss important topics around road safety. Whether anyone 'supports' me or not is entirely irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves.

mikeecho · 24-12-2019 10:10PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Apologies, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that it's not a report. It is indeed any report. I'm pointing out that it's not any old report. It is THE report on speeding from THE national statutory road safety body. It is the most reliable set of data on the matter of speeding. If you go back over the previous reports from the last ten years, you'll see a common trend of more than half of drivers breaking speed limits.

And why would that be relevant? I don't come here to make friends. I come here to discuss important topics around road safety. Whether anyone 'supports' me or not is entirely irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves.

No point arranging a boardsies 12 pubs so.

Speed van

Comments