ewc78 wrote: » 30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.
SeanW wrote: » Irish drivers are not involved in fatal accidents at disproportionate levels. That is a fact.
magicbastarder wrote: » worth noting that this has come up a few times for this junction, posted about by me: "one of my favourite junctions - outbound from fairview towards clontarf approaching the alfie byrne junction, in the right-turning lane. there was a car in front of me and one behind me. the lights went red when we were still (at a very minimum) 100m away. the driver in front drove straight through them. i pulled up at the lights, and the car behind pulled in behind me for a second or two, then pulled out around me and gunned it through the lights. it's kinda comical how common it is."https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108852312&postcount=1627 "i don't know what it is about dublin port, but in the last month on my commute, i've seen four examples of drivers deliberately driving through red lights which have been red for more than 10 or 20 seconds, and all were between the clontarf end of alfie byrne road, and where east wall road meets the port road."https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103873402 this is one thing that many non-cycling motorists don't seem to appreciate - that cyclists, when stuck at lights, are usually *at* the lights and have a good view of the junction and RLJing. usually motorists only get this luxury if they're the first or maybe second car in the queue. cyclists have a much better idea of how much motorists break lights, than motorists themselves do.
monument wrote: » Yet motorists keep running into trams and railway crossing gates....
ewc78 wrote: » Yup it's wrong and dangerous, anyone breaking a red light motorist or cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road imo. I've seen plenty of cars break red lights, never after 30 seconds though. Then im not from Dublin, maybe ye are all a bit more kamikaze up there. I have seen plenty of cyclists zoom through red lights minutes after they have turned red without a care in the world also though. Both wrong, both need to be stopped.
07Lapierre wrote: » So what your sayin is we need more/better enforcement of all ROTR for all road users? ... OK with me!
ewc78 wrote: » Yeah exactly. Also everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions. Now I need to sleep. Have to do a long run in a cycle lane in the morning
magicbastarder wrote: » i think they're there for his sake rather than yours.
ewc78 wrote: » How often are we talking here? 1 a week? 1 a day? Every hour? No trams or railway crossings where I live so I wouldn't know.
micar wrote: » Not a shared cycle lane This, from the article, might explain that for you. "The pedestrian, a software engineer, was crossing the cycle lane from the pedestrian lane in order to exit the park." " I started to cross over. I don't remember a collision... the only memory I have is lying on the ground," he said. None of there occurred on a footpath..
A man in his 70s died in hospital on Wednesday after a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian on Monday evening on the N24 on Glenconnor Upper on Clonmel, according to Gardaí. Reporting yesterday, tipperarylive.ie said Clonmel Garda Station spokesperson confirmed this morning that the pedestrian, a Clonmel resident aged in his mid-70s, died at South Tipperary General Hospital. The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths. On Monday after the collision, Sean Brosnan at the Garda press office said: “Gardaí at Clonmel are appealing for witnesses following a serious road traffic collision involving a cyclist and a pedestrian that occurred at approximately 6.35pm on Monday 6th January 2020 at the N24, Glenconnor Upper, Clonmel, County Tipperary.” He said: “A male pedestrian in his 70s was taken to South Tipperary General Hospital with serious head injuries and is currently in a critical condition. Forensic Collision Investigators have carried out a technical examination of the scene.” “Gardaí at Clonmel are appealing for anyone with information in relation to this collision, particurly any road users who may have camera footage who were travelling in the area at the time, to come forward,” he added. Gardai said that anybody with information is asked to contact Clonmel Garda Station on 052 6177640, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda Station.
1 sheep2 wrote: » At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.
Spook_ie wrote: » Are you reading a different article?
Hurrache wrote: » In fairness a taxi driver (I'm gonna use the logic always used when idiots talk about people on bikes) has no business asking anything when it comes to questions about roads rules or laws. But I will say it's quite eye opening and pathetic that anyone gets involved in this thread to whinge about kids out having fun from the standpoint of a motorist (of which I'm one too)
monument wrote: » Seriously, from the article you just quoted: "The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths" So his exact same point applies given there's no mention there of a footpath.
Spook_ie wrote: » Which, considering the basis of the topic is cars parked on footpaths and cyclists on footpaths I think Thelonius is just a tad incongruous in pointing out deaths so far this year.
Charles Babbage wrote: » Actually this thread was about cyclists on paths, car parking was only introduced as the usual diversion to prevent substantive discussion on the topic. It has suceeded only too well as all that is left is endless whataboutery.
Charles Babbage wrote: » to prevent substantive discussion on the topic.
ewc78 wrote: » Seth Brundle wrote: » Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group? Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes? As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes: Why be a prick? Honestly why the need? Did I say the teenagers around where I live cycling up and down the middle of the road are reflected of all cyclists did I? And your last sentence is just the height of prickness it really is. Do you honestly think cyclists, be them teenagers or adults should not be responsible for their own actions? Really?
Seth Brundle wrote: » Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group? Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes? As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes:
Zebra3 wrote: » So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?
magicbastarder wrote: » this was not my point. my point was that if alternative forms of transport are discouraged or considered too dangerous to undertake (pun unintended), that people will gravitate towards other modes of transport. hence my 'swimming in the shark infested pool' analogy from earlier in the thread. in short - it doesn't really matter how safe driving is if people have been forced off their bikes into cars; the topic here (and i know the topic is a little freeform) is how safe *cycling* is, not how safe *driving* is.
RoversCeltic wrote: » Under what law The citizens advice website isn't clear
SeanW wrote: » ...Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018....
magicbastarder wrote: » "one of my favourite junctions - outbound from fairview towards clontarf approaching the alfie byrne junction, in the right-turning lane.
J_E wrote: » Then when you're on the road, you're using too much of it, you're a danger by slowing motorists down, you should have a license to use the road etc etc.
ixoy wrote: » I remember crossing that junction, with the pedestrian light, and a car turning right there and coming through the lights. I called out to him that it was a green man and he shouted back that he had a right to turn?! Is there some unusual legislation about that junction or something?
SeanW wrote: » This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures." And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness. Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018. But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation. Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians. There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate. However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective. And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety. Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.
liamog wrote: » One thing thta really winds me up is the paths with a tarmac cycle lane and a concrete path. We've quite a few of them in my area. I never understand some pedestrians insistince on walking in the cycle path, or some cyclists inability to stick to the cycle lane. I'm not talking about moving into the other to avoid a hazard, it's just a complete lack of ability to follow simple guidelines when it comes to lanes that manifests itself at all levels of road user.
