Spook_ie wrote: » No argument from me on that, especially about the phone use, is it time we introduced a ban on cyclists using their phones or other mobile devices, I see the Dutch think if worthwhile to delegitimise phone use by cyclists. As of July 2019 you face a €95 fine if they charge you.https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/goodbye-to-two-wheeled-texting-five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-electronic-device-ban-for-cyclists-in-the-netherlands/
07Lapierre wrote: » Golf carts are allowed on the road in Michegan! God bless America!https://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/2013/05/27/can-i-ride-my-golf-cart-or-orv-on-the-road/
07Lapierre wrote: » AKAIK that's already illegal here.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Nobody seems have to told Deliveroo, or JustEat, or Cyclone, or Pony Express, or... Oh, wait, Deliveroo and JustEat don't actually employ anyone except a few office staff, they're all self-employed contractors... :rolleyes:
07Lapierre wrote: » I suspect they already know
Casey78 wrote: » But cyclists acting the dick are of no danger to anyone I thought?https://www.google.com/amp/s/road.cc/content/news/268501-cyclist-court-accused-dangerous-cycling-following-pedestrians-death%3famp
micar wrote: » And rightly so that the cyclist is being prosecuted. For every article like thjs, I can find 100 relates about a motorist causing the death of a motorist, cyclist or a pedestrian but according to some that's pure whataboutery
Spook_ie wrote: » Well that depends, in minor collisions, where you get knocked off the bike then a helmet probably will save you more serious head injuries, in a 120kph accident crash (say on the motorway where we know cyclists aren't supposed to be, but somehow a few still don't seem to understand this) not so much.
Spook_ie wrote: » No argument from me on that, especially about the phone use, is it time we introduced a ban on cyclists using their phones or other mobile devices, I see the Dutch think if worthwhile to delegitimise phone use by cyclists. As of July 2019 you face a €95 fine if they charge you.
Spook_ie wrote: » Good to see you advocating ridding the world of "standard" bicycles and pushing for thesehttps://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/bicycle-with-roll-cage-could-save-your-life-in-a-car-crash/ Imagine the number of cyclist deaths and injuries we could save, even more with wearing helmets
SeanW wrote: » More common than is not the same as common. I doubt it's common at all for a motorist to suffer a head injury where the car's structural design, a seat belt and airbag are literally of no use whatsoever but a little plastic helmet would have made all the difference? In fact, I'd suggest it's rare.
SeanW wrote: » It's a suggestion, you're free to ignore it. But as a cyclist, you have less protection than a motorist in the event of an accident crash. That's just a fact. Never said that, rather than modern cars are structurally designed to protect their occupants in case of a crash (things like crumple zones), have seat belts and (for the driver and front seat passenger) airbags. If all of those fail, then a little helmet isn't likely to make any difference. A helmet is just for if you don't have anything else to protect you.
meeeeh wrote: » And exactly the same if cyclist hits a car. In general (but not always) the cyclists will be worse off. I don't overly care if adults (who are not close to me) don't wear seat belts when driving or helmets when cycling. It won't be me feeding them with the spoon for the rest of their lives. However I find it absolutely despicable when children are not protected properly.
meeeeh wrote: » I didn't say it's useless. You said that and I'm not going to argue with someone whose actions won't affect me. Yes I insist my kids wear helmet when cycling. I try not to be neglectful parent.
meeeeh wrote: » As I said I don't overly care as it won't be me wiping the drool and whatever else. I always wear helmet, not because I think it's always needed but because I want kids to always wear it.
SeanW wrote: » Well, accidents crashes involving cyclist have a variety of causes. Sometimes, as you suggest, accidents crashes are caused by motorists negligently hitting cyclists. It's also likely that in some cases the cyclist precipitated a collision with a motorist, either by crashing into a car or by disobeying a traffic control (e.g. running a red light) and causing a driver to crash into them. And of course, we have cases where cyclists crash into stationary objects like parked cars, lamp posts etc. Collision culpability varies, hence we have things like seat belts and helmets to protect the user in any circumstance. I actually don't care about the legalities of helmets, seat belts etc. I wear a seat belt when I'm driving because it makes sense, regardless of the law. I understand that I might get into an accident that's not my fault. Likewise, I suspect helmets help the cyclist in the case of a low-speed collision. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, just as long as you don't complain if you get avoidably hurt.
Tea drinker wrote: » I think we all agree there's plenty of men and women who are either awful or ignorant drivers. I mean you can mention them but it's not really in keeping with the thread title to go down the rabbit hole. A separate thread about motorists being d1cks would be more appropriate for a deep dive on those comments and there's probably several of them, both from a motorists perspective e.g. the dashcam thread or the cyclist perspective. I don't want to get in to backseat modding so that's it from me on that.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Nah, not plastic, proper motoring helmets - surely these would make a positive difference. Imagine the number of cyclist motorist deaths and injuries we could save?https://trackdays.ie/product-category/racewear/
And same for non-helmet-wearing motorists, right? Just don't complain if you're not wearing a helmet when the drunk driver crashes into your family - it's your own fault really.
Except it is relevant. The point of the OP was about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians. Every set of road traffic data in the world shows clearly where the actual danger to pedestrians comes from. It's not cyclists.
SeanW wrote: » You do understand that racing is a totally different problem domain to normal road use - right? It seems strange that I have to explain this to anyone over the age of 5, but here goes: Racers drive on race tracks at the fastest speeds possible, so they are statistically exposed to dangers that "normal" drivers are not. Race cars are designed primarily for that speed. A Formula 1 car looks nothing like a normal transport car and is designed totally differently. As such, it doesn't have the same inherent safety features as a car for transport.
SeanW wrote: » If a drunk driver crashes into me, that's on them. If I make my outcome in the accident crash worse by not wearing a seat belt, that's on me.
SeanW wrote: » Except, as I've proven, there's little risk to pedestrians from Irish motorists either.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do the parents of the bunch of children that are killed in cars each year despicable, for their failure to provide crash helmets for their children? If it saves one child's life, right? So when you say 'always', do you mean when you're walking on the street, going out drinking, going up/down stairs, having a shower - all activities that have similar or worse head injury rates to cycling? Why would you focus your helmet wearing solely on cycling?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » 'totally different problem domain' - would that be similar to the totally different problem domain of motorists vs cyclists? Different speeds, different weights, different momentum, hugely different KSI statistics. Thanks for the explanation, though those helmets are used in saloon race cars, not F1 cars. If it saves one life, right?
And if you make your outcome in the crash worse by not wearing a helmet, that's on you too, presumably?
I'd guess the families of the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year might have a different view. Should they not wear helmets too?
SeanW wrote: » Actually, all pedestrians have to do is not stagger drunk around unlit roads late at night and have an ounce of cop-on. I proved this in an earlier post. The RSA looked at pedestrian fatalities 2008-2015 and found pedestrian cuplability in 70% of cases.https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf That is, the pedestrian's actions or negligence caused the accident. So the claim that every pedestrian fatality is a case of a "motorist killing a pedestrian" is a lie.
SeanW wrote: » I've never had to jump out of the way of a red light jumping motorist
meeeeh wrote: » Helmets for kids are advised on EU level and by plenty other organisations. You might be arrogant enough to think you know best but then there are also people who deny Corona exists... Apparently some believe Earth is flat too. It takes all sorts... However I must admit I find it amusing how it offends you that I wear a helmet while cycling. I'm not encroaching on your rights in any way and yet you feel the need to challenge it. Would it ever occur to you that some of us might get some comfort from wearing helmet when cycling at speed downhill? Should only people like you feel comfortable to cycle?
SeanW wrote: » Again, I find it strange that I have to explain this when a 5 year old could tell you that race car drivers drive on different "roads" with different vehicles, in different ways and for different purposes than people driving for transport. But motorists and cyclists use the same roads for the same reasons. Again, I'm going to try one more time to explain this. Motorists driving on public roads in cars designed for transport purposes already have at their disposal a wide variety of safety systems that should be in working order. These protect motorists and their passengers from all but the worst possible, most high impact collisions: Advanced crash-worthiness in car design, such as crumple zones and structural design to prevent the roof from collapsing if the car flips over. Airbags. Seat belts. The idea that any significant number of motor users are being hurt because they're missing a fourth line of defense seems, at least on a prima facie basis to be beyond absurd.
meeeeh wrote: » Accidents should never be investigated we should just blame the surviving party so we don't offend the dead.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Some drivers seem a little confused about the distinction you're making between a road and a race track.
Surely a crash helmet would offer some additional protection if you're going to take a hit from one of these geniuses at 200 kmph?
Nice victim blaming there. You might want to look at the stats again. 3/4 of the pedestrians killed were on lit roads. The reference to 'drunk' does not reflect the measurement in the report of alcohol consumed. But hey, any desperate measure to avoid drivers taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal, eh?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Some drivers seem a little confused about the distinction you're making between a road and a race track.https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1271931940292173824https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1285572903749255170
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you want to understand the challenges of cyclists being around drivers going at 120 kmph and higher, keep an eye on the Garda Traffic twitter account. Sadly, it is very much not a problem restricted to motorways.https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1284528246374227970
What problem are we trying to solve here?
AFAIK, it's not illegal for a cyclist to use their phone. It's pretty dumb, but not illegal.
Maybe rather than imagining, maybe you could tell us - what's your view on the number of cycli《 Snipped rest of drivel that doesnt concern Dutch law on moble use 》 The point of the OP was about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians. Every set of road traffic data in the world shows clearly where the actual danger to pedestrians comes from. It's not cyclists.
Zebra3 wrote: » What accidents? Please show us an accident that happened on Irish roads. Go on, just one.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Where exactly did I challenge you wearing a helmet? If you want to wear a helmet, knock yourself out (pun intended). If you're going to have a go at parents who choose not to wear helmets on bikes, then be prepared for people to question why you don't have a go a parents who choose not to wear helmets in cars, where the majority of deaths (incl head injuries) happen?
meeeeh wrote: » I'm not a native speaker and if the only way you can challenge what I wrote is to criticise my use of English language then knock yourself out.
Zebra3 wrote: » I didn't criticise your use of the English language. You made a claim about accidents, all I did was ask you to give proof of one accident on Irish roads. So can give you give any proof of a single accident?
