A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
Not quite an anecdote though.
Your picture of the vehicle too close to you and your experience is anecdotal. Same as 'white van man' / 'BMW not using indicators' etc.
Driver attitude and aptitude are key factors across the board. Coupled with other factors.
You specifically raised a point with me that others may have made, but I hadn't. Slightly misdirected, surely?
Granted, you may not have raised that point, I clarified others have. It's not really a misdirection given the thread.
Again, I can only suggest that you avoid making assumptions based on what people haven't said.
Your are going to great lengths to emphasise that you haven't called for removal of SUV's from roads (which I accepted) but are now saying I'm making assumptions…..you could easily just have answered the below.
Therefore you aren't a proponent for SUV's being removed from our roads unilaterally; or are you?
I don't owe you any explanation about the basics of road crashes. You've seen the data about the impacts of crashes involving SUV drivers. You can work it out for yourself, you're a smart guy.
Are you withdrawing your nonsense claim that I claimed that the other poster claimed that collisions between SUVs and children never happened? I never used the term never on this issue, but you couldn't resist slipping it into your bogus claim.
Not quite an anecdote though. You specifically raised a point with me that others may have made, but I hadn't. Slightly misdirected, surely?
Yes. And?
This would be the RSA which everyone knows is not fit for purpose? The same RSA which is dependent on people driving for its income?
Plus they don't say 1m is sufficient when driving under 50km/h (which is what you said). They ask drivers to give at least 1m: there is a subtle difference.
i know you keep bashing on about the 3.25m 'safe' drivers, but this is yet another reminder that
a) just because someone hasn't crashed their car or injured anyone today, it automatically means they're a safe driver
b) it's not the safe drivers people worry about.
if you think that all of the 3.25m drivers who didn't crash in the last week, or month, or year, are 'safe', i have a bridge i'd like to sell you.
You claim that "crashes involving SUVs are more dangerous" yet you still haven't explained how SUVs present danger without a person (either in the vehicle or otherwise) creating said danger. And you still haven't explained what other inanimate objects this rule applies to e.g. roads that should be upgraded to motorway. Perhaps you can demonstrate your belief in the inherent dangers of inanimate objects by showing your past and current support for road building projects?
As to your your nonsense about not having engaged in strawman tactics, I point to the following:
So, yes, you accused a poster of saying that children did not get killed in collisions with SUVs. Are you withdrawing this nonsense?
From your pics it's not clear whether the driver overtook you, or you attempted to undertake, but even assuming that they did, how does this reflect on the other 3.25 million "drivers" that you so regularly bash on these forums?
Thanks for confirming the blindingly obvious
You'd be wrong to make such an assumption. I'm just repeating the wisdom of the RSA campaign
It's fine according to the RSA. The earlier poster was right...its time to repeat the campaign
You addressed with a strawman point.
I addressed with a similar anecdote to yours. You just don't like it when others use the same 'logic'.
It's generally best not to make assumptions about people's views based on what they haven't said.
When it came to removal of anyone from the road in relation to vehicle types/brands you said;
You'd better take it up with those who called for it so, not with me.
I was addressing your point/picture/anecdote.
Glad to hear you aren't a proponent for SUV's being removed from our roads unilaterally.
So why bring it up with me? Nothing to do with me.
I have done so.
Plenty have called for it previously….but you never 'took ideas from those posts'….sure.
I don't think I called for anyone's removal from the road, but you're giving me some good ideas there.
And I've experienced the asshole BMW/AUDI drivers on my rear bumper more than any other brand; If they were all driving some other brand/type of vehicle would their attitudes change massively by some miracle? Calling for their removal from the roads isn't a coherent argument in that instance either.
Just to be clear, my arm is not 1m long.
It's something I've experienced. Repeatedly.
It's not a certainty for sure, more of a trend.
maybe SUV drivers are worse.
Or, as the link shows, driver attitude & aptitude are a more pressing factor. That also assumes that simply driving an SUV in Ireland, one would simply adopt the same behaviours as American drivers.
"That means we cannot exclude that attributes of the driver are the major factors responsible at the same time for choosing the car type and violating traffic laws. In this case, driving a SUV would be a coincidental factor."
Why stop here though, let's get rid of EV's?
ev-drivers-cause-more-crashes-than-petrol-or-diesel-drivers
I've never hinted or suggested anything about 'being better than everyone else'.
…..quickly followed by……
I'm not going to let you drag me down into your gutter.
anyway, back to geraldine herbert's article - the contention that it's not just about the vehicle, it's about how that vehicle is driven.
but what happens if there's a link between the type of vehicle, and the way it's driven? e.g.
Drivers of 43,168 normal cars and 5653 SUVs were counted at the intersections during the observation period. In total 13.8% drivers were unbelted, 3.1% were using a handheld mobile phone, and 2.5% violated traffic lights. These frequencies were significantly higher in SUV drivers than in normal passenger car drivers.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5599441/
Presumably in that scenario, you're picturing yourself inside the safety of the vehicle travelling under 50km/h and not as the vulnerable road user?
i just meant in the sense that the height of the cyclist is a clue to what 1.9m is, from the distance you are from the cyclist. just on a different axis.
rather than the act of the cyclist actually falling over.
Get yourself a measuring tape and pull it out to 1m. Then go stand beside your car with the tape out. Thats how close it is with your car stationary. Now imagine that with the car travelling at 50KMPH. 1m is never sufficient clearance when overtaking a vulunerable road user.
I'd be thinking that ranger is travelling under 50kph so 1m is sufficient. There's many a road with those 1.5m signs up where it would be impossible to leave 1.5m not to mind 1.9m space when overtaking. Just mind how you go
Toyota Yaris the other day, pulled out onto a roundabout without stopping, came to another roundabout soon after, pulled into the left lane as if to take the first or 2nd exit, spun all the way around to the third exit, no indicating, almost hit me but for me slamming on the brakes. Proceeded down the motorway entrance lane at about 30kmph, not building speed at all to merge on…
Dangerous drivers come in all shapes and sizes, nobody is denying that
On dry ground, sure, on wet ground or if they make a sudden turn before falling it could be a lot more…
Play it safe, pretend they are cars, have the left wheels of the car on the other side of the white line and hopefully nobody gets hurt
Like many others I find it hard to visualise 1.5m so I just treat it like a car and pull my car right over to the other lane when overtaking a cyclist.
Not too difficult if (with an adult cyclist) if you just visualise them toppling over on their side. That'd be between about 1.5 and 1.9m you'd need to give to avoid that.
