SeanW wrote: » The doctor said they'd fallen from their bikes. Seems clear...
SeanW wrote: » They were unavoidable in the sense that you can't blame Irish motorists for them. And your hypothetical scenarios are also unavoidable. Wind - mother nature determines that. Debris - cyclist may not have been expecting debris on their path and thus not seen it in time. Some human error is unavoidable. health issue - if the cyclist had a heart attack or stroke or something in the bicycle seat, it would seem logical to regard such as unavoidable. I don't see anything that could have helped any of these cyclists except perhaps a helmet.
SeanW wrote: » My natural reaction would be to try to avoid hitting the cyclist. At the distance at which they pulled out, it would be impossible to do this by braking. Have a read about braking distance and its effect on total stopping distance.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance According to that, the distance from the brakes being fully engaged to the vehicle being stopped (on an EU40 truck) should be on average around 35 metres, assuming a speed of 80kph. But if you include distance traveled between the appearance of the threat and the activation of the brakes, at 80 kph that would add 22.222 meters for every second of response time.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=convert+from+kilometers+per+hour+to+meters+per+second&t=hk&ia=answer Assuming one second response time, that gives a total stopping distance of (in the absolute best-case scenario) 57.22 metres, which is close to the UK highway code's estimate of 53 metres at 50MPH (though that might be for a car, not a truck). I don't think the driver had 60+ metres to respond, and it looks like they tried to slow down at least a little. Still, given the extremely short time in which the driver had to do *something* it is clear that they made the correct split-second decision to take emergency evasive action. I find it absolutely incredible that this needs to be explained.
SeanW wrote: » Well the first two were single vehicle collisions, so it's impossible to say for sure what happened. But it's very likely that at least one of the drivers encountered some unexpected issue or another, e.g. loss of grip/traction with the road, or tried to avoid an animal on the road or something. Given that both single vehicle collisions involved cars with two occupants, they were probably not vehicular suicides. Though if either were, those too would have been unavoidable.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Perhaps I wasn't clear. The examples of wind, debris and health issue were just that - examples of possible causes. While I disagree with your interpretation of these as unavoidable, it's a moot point here, as we have no information about the actual causes. Cyclists don't generally fall over and die, so something caused these deaths. Unless we know what caused these deaths, any comment about them being avoidable or unavoidable is pure fantasy.
So if a sudden obstruction appears in your path, or moving into your path, you're saying that drivers shouldn't brake, but should just steer away - is this actually your advice on dealing with emergencies like this?
Fascinating how with single vehicle collisions, it is impossible to say for sure what happened - but for single vehicle deaths involving cyclists, you're able to say with absolute certainty that they were unavoidable.
Wishbone Ash wrote: » A few years ago I came across a cyclist on the ground with a distraught motorist at the scene. I incorrectly assumed that a collision had taken place and that the motorist was involved, However, it transpired that the motorist had came across the cyclist on the road shortly before I arrived. He'd had a heart attack.
SeanW wrote: » I'd imagine they just hit something. And since they were presumably not suicidal, it was likely not something they expected. And I'm not sure in what alternate reality heart attacks, strokes, inclement weather and human error (beyond a certain point) are avoidable.
SeanW wrote: » No. First of all you didn't establish that the driver did not attempt to use the brakes at any point. You just said it didn't look like it to you, which means nothing except a questionable attempt to detract blame from the cyclist and bring unwarranted question to the actions of the driver. Second, my advice is that in an emergency, a driver should take any action they can to avoid the loss of life and secondarily minimise other forms of damage. Further, in judging a drivers' actions ex post facto, it must also be understood that it's a little different sitting safely behind a keyboard judging a video as actually being there and having to do something in a split-second. By any reasonable standard, the driver acted correctly. In that particular circumstance, at that place, at that time, the drivers' actions were the only actions that could possibly have avoided a fatality, and in so doing, not cause any others. Whether the driver used the brake or not (and you didn't show that they didn't) made no difference whatsoever to this accident. The driver's only option was immediate evasive action and that's what they did. I find it incredible that this has to be explained.
SeanW wrote: » Your own hypothetical scenarios suggested they were unavoidable.
SeanW wrote: » The doctor said they'd fallen from their bikes. Seems clear.
magicbastarder wrote: » Saying 'they fell off the bike' is about as clear as saying 'they crashed the car'. Did they topple off the bike while waiting at lights and hit their head on a kerb? Did they fall off their bike coming down from the Sally gap at 70km/h? Did they fall off their bike while avoiding an unexpected obstacle or hitting a greasy patch on a wet day? All 'they fell off their bike' tells us is that there was no impact with a car.
micar wrote: » I know of an incident exactly like this ...... near Kentstown Co Meath
Wishbone Ash wrote: » ....and by an extraordinary co-incidence, I was also cycling on that very road (R153) with the club on the day that gentleman passed away. We passed the spot where he fell about 30 minutes beforehand (going in the opposite direction).
jackofalltrades wrote: » The S2S route from the Bull Island Causeway to Sutton is in bad need of a redesign. Plenty of cyclists seem to be happy to cycle two a breast on it heading southbound. One in the cycle lane and the other on the path. And if that wasn't bad enough given the current circumstances, you also have to contend with Mamils and electric scooters dangerously overtaking the above.
07Lapierre wrote: » Kid shouldn’t have been cycling on the path right?https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
Duckjob wrote: » Mandatory hi-vis for houses would surely have prevented this from happening :pac:
donvito99 wrote: » Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909
TaurenDruid wrote: » Ooh! Ooh! Can I play Deflection too, please? Hmm, lemme see... Has anyone gone with "Look, at the end of the day, nobody was killed by the house!" yet? I'll go with that, so!
kenmm wrote: » That area is a sh!tshow for mixture of walkers, cyclists etc. The cycle track is no where near wide enough for the volume of traffic. Interesting to see a subdivision of cyclists now. Too 'non MVP' for road, too 'Mamil' for cycle track I suppose it gets us nearer to cyclists being individuals and not one giant group
07Lapierre wrote: » We need to be realistic. The house must accept some responsibility here! I mean a big house on a narrow road? who ever thought that was a good idea?
kenmm wrote: » It wasn't even using the house lane ffs
SeanW wrote: » Actually it was. It's called "off the road". Though the comparison between bicycles and houses in this regard is interesting :P Last I checked, houses did not travel and they remain off the road most of the time. Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au7gmWjhfR8 If sitting in your living room was as dangerous as some cyclists claim their cycle trips are, then that might not be a bad idea.
breezy1985 wrote: » And sure everyone knows that all them houses do be breaking the red lights all the time
breezy1985 wrote: » That house isnt wearing a helmet
breezy1985 wrote: » I dont know that route but in general everybody needs to start treating cycle lanes like roads and not be goin down em the wrong way, walking in them or not looking for traffic before crossing
SeanW wrote: » Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).
p_haugh wrote: » Came a cross this gem of a cycle track on the n11 the other day
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
