Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Beasty · 09-02-2013 04:48PM

DieselPowered wrote: »

Did the cyclist here break the lights? (it's not clear if they did or not)

In Dublin most cyclists are guilty of breaking red lights every day.
Why can't they follow the rules of the road like everryone else which they
Are obliged to do

Absolutely no suggestion in the OP that they broke a red light unless the entrance to the petrol station was controlled by lights (which seems very unlikely!)

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 05:08PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Road_deaths_Ireland59_to_09.pdf
Road Deaths in Ireland 1959 to 2009 extract
Year No. Road Deaths

<snip>

From fact the deaths declined from the 1978 figure of 628 and apart from the occasional blip have declined year on year since.

I suggest you recheck your numbers. . There were increases in fatalities to both pedestrians and car users in 1979. Car user fatalities went from 248 to 258 while pedestrian fatalities went up by one from 226 to 227 (Road Accident Facts 1982)

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 05:13PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

<snipped>

If you look at the official Irish road death numbers for 1979 you will see an increase in deaths among car occupants. From memory deaths involving car occupants went up by 4%.

These death figures are available for anyone who wants to look them up.

<snipped>.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I suggest you recheck your numbers. . There were increases in fatalities to both pedestrians and car users in 1979. Car user fatalities went from 248 to 258 while pedestrian fatalities went up by one from 226 to 227 (Road Accident Facts 1982)

Source Link if you don't mind, RSA figures categorically state that road deaths in 1979 were 14 less on the preceding year of 1978

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 05:24PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,

Most cyclists in accidents are actually killed by HGV's, now unless a helmet protects the entire body its going to do nothing to stop a HGV crushing somebody.

Additionally given more people drive helmets would have more of a benefit if motorists used them when driving as it would save far more lives, but yet I don't see you arguing for helmets on motorists

End of the day we want more cyclists because cyclists are statistically healthier then non-cyclists, making helmets law has been proven to reduce the number of cyclists.....this is a bad thing,

More cyclists means less health issues, means less work for HSE, means they spend less, which benefits the tax payer.

Yes cyclists need to obey rules of the road but more importantly so do motorists, an awful lot of motorists don't see it as a big deal when they speed in their 1+ tonne metal box yet the extra speed has a massive different when it comes to hitting a human being.

Actually RSA figures for 1998-2008 would suggest you are wrong about HGVs

43 killed/459 injured HGV
66 killed/2690 injured Car
1 killed/15 injured cyclist on cyclist

No figures I've found yet for pedestrian v cyclist from RSA

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 05:25PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Source Link if you don't mind, RSA figures categorically state that road deaths in 1979 were 14 less on the preceding year of 1978

Read the original post, I didn't make any claims about overall road deaths in 1979. I pointed out the pattern that was seen among car occupants when seatbelt wearing by drivers doubled in response to the law.

If you cant find the numbers in electronic format then a trip to your local copyright library would be one way of confirming the numbers. Alternatively you could write to the RSA.

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 05:30PM

hardCopy wrote: »

Helmets aren't really necessary because cycling isn't really dangerous.

Motorists would benefit from wearing rally helmets at all times but people never seem to suggest it.

And don't forget kids, if you're going drinking tonight, wear your drinking helmet, because your more likely to hurt your head than that cyclist who just broke a red light.

On the taxing cyclists thing, I actually think cyclists should be paid to commute by bike, at the very least we should get a pro-rata refund on our motor tax every time we leave the car at home. Everyone should be entitled to at least one decent bike, completely free, once they can prove it's being used to commute.

Employers should be compelled to provide secure bike parking, shower and changing facilities, even if nobody in the office intends to cycle.

Ill just check wearing my helmet thanks - you going in for the Darwin Award too?

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/

NSFW

Makes for good reading!

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 05:52PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Do you wear a seatbelt when in a car? If not, you get my vote for the Darwin Award. Seat belts save lives, anyone one who thinks they don't, is missing a few marbles.

There are two distinct issues which often get confused.

1. Do seatbelts save lives in crashes?
2. Does making people wear seatbelts have no effect on, or even increase, the number of deaths?

It is entirely possible for both statements to be true if wearing a seatbelt changes your driving style in a way that makes it more likely that you will be in a crash.

Stark · 09-02-2013 05:56PM

StinkyMunkey wrote:

Ill just check wearing my helmet thanks - you going in for the Darwin Award too?

https://sites.google.com/site/bicycl...mythsandfacts/

NSFW

Makes for good reading!

Funnily enough, after all the "myth debunking", it still concludes that mandatory helmet laws are a bad idea. Which is pretty much my view on it. I'll wear a helmet myself but I'm not going to force anyone else to.

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 05:58PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are two distinct issues which often get confused.

1. Do seatbelts save lives in crashes?
2. Does making people wear seatbelts have no effect on, or even increase, the number of deaths?

It is entirely possible for both statements to be true if wearing a seatbelt changes your driving style in a way that makes it more likely that you will be in a crash.

Not if you are subject to and obey the laws of the road, which is where we started other road users and cyclists seem to disagree, should cyclists obey the rules of the road or ignore them as the majority seem to do now

edit....seeing as the OP wasn't actually where this particular chunk of thread started

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 06:08PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not if you are subject to and obey the laws of the road, which is where we started, should cyclists obey the rules of the road or ignore them as the majority seem to do now

So to follow your logic the increase in deaths among car occupants in 1979 confirms that Irish motorists were not treated by the state as being subject to those traffic regulations that reduce crashes or crash severity. Why would it be any different for cyclists?

Beasty · 09-02-2013 06:10PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not if you are subject to and obey the laws of the road, which is where we started, should cyclists obey the rules of the road or ignore them as the majority seem to do now

No. We started with a motorist clearly breaking the law and claiming a cyclist was breaking the rules of the road (which does not always equate to breaking the law)

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 06:13PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So to follow your logic the increase in deaths among car occupants in 1979 confirms that Irish motorists were not treated by the state as being subject to those traffic regulations that reduce crashes or crash severity. Why would it be any different for cyclists?

I have nothing to corroborate your (so far ) unsubstantiated claims to the amount of car occupants killed in 1979 compared to previous years, so without such corroborating evidence it would be like me saying that if wearing crash helmets were compulsory for cyclists then 6 people would still be alive today and 10 people wouldn't have brain damage, I have no corroborating evidence to support it, so I don't claim it

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 06:14PM

Beasty wrote: »

No. We started with a motorist clearly breaking the law and claiming a cyclist was breaking the rules of the road (which does not always equate to breaking the law)

Lol already beat you to it with my edit

Though you'd be stretching it to state "a motorist clearly breaking the law " as opposed to driving without commonsense

fasttalkerchat · 09-02-2013 06:15PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Here is a example of junction where a cyclist causes no danger by breaking lights. The red line is the cyclist. The circles the lights and the green line car traffic.

The car would have to cross the bus lane and then go into the cycle lane. There is a possibility of another cyclist coming out but speed and distance make it safely avoidable.

Yes the rules are been broken but no danger.

You could say the same about a car driving through a red light when its clear here: http://www.workmobility.eu/en_en/law/Pedestrian_Crossing.JPG

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People who don't cycle do not realise stopping and starting vastly increases energy expenditure. So it is tiring to stop and start so people avoid it. The traffic system should cater for this and not just cars.

Cyclists need to obey the rules of they road when they want to behave like a vehicle.

opti0nal · 09-02-2013 06:22PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Cyclists need to obey the rules of they road when they want to behave like a vehicle.

What you say is nonsense. Car drivers don't obey the rules of the road. So, if cyclists behave like a vehicle (driver), they'd also be breaking the roTR.

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 06:22PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

You could say the same about a car driving through a red light when its clear here: http://www.workmobility.eu/en_en/law/Pedestrian_Crossing.JPG

Cyclists need to obey the rules of they road when they want to behave like a vehicle.

The crux of he matter, a lot of cyclists want to be treated equally as road users ( traffic ) but they don't want to conform to regulation and stop at lights, junctions etc. As one said because of the amount of energy he'd need to expend stopping and starting

opti0nal · 09-02-2013 06:25PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

The crux of he matter, a lot of cyclists want to be treated equally as road users ( traffic ) ...

Rubbish. I was a passenger in a car on the M50 today, doing 100kph in an 100kph zone. When it came to time to take the slip for the N4, we had to give way to a car overtaking on the inside at 120kph.

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 06:25PM

opti0nal wrote: »

What you say is nonsense. Car drivers don't obey the rules of the road. So, if cyclists behave like a vehicle (driver), they'd also be breaking the roTR.

Car drivers do on the whole obey the RoTR because they are capable and culpable in that they have to be licensed etc. Cyclists aren't

fasttalkerchat · 09-02-2013 06:29PM

opti0nal wrote: »

What you say is nonsense. Car drivers don't obey the rules of the road. So, if cyclists behave like a vehicle (driver), they'd also be breaking the roTR.

Car drivers of course also must obey these rules. I said that cyclist must follow the rules not the bad examples.

opti0nal · 09-02-2013 06:33PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Car drivers do on the whole obey the RoTR because they are capable and culpable in that they have to be licensed etc. Cyclists aren't

Cyclists are of course culpable. Drivers as you say, are licensed and their cars have registration plates making them easy to identify, yet these measures seem to have no significant effect on driver compliance. Speeding: for example - 78% of drivers break speed limits.

More drivers break the law more often than cyclists and with more severe consequences.

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 06:35PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are two distinct issues which often get confused.

1. Do seatbelts save lives in crashes?
2. Does making people wear seatbelts have no effect on, or even increase, the number of deaths?

It is entirely possible for both statements to be true if wearing a seatbelt changes your driving style in a way that makes it more likely that you will be in a crash.

I refuse to believe that people will drive like a maniac just because they have the seatbelt on, or drive faster.

I don't feel safe in a car unless I have a seat belt on, whether its a taxi or my own car.

I would argue that people who drive like lunatics, will do so whether they had to wear a seat belt or not.

When I cycle I wear a helmet and high vis bib.

When I drive I wear a seat belt.

And when I drive my motorcycle I wear a full face helmet and body armour (this has saved me serious injury in the past).

Taking precaution to use safety measures is not just a false sense of safety, it's common sense. If you feel seat belts and helmets are not needed, we will always disagree.

fasttalkerchat · 09-02-2013 06:39PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I refuse to believe that people will drive like a maniac just because they have the seatbelt on, or drive faster.

I don't feel safe in a car unless I have a seat belt on, whether its a taxi or my own car.

I would argue that people who drive like lunatics, will do so whether they had to wear a seat belt or not.

When I cycle I wear a helmet and high vis bib.

When I drive I wear a seat belt.

And when I drive my motorcycle I wear a full face helmet and body armour (this has saved me serious injury in the past).

Taking precaution to use safety measures is not just a false sense of safety, it's common sense. If you feel seat belts and helmets are not needed, we will always disagree.

I agree with you mostly, but I think that while seatbelts are not a false sense of security, some people assume that a seatbelt, airbag and big car makes them invincible.
If my car didn't have a seatbelt I would drive at maximum 20 mph with extreme care and attention. With a seatbelt I'll happily drive at 70 mph without constantly thinking about my safety.

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 07:40PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I refuse to believe that people will drive like a maniac just because they have the seatbelt on, or drive faster.

I don't feel safe in a car unless I have a seat belt on, whether its a taxi or my own car.

I would argue that people who drive like lunatics, will do so whether they had to wear a seat belt or not.

1. It doesnt require everyone to drive like a "maniac" for deaths to go up in response to an intervention like seatbelts. All it needs is a small change in individual behaviors accross a large population. Car occupant deaths in Ireland went up by 4% when we brought in compulsory seatbelts. Would you even notice yourself driving 4% faster? Doing 52 instead of 50 in a 50 zone? Would you even notice if you were driving 4% closer to the car in front? Would you notice if you were taking 4% longer to apply the brakes coming to a red light?

2. A car is a dangerous object that can kill in the blink of an eye. Is it right that the user should feel "safe" using something that can kill?

3. If there are people who are reckless of their own safety and the safety of others, then why is it a primary response of the state to protect such people from the consquences of their own behaviour? Regardless of the implications this has for the safety of other road users who are equally threatened by that behaviour?

Wishbone Ash · 09-02-2013 09:03PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I will also say there was a cyclist caused death in the last few year. A cyclist hit an old man on a path as I recall. I am surprised nobody found the story

Indeed a cyclist did cause the death of an elderly gentleman a number of years ago. If I recall correctly it happened on Merrion Row and the cyclist was a courier and was going, at speed, the wrong way on that one way street. I can't remember if he mounted the footpath or collided with the man on the road. There was a lot of controversy about it at the time. Very isolated incident though.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Cyclists need to obey the rules of they road when they want to behave like a vehicle.

A bicycle is a 'vehicle' as defined by the relevant statutory instruments.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-02-2013 09:41PM

blacklilly wrote: »

What really irritates the crap out of me is when I see cyclists who are not wearing helmets, high vis etc.

A bicycle helmet is only designed to take a 20km/h impact. So it's basically in case a commuter falls off their bike while taking it easy on the flat.

It won't help much if you get hit at 50Km/h
80%+ drivers in some 50Km/h zones were measured to be speeding in any of the RSA free speed surveys a helmet isn't even designed to take the extra energy between 50Km/h and the average speed of motorists in such 50Km/h zones. To offer any sort of protection in a collision with a car you'd have to be wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Enforcing speed limits would probably do more to reduce the impact of being hit than wearing helmets would !

Helmets are emotive because there still isn't conclusive evidence that they improve safety for cyclists. It's a high-vis hat.

Rule of thumb , if a helmet wasn't totally destroyed then it probably didn't save anyone's life.

What also irritates me is when I meet a group or even one cyclist on a narrow, bendy road.

Driving 101

If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be clear you are driving too fast.

NO IFS OR BUTS

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 09:50PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

1. It doesnt require everyone to drive like a "maniac" for deaths to go up in response to an intervention like seatbelts. All it needs is a small change in individual behaviors accross a large population. Car occupant deaths in Ireland went up by 4% when we brought in compulsory seatbelts. Would you even notice yourself driving 4% faster? Doing 52 instead of 50 in a 50 zone? Would you even notice if you were driving 4% closer to the car in front? Would you notice if you were taking 4% longer to apply the brakes coming to a red light?

2. A car is a dangerous object that can kill in the blink of an eye. Is it right that the user should feel "safe" using something that can kill?

3. If there are people who are reckless of their own safety and the safety of others, then why is it a primary response of the state to protect such people from the consquences of their own behaviour? Regardless of the implications this has for the safety of other road users who are equally threatened by that behaviour?

1 You're still throwing this 4% around like some Holy Grail without any corroboration. I could as easily say that the reduction in road deaths in 1979 was due to the election of Margaret Thatcher as PM of UK

2 Perhaps that's why people in general take lessons and are licensed for it, do you deny that cyclists cause injuries when they collide with pedestrians or other road users despite them not weighing a ton?

3 I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there but the state has a duty of care to its inhabitants, or would you prefer that we resorted to a state of anarchy

Capt'n Midnight · 09-02-2013 09:51PM

DieselPowered wrote: »

In Dublin most cyclists are guilty of breaking red lights every day.
Why can't they follow the rules of the road like everryone else which they
Are obliged to do

please give a citation that shows backs that up

Bear in mind that despite the introduction of speed cameras , Gatso vans , major advertising campaigns, massive increases in fuel prices and penalty points with increased insurance premiums, over 80% of motorists still speed in urban areas where they are most likely to meet more vulnerable road users :mad:

Some of the early RSA surveys showed 98% of motorists speeding before the 'crackdown'

To a speeding motorist cocooned in a soundproof metal box a few km/hr isn't going to affect their safety much BUT to a vulnerable road user a few km/h is the difference between a 90% chance of living or a 90% chance of dying

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 10:01PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A bicycle helmet is only designed to take a 20km/h impact. So it's basically in case a commuter falls off their bike while taking it easy on the flat.

It won't help much if you get hit at 50Km/h
80%+ drivers in some 50Km/h zones were measured to be speeding in any of the RSA free speed surveys a helmet isn't even designed to take the extra energy between 50Km/h and the average speed of motorists in such 50Km/h zones. To offer any sort of protection in a collision with a car you'd have to be wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Enforcing speed limits would probably do more to reduce the impact of being hit than wearing helmets would !

Helmets are emotive because there still isn't conclusive evidence that they improve safety for cyclists. It's a high-vis hat.

Rule of thumb , if a helmet wasn't totally destroyed then it probably didn't save anyone's life.

Driving 101

If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be clear you are driving too fast.

NO IFS OR BUTS

If a helmet was destroyed the person was probably destroyed as well, if a helmet was damaged then the person was probably less damaged as a result of the helmet absorbing some of the impact, basic physics.

As to the

A bicycle helmet is only designed to take a 20km/h impact. So it's basically in case a commuter falls off their bike while taking it easy on the flat.

It won't help much if you get hit at 50Km/h
80%+ drivers in some 50Km/h zones were measured to be speeding in any of the RSA free speed surveys a helmet isn't even designed to take the extra energy between 50Km/h and the average speed of motorists in such 50Km/h zones. To offer any sort of protection in a collision with a car you'd have to be wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Unless you were standing in the road with your head down in front of a car doing 50Kph you are extremely unlikely to hit a vehicle at 50Kph, however you are more than likely to be involved in some incident where you will contact the road, kerb or pathway at a speed in relation to your cycling speed. really is time for cyclists to man up and stop spreading half rumours.

The only truth I've seen so far about helmets is that forcing commuters to wear them MAY result in less bicycle commuters and that more bicycles MAY reduce accidents because other road user become more aware of them.

However neither of these scenarios gives rise to a cyclist being able to ignore the rules of the road.

Stop trying to dress it up and hide the elephant in the room behind a vase of flowers, RED means STOP and traffic laws should apply AND BE APPLIED to cyclists

Ray Palmer · 09-02-2013 10:17PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

You could say the same about a car driving through a red light when its clear here: http://www.workmobility.eu/en_en/law/Pedestrian_Crossing.JPG

Not at all, traffic lights are also designed to prevent congestion by motor vehicles. Cars do go through pedestrian lights all the time especially at night. You may not see the pedestrian. The example I gave NOBODY is going to be in the lane or crossing it so massively different. It is not a pedestrian crossing in my example it is to let cars out of an estate.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Cyclists need to obey the rules of they road when they want to behave like a vehicle.

Who says they want to behave like a vehicle? The rules should cater for transport appropriately. A one size fits all is the wrong approach. NOBODY obeys the rules and very noticeable is cars speeding. I have a speed gauge on my bike, I can quite happily go at 25kmph no bother. The cars speeding by me are not sticking to the 30kmph.
Most mornings cars break a no turn sign and proceed to speed to a junction to another main road. They are very anxious to get by me on a tight estate road littered with cars parked on both side. They reeve engines and cross a continuous white line to get by me. I then saunter by them seconds later, they have a very dangerous stupid mentality that I am holding them up. They are stuck there for about 5 minutes after I am well gone.

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 10:33PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not at all, traffic lights are also designed to prevent congestion by motor vehicles. Cars do go through pedestrian lights all the time especially at night. You may not see the pedestrian. The example I gave NOBODY is going to be in the lane or crossing it so massively different. It is not a pedestrian crossing in my example it is to let cars out of an estate.

Who says they want to behave like a vehicle? The rules should cater for transport appropriately. A one size fits all is the wrong approach. NOBODY obeys the rules and very noticeable is cars speeding. I have a speed gauge on my bike, I can quite happily go at 25kmph no bother. The cars speeding by me are not sticking to the 30kmph.
Most mornings cars break a no turn sign and proceed to speed to a junction to another main road. They are very anxious to get by me on a tight estate road littered with cars parked on both side. They reeve engines and cross a continuous white line to get by me. I then saunter by them seconds later, they have a very dangerous stupid mentality that I am holding them up. They are stuck there for about 5 minutes after I am well gone.

So because someone else breaks the law it should mean we're all allowed to break the law, intersting concept of government, oh yeah that's it Rule of Anarchy

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Comments