AndrewJRenko wrote: » 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?
PeadarCo wrote: » The Fairview cycle lane through the Park is a bit of joke. All it is is a bit of paint on the ground.
magicbastarder wrote: » i'm not disputing the 70% figure for culpability, cos i haven't any good reason to, but it's a bit of a gap in a report like that there's no explanation at all on how culpability is judged, bar "The culpability of the parties involved in pedestrian fatalities was based on the body of work completed using the Garda Investigation Files (2008-2012)." do they mean those files actually contain a judgement of culpability by the investigating garda? or does the researcher make that call based on the garda case notes? having seen some reports of high profile cases, i'd question the results of the gardai's investigations in some of those cases. whether correcting this would push the figures up or down, is obviously a guessing game too.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.
magicbastarder wrote: » True, that.https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312
TaurenDruid wrote: » My cake is very big and can have many slices.
SeanW wrote: » As to whether pedestrians should wear helmets, the data suggests that having an ounce of cop on is enough to lower an already infinitesimally low risk to even lower. Assuming the 70% figure is correct for 2019, then that means about 8 pedestrians died in accidents that were not their fault, and further that all motorists involved were punished in accordance with law because at most 2% hit and run. So ... (8/5,000,00)*100 = a fatality risk of 0.00016% for 2019. If we further assume that helmets would not have helped in some of those cases, the case gets even weaker. So ... no. Pedestrians don't need helmets. Just an ounce of cop-on.
gibgodsman wrote: » I cycle to work every single day to and from, sometimes to and from 4 times in a day if I go home for lunch. I literally never use the roads and always use the paths, I do not feel safe at all using roads and do not trust any drivers on such. I do not fly past anyone on the path either, I take paths that are usually fairly empty but if there is anyone on them I would slow down to almost a stop and let them past if they are coming towards me and otherwise I would slow down behind them to their pace and once the road is clear go on it to pass them In Dublin maybe its different, but in Navan its impossible to cycle on the roads and not fear for your life
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video. Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross). But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.https://streamable.com/bjo2st
TaurenDruid wrote: » The North Strand one brings you into a bus lane right before a junction with traffic lights and excellent visibility. No reason whatsoever to not use the cycle path.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Try the same calculation for cyclists and let us know how it works out please.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year.
SeanW wrote: » Maybe once you've withdrawn your false claim about: So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?
SeanW wrote: » Well this is a lie. Actually two lies in one. The number of pedestrians who died on Irish roads/streets last year was 27, not "forty-ish". Now, normally when someone mis-states statistics like this, a certain "benefit of the doubt" is warranted, but in your case, I don't think so.https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/ And your claim that those pedestrians were "killed by Irish motorists" is also a lie because it ignores pedestrian culpability in those cases. RSA research suggests that pedestrian actions or negligence may be the deciding factor in 70% of fatalities.https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf Also from that research, a maximum of 2% of drivers involved in pedestrian fatality accidents hit-and-run so your claim in other posts of motorists "not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" is also a lie.
SeanW wrote: » So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?
namloc1980 wrote: » .
SeanW wrote: » IIRC they went by death certificates, and there was some missing data during the study period, so the figure might not be exactly 70%. But it's probably not far off. And it does underscore one point - not every pedestrian fatality where a motorist is involved is a case of "Irish drivers killing pedestrians". In fact, such cases are probably the minority. But cases of "motorists not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" that most certainly is the minority, and by a very, very wide margin.
Spook_ie wrote: » Another lucky cyclist saved from being murderised by a bastard truck driver, turning, oh wait no that's not what happened!https://www.dumpert.nl/item/7953955_d793c23c
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I suppose the difference would be that she’s supposed responsible for a couple of tonnes of metal, rather than 10kg-20kg of bike. That’s a fair old difference, right?
PeadarCo wrote: » So I'll ask again why do you have an issue with people cycling on footpaths? You obviously don't think it is dangerous otherwise you would be giving out about the cycle lane going through Fairview Park. That lane is a relabled footpath that still has all the potential issues of cycling on a normal footpath.
magicbastarder wrote: » my wife works (well, used to work, waiting to find out how permanent the WFH option is) in the city centre, and was saying you do *not* want to use the pedestrian crossings at the grattan bridge/parliament street/wellington quay junction without your wits well honed. she reckons she's witnessed several near fatalities there from motorists taking the piss or possibly genuinely just being dozy and misreading lights. one of her colleagues witnessed a pedestrian being knocked down, motorist completely in the wrong. and in the interests of balance, she's also shouted at cyclists too at the junction.
Duckjob wrote: » To those complaining about cyclists that don't use bits of cycle path and how they are "holding up traffic"... Lets take the Nth Strand one as an example, since it was brought up by those complaining, and break down some stats a little- There's a nice flat stretch just before the uphill to the lights where the cycle path starts. I would normally hit the start of the uphill there at 30-35kph and might just under 30kph at the top (assuming lights are green),. That's a (conservative) average of 30kph in that uphill stretch. I'm far from a top cyclist so I would say thats a fairly reasonable speed for the type of commuting cyclist that posts on here. Imagine one such cyclist coming to the start of that cycle path who decides to stay on the road, and averages 30kph on that stretch with a bus behind them. Current speed limit on that stretch is 50kph (I would argue 50kph for a double decker bus going up that hill with a wall on one side and a line of cars on the other would be pretty inappropriate speed, but let's discount that and just go with the current legal limit). 100m @ 30kph = 12 seconds 100m @ 50kph = 7.2 seconds Assuming a worse case scenario where the bus is stuck behind the whole length of the 100m, and the lights are green at the top, that's a difference of 4.8 seconds. 4.8 seconds ! Really lads? Really? And now here's the bonus part.... Consider that if the bus was following behind the bike, and the bike was doing 30kph-35kph, the cyclist would need to slow down by at least 10-15 kph in order to safely enter the cycle path (with an 18 tonne vehicle approaching from behind - sounds delightfully safe). ...so the bus would also have to slow by the same amount, and then accelerate again after the cyclist was clear in the cycle path. By the time the bus has accelerated back up to speed, it could well have lost more than 4.8 seconds. So all in all, where faster cyclists are concerned, there's an excellent chance those cyclists going into the cycle path will actually slow buses more than if the cyclist remained in the bus lane, as well as being:- - slower for the cyclist - less pleasant for the cyclist (uneven surface, pedestrians, parked vehicles) - more dangerous for the cyclist (slowing down with an 18 tonne vehicle right behind you) Finally, it's 100 metres .... Why on earth would anyone in their right minds take a) more inconvenience and b) more danger to turn off the main road for 100 metres, only to have to stop and ask to get back on ? If it were a 2 or 3 km cycle track fair enough,. Hell even 1km of a half decent cycle track would have me sold to be away from traffic for a bit, but 100 meters ?
GT89 wrote: » Im all for better cycling facilities but unfortunately on Dun Laoghaire seafront where half the road is now a cycle lane there are still cyclists cycling on the bloody road. Why when they now have a perfectly safe cycle path. I bet it that sometimes cycle lanes are unsafe but where there is perfectly good segarated cycle are there still cyclists on the road. In these cases the use of the cycle lane should be mandatory and clearly indicated by signage this can be agreed between councils and cycle groups surely.
TaurenDruid wrote: » So much wrong in so much post... It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles. It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that. Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...
Thargor wrote: » How many times has this lad had that explained to him in his time on Boards do you think? Its at least 20 times in this thread alone, he'll be back tomorrow saying the same thing, its pathological
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, it wasn’t 40 in 2019. There was what looks like a statistical blip in the numbers for 2019, down to 27. The average for the previous ten years was 37 pedestrians killed each year, closer to my estimate than yours. Sadly, given the increased numbers of pedestrian deaths already this year, I’d guess that that average will be climbing back up.
You seem to have overreached just a little in your analysis of culpability. For a start, the question of culpability doesn’t change the facts that these pedestrians were killed by motorists. That is a factual description of what happened. Culpability is a different question, an important question – but it does change that actual fact.
On the question of culpability, that presentation unfortunately doesn’t actually define the basis for their allocation of culpability, which is a bit of a fatal flaw.
You also seem to have ignored the significant chunk of deaths they deemed to be jointly culpable – 26%. You also seem to be applying an analysis of 2008-2012 deaths to 2019 data – a little leap there.
Now, back to you for your analysis of the risks to justify helmet wearing for cyclists?
I don’t think we need to redo the culpability argument again, so let’s focus on the responsibility question. We have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits.
Did the trucker not have any brakes though?
