Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

shootermacg wrote: »

hey bro.... they were all wearing helmets..go figure eh...

Hey pal they mighr know it could be worse if they don't. That's like saying you don't need a seat belt in car because you could have terrible injuries anyway. What else are your suggestions, no helmets on motorbikes?

Wishbone Ash

TaurenDruid wrote: »

...Under no interpretation of the rules does something following behind me have right of way. In fact, as their onward progress would be blocked by me waiting in the box, they shouldn't enter the junction box at all....

It may have been a T junction.

For example, a driver approaches a main road and wishes to turn right. There is a yellow box and motorised traffic on the main road is backed up yet the cycle track is free flowing.

The driver enters the yellow box and positions his vehicle at an angle waiting to complete the turn but in doing so he also blocks what would otherwise be a clear cycle track. Cyclists who would have been free to proceed must wait unnecessarily. It's no big deal but it happens to me occasionally.

Perhaps this is the scenario being referred to earlier?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Remember the bit about "you don't enter a yellow box if that blocks traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed"?

Cyclists are traffic.

Yeah, but no. https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

Under no interpretation of the rules does something following behind me have right of way. In fact, as their onward progress would be blocked by me waiting in the box, they shouldn't enter the junction box at all.

Here, have a video. https://youtu.be/nILHzsDznR4?t=349

TaurenDruid wrote: »

None. The implication of the post you originally responded to was that the cyclist came up behind the car stopped in the junction box.

It's perfectly legal for a car to stop in a junction box when making a right turn. Your interpretation of the rules of the road seems to be that you can't enter a junction box to stop and turn right if there's any traffic behind you, as well as in front of you. Which is wrong.

:rolleyes: Jesus, pull in your horns.

Remember the bit about "you don't enter a yellow box if that blocks traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed"?

Cyclists are traffic.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which bit of 'pulled into the yellow box, blocking the path of the cyclist' are you struggling to comprehend?

None. The implication of the post you originally responded to was that the cyclist came up behind the car stopped in the junction box.

It's perfectly legal for a car to stop in a junction box when making a right turn. Your interpretation of the rules of the road seems to be that you can't enter a junction box to stop and turn right if there's any traffic behind you, as well as in front of you. Which is wrong.

"are you struggling to comprehend?"

:rolleyes: Jesus, pull in your horns.

meeeeh wrote: »

OK let's be clear about something. Cycling is one of the worst sports for dangerous or life threatening injuries even when cars are out of equation. There are not many spots with such a long list of cyclists injured or killed every year. Because cycling has a lot of other benefits and is adopted by masses doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

Cycling has death stats F1 had in 70s.

Most studies of cycling injuries, including the Irish one you quoted earlier, fail to distinguish between sports cycling, training and competing at high speeds in groups, and utility cycling, heading to work or the shops, surrounded by idiots in tonnes of metal playing with their phones.

The numbers on both sides are overstated.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

My god. You don't know how junction boxes work, but are allowed cycle around town every day? :eek:

Which bit of 'pulled into the yellow box, blocking the path of the cyclist' are you struggling to comprehend?

SeanW wrote: »

STRAWMAN ALERT!
I don't recall anyone claiming that every single motorist was perfect, only that most were good. So yeah, you proved that there's a few morons who take the piss.

Which had been disputed by precisely nobody. Congratulations :rolleyes:

Just another of those amazing coincidences that I happen to encounter five of the 'few morons taking the piss' in ten minutes.

It's amazing how all these coincidences keep happening to me, like those 'exceedingly rare' late red light jumpers I keep seeing.

Have you identified any examples of those unavoidable road deaths that you mentioned yet Seanie?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My understanding is that you don't enter a yellow box if that blocks traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed. Sounds he entered the yellow box and blocked the cyclist.

So the driver pulled into the yellow box, blocking the cyclist's path, and was surprised when the cyclist letting him know about it?

My god. You don't know how junction boxes work, but are allowed cycle around town every day? :eek:

shootermacg

meeeeh wrote: »

You are not. This just happened.
https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a33534540/fabio-jakobsen-tour-of-poland-crash/
Can you honestly claim cycling is not a sport where risk of serious injuries is high.

Anyway I don't think helmets should be mandatory. If you go for 10kph cycle around town you don't need it. However when when people are matching motor bike speeds down the hill they are morons if they don't wear helmets. And kids should wear helmets. I don't think there is any excuse not to insist on that except if you want to continue spoon feeding phase into their twenties and onwards.

hey bro.... they were all wearing helmets..go figure eh...

meeeeh wrote: »

Can you honestly claim cycling is not a sport where risk of serious injuries is high.

you are the one who compared the risk of head injury while cycling as is being discussed in this thread - for commuting/leisure - with the risk of head injury in sport.
this is the commuting and transport forum, and that is clearly the context in which we are talking; talking about the risk of head injury while cycling competitively as if it relates to cycling to work is an utter nonsense and clearly disingenuous.

cycling helmets are mandatory while competing. what point are you trying to make that is somehow relevant at all to commuting and transport?

or - let's push your analogy further. you wanted to discuss the risks/safety features of the competitive aspect of sport to that of the same activity as a functional use. *you* raised the topic of formula 1.
are you arguing that since formula 1 drivers drive with mandatory helmets/head retention features/fireproof jumpsuits/marshals on every corner with fire extinguishers, that this should be something that i avail of while driving to the shops?
if not, why are you bringing up cycle racing in the same way?

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're the one who brought sports/competition related risks into this debate. if i can turn those against you, that's your fault, not mine.

You are not. This just happened.
https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a33534540/fabio-jakobsen-tour-of-poland-crash/
Can you honestly claim cycling is not a sport where risk of serious injuries is high.

Anyway I don't think helmets should be mandatory. If you go for 10kph cycle around town you don't need it. However when when people are matching motor bike speeds down the hill they are morons if they don't wear helmets. And kids should wear helmets. I don't think there is any excuse not to insist on that except if you want to continue spoon feeding phase into their twenties and onwards.

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah ok then. What has anything to do with this thread. You cherry pick the stuff that suits your argument and complain when others do it.

you're the one who brought sports/competition related risks into this debate. if i can turn those against you, that's your fault, not mine.

meeeeh wrote: »

Cycling has death stats F1 had in 70s.

formula 1 has, what, 12 races per year?
have you even got the faintest clue how many cycle races there are per year? cycle races where the number of competitors frequently outnumber the starters in an F1 race by ten to one?

the 2019 tour de france had 176 riders competing. that's not too far off the total number of starters for every single F1 race in 2019, added up.

meeeeh wrote: »

BTW that abiut F1 was throw away comment about absolute numbers.

you're kidding??? 'i used the stats in a disingenuous way'.

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you trying to undermine your own argument?
what in god's name has deaths during cycling competitions got to do with this thread?

Ah ok then. What has anything to do with this thread. You cherry pick the stuff that suits your argument and complain when others do it.

meeeeh wrote: »

Wikipedia list of deaths in cycling competitions.

are you trying to undermine your own argument?
what in god's name has deaths during cycling competitions got to do with this thread?

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

STRAWMAN ALERT!
I don't recall anyone claiming that every single motorist was perfect, only that most were good. So yeah, you proved that there's a few morons who take the piss.

Which had been disputed by precisely nobody. Congratulations :rolleyes:

Amazing how clearly and easily you can see this when it comes to car drivers, and yet you have a clear mental block on seeing the same with regard to people on bikes.

magicbastarder wrote: »

source?

Wikipedia list of deaths in cycling competitions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_cyclists_and_pacemakers_with_a_cycling-related_death

BTW that abiut F1 was throw away comment about absolute numbers. However irc after Senna in 94 only one F1 driver died and motorsports in general is getting safer. Cycling is not.

source?

meeeeh wrote: »

Cycling has death stats F1 had in 70s.

in the decade leading up to 1976 - the year in which the film is set - drivers had a 0.35% chance of dying each time they competed in a Grand Prix (including any practice and qualifying sessions).

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24172885

this will be interesting.

OK let's be clear about something. Cycling is one of the worst sports for dangerous or life threatening injuries even when cars are out of equation. There are not many spots with such a long list of cyclists injured or killed every year. Because cycling has a lot of other benefits and is adopted by masses doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

Cycling has death stats F1 had in 70s.

"As for the issue of helmet-wearing while cycling, he said “you can’t ignore the numbers. Wearing a helmet won’t stop all serious head injury but it does reduce the risk of skull fracture.”"

no-one will argue with that, because the numbers aren't there to prove or disprove his point.
i strongly suspect he's right - but unless the article also states the general level of helmet wearing among cyclists in general (it doesn't), it's impossible to draw a conclusion about the efficacy of them. and it ignores a much wider public health picture.
i.e. it states that 70% of cyclists presenting weren't wearing a helmet. but if 70% of cyclists didn't wear a helmet anyway, it would point to zero benefit. it's a newspaper article, not a scientific paper.

and even if it were - it ignores the idea of dangerisation of cycling. in the various scientific papers i've seen reference to over the years, there's a low of a factor of 11 and a high of a factor of 70 in terms of the health benefits of cycling weighed against the risks. but this constant portrayal of cycling as being so dangerous as to require specialist clothing and headgear, akin to what you'd see on a construction site, puts many people off cycling, so all those health benefits remain untapped.

it's kinda funny. i tell people i cycle to work and some immediately react as if i am telling them i go swimming in volcanos. all that concern about the risk to my health, but i'm fitter than they're ever likely to be.
the constant drumbeat of cycling as being incredibly dangerous, is causing one of the greatest missed opportunities in terms of low hanging fruit for public health benefits, possible.

TL;DR - people react as if getting on a bike will shorten your life. it's one of the most effective ways of lengthening it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's referrals to one particular centre. It tells you nothing about the overall picture.

Yeah I'm sure tgey accept GAA or Rugby injuries only when the other 195 head injury centes in the country are overflowing with all GAA and rugby head injuries.

You win, this tells you absolutely nothing. (At least nothing that you want to hear).

As for what research to concentrate on, you go and tell them. I guess they will be delighted to listen to your expert opinion what people who study the field and work in the field should do.

meeeeh wrote: »

The source is in the article. But it’s again the stupid doctors, what do they know.

That's referrals to one particular centre. It tells you nothing about the overall picture.

meeeeh wrote: »

They would be so much better researching benefits of people wearing helmets in their cars. Right?

Well, yes - given that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes. Surely they should focus on the biggest opportunity for helmets to reduce head injuries?

SeanW

Duckjob wrote: »

(From todays RTE news) I'll just leave this here-
(From todays RTE news) I'll just leave this here-

Gardaí express disappointment over Bank Holiday traffic offences

STRAWMAN ALERT!
I don't recall anyone claiming that every single motorist was perfect, only that most were good. So yeah, you proved that there's a few morons who take the piss.

Which had been disputed by precisely nobody. Congratulations :rolleyes:

magicbastarder wrote: »

i *love* the attitude of 'if you're so exposed, why don't you do more to protect yourself'.
it's outsourcing the issue of dealing with the danger, from those creating the danger, to those exposed to it. and society has bought it hook, line and sinker.

Where to start with this.

Firstly I guess good drivers should not need to wear seat belts then? After all, if a bad driver hits a good driver, then it's not the good driver's fault they were hit? No reason, therefore, that a driver unlikely to cause a high-velocity collision should wear a seat belt?

Secondly the "danger" is being claimed by cyclists. The data doesn't show it. If you (as cyclists) are going to claim that Irish drivers pose a statistically significant mortal threat to you (they don't, but nevertheless) then surely you should want to mitigate those risks? Just out of self-preservation?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why don't YOU take every precaution to protect YOURSELF while driving by wearing a crash helmet, given that far more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes? Or is it just cyclists that you like to give orders to?

AFAIK most motorists wear their seat belts, which would be the closest equivalent, and drive modern road passenger cars that have airbags and crash-worthy design.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some great experiences with the 'objectively among the best drivers in the world' this morning - over the course of ten minutes I had four drivers with phones in their hands, and one watching video on a large tablet.

(pointless pic spam removed)

Great job at beating that oul' Strawman there Andy :rolleyes:

Still don't see how your endless image-spamming disproves the data showing that Ireland's roads are safe and (consequently inferring that) drivers generally good.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did the trucker not have any brakes though?

And you still haven't explained how someone who has no concept of "reaction times" or "braking distance" should be saying anything about road safety.

Because it would seem to me that someone so clueless and hopelessly ill-informed as to suggest that truck drivers should be able to stop on a penny should be taken seriously on anything.

The source is in the article. But it’s again the stupid doctors, what do they know. They would be so much better researching benefits of people wearing helmets in their cars. Right?