Have a care if you cycle to work

L1011 · 16-12-2013 05:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

By all means moan about cyclists if it makes you feel good, but please don't spout denial about the actual killers on our roads.

Can you point to this "denial" in this thread, please?

16-12-2013 06:04PM

Days 298 wrote: »

Forget it. Can't discuss cyclists on this forum without bashing "the real killer". I'm out.

Yah I feel really good now.

Feck break red lights away. Just don't moan about motorists when your caught.

Every single cyclist related thread on here.

OK let's discuss cyclists.

Let's talk about the danger they represent on the roads.

I am all ears, but I would like to listen to data rather than anecdote.

Do we have a deal?

16-12-2013 06:05PM

MYOB wrote: »

Can you point to this "denial" in this thread, please?

It's in the post I quoted - the clear implication is that somehow cars are less dangerous than cyclists.

But as I said above, let's get back to cyclists. The data please!

L1011 · 16-12-2013 06:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's in the post I quoted - the clear implication is that somehow cars are less dangerous than cyclists.

No, it isn't. You are reading things into that post that don't exist.

Banjoxed · 16-12-2013 08:22PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's in the post I quoted - the clear implication is that somehow cars are less dangerous than cyclists.

But as I said above, let's get back to cyclists. The data please!

How can there be meaningful data if the only way it will be captured by records of AGS arrests?

16-12-2013 10:54PM

Banjoxed wrote: »

How can there be meaningful data if the only way it will be captured by records of AGS arrests?

You don't think deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists are recorded? Really?

Banjoxed · 17-12-2013 09:00AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't think deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists are recorded? Really?

The whole picture. If you limit your data to deaths and serious injuries then we're just playing with anecdotal evidence at the level below deaths and serious injuries. There must be scope for analysis of cyclist behaviour including RLJs, pavement cycling, wrong way running in addition to observing aggressive behaviour by drivers towards cyclists.

17-12-2013 10:04AM

Banjoxed wrote: »

The whole picture. If you limit your data to deaths and serious injuries then we're just playing with anecdotal evidence at the level below deaths and serious injuries. There must be scope for analysis of cyclist behaviour including RLJs, pavement cycling, wrong way running in addition to observing aggressive behaviour by drivers towards cyclists.

My argument is that RLJ and pavement cycling are at worst a minor annoyance and largely a victimless crime.

If this isn't the case, the statistics relating to deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists will demonstrate this.

Iwannahurl · 17-12-2013 10:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

My argument is that RLJ and pavement cycling are at worst a minor annoyance and largely a victimless crime.

If this isn't the case, the statistics relating to deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists will demonstrate this.

That I would disagree with.

I personally hate footpath cycling, and red light jumping really annoys me.

However, I have to accept at face value what I have been told -- mostly by elderly people -- regarding incidents where they were frightened and felt at significant risk for their personal safety because of footpath cyclists. One retired lady I spoke to a couple of weeks ago, who is actually quite active, sprightly and steady on her feet, told me of an incident where she was walking along a narrow footpath (old StreetView image here, bollards and a high kerb have been added more recently) while carrying her shopping bags and was knocked against the wall by a male cyclist. Several of her retired friends and acquaintances can report similar occurrences. Some of them are much more infirm, may need support to walk and can be quite fearful of falls.

A few years ago I spoke to another elderly lady who herself preferred to cycle on the footpath because she perceived it as safer. When I gently warned her about the potential dangers, she owned up to having had her nose broken in a collision with another footpath cyclist, a much younger male who was speeding around the blind corner where they collided.

In all likelihood these incidents will never be reported or recorded.

RLJs may be posing a greater risk to themselves than to pedestrians, simply because they're on the road. In my experience, however, red light jumping and footpath cycling go together. Some cyclists mount the footpath at traffic signals as they seem to believe this means the red light doesn't apply.

To repeat, I have encountered cyclist and motorist RLJs at junctions. The motoring version is far more dangerous.

17-12-2013 10:45AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That I would disagree with.

I personally hate footpath cycling, and red light jumping really annoys me.

However, I have to accept at face value what I have been told -- mostly by elderly people -- regarding incidents where they were frightened and felt at significant risk for their personal safety because of footpath cyclists. One retired lady I spoke to a couple of weeks ago, who is actually quite active, sprightly and steady on her feet, told me of an incident where she was walking along a narrow footpath (old StreetView image here, bollards and a high kerb have been added more recently) while carrying her shopping bags and was knocked against the wall by a male cyclist. Several of her retired friends and acquaintances can report similar occurrences. Some of them are much more infirm, may need support to walk and can be quite fearful of falls.

A few years ago I spoke to another elderly lady who herself preferred to cycle on the footpath because she perceived it as safer. When I gently warned her about the potential dangers, she owned up to having had her nose broken in a collision with another footpath cyclist, a much younger male who was speeding around the blind corner where they collided.

In all likelihood these incidents will never be reported or recorded.

RLJs may be posing a greater risk to themselves than to pedestrians, simply because they're on the road. In my experience, however, red light jumping and footpath cycling go together. Some cyclists mount the footpath at traffic signals as they seem to believe this means the red light doesn't apply.

To repeat, I have encountered cyclist and motorist RLJs at junctions. The motoring version is far more dangerous.

Well, for the record I find a lot of red light jumping ignorant (going through lights when pedestrians are crossing, even if you are not going to hit them, going through the lights and then stopping on the crossing, etc.

And I also agree that grown men and women cycling on the pavement should take a long hard look at themselves,

I agree it is annoying, but in the absence of data that's all we can say. I am not for a minute suggesting you are lying to me, but I can honestly say that neither myself nor anyone I know has ever been hit by a bike on a pavement of going through a red light.

If there was an epidemic of this stuff, we would see it in injury reports.

Iwannahurl · 17-12-2013 11:02AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If there was an epidemic of this stuff, we would see it in injury reports.

If there were hospital admissions because of it, you would see it in reports.

There is definitely an epidemic of footpath cycling in this country. RLJing to a lesser extent, perhaps.

Spook_ie · 17-12-2013 07:38PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If there were hospital admissions because of it, you would see it in reports.

There is definitely an epidemic of footpath cycling in this country. RLJing to a lesser extent, perhaps.

Aimed more at Jawgap than yourself but your quote will do for the questions

As you seem to have access or more knowledge of HIPE than most is there a portal where I can interrogate the database myself? and as asked previously does an attendance at casualty for a stitch and tetanus booster get counted on HIPE I am totally unable to find if a casualty ward attendance counts as an in patient

Sligo Quay · 17-12-2013 08:08PM

bigar wrote: »

Every single day I see cars, busses, trucks, motor bikes, bicycles and pedestrian breaking red lights so please stop focussing on cyclists alone.

Thats true, but there is a difference, when a car, truck, motor bike, breaks red lights, the usual reaction is ''shock horror'' and rightly so, because its naturally socially unexcepted, and rightly so.
But when cyclists and suicidal pedestrians break red lights, nobody bats an eye lid because its so common, lets be honest, the majority of cyclists and pedestrians ignore traffic lights, cyclists now have their own traffic lights at Samual Beckett Bridge and Pearse St at the Grand Canal, to the cyclists they don't even exist.

Iwannahurl · 17-12-2013 10:17PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Aimed more at Jawgap than yourself but your quote will do for the questions

As you seem to have access or more knowledge of HIPE than most is there a portal where I can interrogate the database myself? and as asked previously does an attendance at casualty for a stitch and tetanus booster get counted on HIPE I am totally unable to find if a casualty ward attendance counts as an in patient

The Hospital Inpatient Enquiry (HIPE) system records data for in-patient admissions and 'day cases' (which I understand are hospital admissions not requiring an overnight stay). Actually discharges rather than admissions, strictly speaking, as the data recorded are extracted from patients' charts after doctors have discharged them from the hospital.

The ESRI manages the HIPE system in collaboration with the HSE.

I haven't had much joy in extracting useful information from HIPE in the past. My experience was that unless you ask the exact right question (of a human operator) you won't get the answers you're looking for.

Maybe you'll have better luck than me: http://www.esri.ie/health_information/hipe/hipe_data/accessing_hipe_data/

Iwannahurl · 17-12-2013 10:25PM

Sligo Quay wrote: »

Thats true, but there is a difference, when a car, truck, motor bike, breaks red lights, the usual reaction is ''shock horror'' and rightly so, because its naturally socially unexcepted, and rightly so.
But when cyclists and suicidal pedestrians break red lights, nobody bats an eye lid because its so common, lets be honest, the majority of cyclists and pedestrians ignore traffic lights.

Who is posing the greatest danger here: (a) the pedestrians crossing even though the "green man" don't automatically give them right of way, (b) the cyclist on the footpath, or (c) the motorist accelerating through a red light while talking on her mobile phone?

Jawgap · 18-12-2013 10:08AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Aimed more at Jawgap than yourself but your quote will do for the questions

As you seem to have access or more knowledge of HIPE than most is there a portal where I can interrogate the database myself? and as asked previously does an attendance at casualty for a stitch and tetanus booster get counted on HIPE I am totally unable to find if a casualty ward attendance counts as an in patient

You could try the Health Atlas but to access National Quality Assurance Intelligence System where some A&E data is held you'll need a userid.

There's some info on there but not much.

However, as the HIPE / RSA data shows there's a 'pyramid' in all mortality and morbidity data - in other words for every death recorded, there'll be so many major injuries, so many minor injuries and so many near misses.

In these 'severity ratios' statistical relationships are fairly robust between the different levels. In other words if people are being hurt by RLJing cyclists or pavement bandits - it would should up somewhere.

You'd expect to see one or two mentions in the RSA data and more in HIPE. All the anecdotal 'evidence' points to is near misses, the odd minor injury and the rarer major injury.

If cycling on the the footpath and RLJing are 'extremely dangerous' as one poster suggested what does that make farming and construction - 17 and 11 fatalities respectively to date in 2013.

Sligo Quay · 18-12-2013 01:40PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Who is posing the greatest danger here: (a) the pedestrians crossing even though the "green man" don't automatically give them right of way, (b) the cyclist on the footpath, or (c) the motorist accelerating through a red light while talking on her mobile phone?

Who posing the greatest danger in any incident, but I really should return a picture to you but I'm finding it very differcult to get 1 as an example is so rare, I like to upload a picture of a cyclist actually sitting at a red light, but its a very rare event, impossible to find a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road, btw I don't drive a car, but use buses and taxis in my line of work, I take my life in my hands daily avoiding cyclists bandits and cyclists couriers.

Spook_ie · 18-12-2013 04:14PM

Jawgap wrote: »

You could <snipped> construction - 17 and 11 fatalities respectively to date in 2013.

Well

point 1 is that it looks like something that people don't want you to be able to look at, so unless you have access to a user ID I think mentioning HIPE etc. is a red herring in your arguments

pont 2 Cyclist pedestrian interactions could be a very wide based pyramid with a much higher ratio of injuries to death, however does that mean cyclist accidents are safer so we should allow more of them before taking action?

Anyways back to the OP of taking care especially in the proximity of vision impaired pedestrians who might hear a car or truck coming where as not hear a cyclist jumping red lights or cycling on the footpath is it so bad to ask

Spook_ie wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

Says it all really about the attitude of some road users on their commute, let's all get to work safely!

without the usual plethora of cyclists saying car drivers are worse?

18-12-2013 04:48PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well

point 1 is that it looks like something that people don't want you to be able to look at, so unless you have access to a user ID I think mentioning HIPE etc. is a red herring in your arguments

pont 2 Cyclist pedestrian interactions could be a very wide based pyramid with a much higher ratio of injuries to death, however does that mean cyclist accidents are safer so we should allow more of them before taking action?

Anyways back to the OP of taking care especially in the proximity of vision impaired pedestrians who might hear a car or truck coming where as not hear a cyclist jumping red lights or cycling on the footpath is it so bad to ask

without the usual plethora of cyclists saying car drivers are worse?

No, it's not a crime to ask people to cycle, drive and indeed walk around the place in a considerate way.

On the other hand, it does seem odd to spend so much time in cycling forums discussing the dangers of cyclists. Are you a cyclist yourself? Why do you spend so much time worrying about dangerous cyclists, and drawing attention to any scrap of anecdotal evidence relating to cyclists breaking the law?

lucernarian · 18-12-2013 10:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's not a crime to ask people to cycle, drive and indeed walk around the place in a considerate way.

On the other hand, it does seem odd to spend so much time in cycling forums discussing the dangers of cyclists. Are you a cyclist yourself? Why do you spend so much time worrying about dangerous cyclists, and drawing attention to any scrap of anecdotal evidence relating to cyclists breaking the law?

What? I mean, is there a better forum to discuss road safety and cycling around other road users than this one? Could you explain why this is even remotely odd or puzzling to you??

Also, it's good to remember that in the context of informal posting on the internet, there wouldn't be many good and lively threads or posts without some allegorical or anecdotal stories in the course of making a point. It's something that seems to be frequently forgotten, particularly in this forum on Boards. If people aren't able to draw on their own experiences in some sort of "acceptable" way, we may as well club together to pay a research group to investigate every documented aspect of an issue and then accept the answer as gospel. Let's dispense with forums altogether!

monument · 18-12-2013 11:16PM

Sligo Quay wrote: »

but I'm finding it very differcult to get 1 as an example is so rare, I like to upload a picture of a cyclist actually sitting at a red light, but its a very rare event, impossible to find a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road,

I have a ton of images of cyclists sitting at lights, so it's far from impossible to find a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road. Here's some examples:

I think I made my point after 2-4 pics so I've snipped off the rest with spoiler tags.

lucernarian · 18-12-2013 11:24PM

On a more hillarious note, the first picture above may simply show the consequences when the one cyclist in front happens to obey the rules of the road. And prevents several others from proceding to break a red light... :pac:

Donaldio · 19-12-2013 02:45AM

Sometimes a cyclist has to think out side of the box for example an S bend on a busy mainstreet.

This mainstreet always has a huge back log of cars from allot of traffic lights in the town.
Also on this road just after the curve there is always a row of parked cars to one side.
Now along the row of parked cars is a large open footpath this is easily accesabile to the cyclist as the foot path begins just at the bend and there is clear veiw right down the path to see if anyone is on it.

So technically for a cyclist to mount up on this path is actually ilegal but in the real world it is by far the most safe and easy option for everyone. The cyclist is safer and also they are not blocking the other traffic from moveing on really very tight and backed up street and the foot path can be seen right down if it is clear.

So sometimes what might technically by the book be wrong is actually the better option.

19-12-2013 10:14AM

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

What? I mean, is there a better forum to discuss road safety and cycling around other road users than this one? Could you explain why this is even remotely odd or puzzling to you??

Also, it's good to remember that in the context of informal posting on the internet, there wouldn't be many good and lively threads or posts without some allegorical or anecdotal stories in the course of making a point. It's something that seems to be frequently forgotten, particularly in this forum on Boards. If people aren't able to draw on their own experiences in some sort of "acceptable" way, we may as well club together to pay a research group to investigate every documented aspect of an issue and then accept the answer as gospel. Let's dispense with forums altogether!

It's odd that the poster in question seems obsessed with cyclists as opposed to any other form of traffic on the roads.

He has no apparent interest in road safety as far as I can tell. He just hates cyclists.

Your second point might be fine if that logic didn't degenerate into the kind of comments we ALWAYS hear on cycling threads such as "you never see a cyclist stopped at a red light", "all cyclists break red lights" or (my favourite) "I was NEARLY killed by a cyclist the other day".

With all these hundreds of people nearly being killed by cyclists on boards it's amazing nobody every actually is, don't you think?

lucernarian · 19-12-2013 11:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Your second point might be fine if that logic didn't degenerate into the kind of comments we ALWAYS hear on cycling threads such as "you never see a cyclist stopped at a red light", "all cyclists break red lights" or (my favourite) "I was NEARLY killed by a cyclist the other day".

With all these hundreds of people nearly being killed by cyclists on boards it's amazing nobody every actually is, don't you think?

(I am a regular cyclist myself though perhaps not since winter started, I should add)

How about this kind of statement which is perhaps more prevalent in public commentary and on Boards: " You see red lights being broken all the time by cyclists" and "cycling seems to be a free-for-all given the lack of punishment offenders get". Your examples were a bit of a cop-out (no offense meant) as they revolved around the word "all" and of course such generalisations are easily proved wrong with the mere existence of one exception.

I know that these statements aren't recognising the extent of lawful cyclists who can be seen on our roads but playing semantics over the extent of our problems is not going to help anyone's cause, particularly the genuine safety concerns of cyclists like the 30 kph limit...

paddyland · 19-12-2013 12:10PM

monument wrote: »

I have a ton of images of cyclists sitting at lights, so it's far from impossible to find a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road. Here's some examples:

I think I made my point after 2-4 pics so I've snipped off the rest with spoiler tags.

Monument, you could post a hundred pictures of cyclists stopped at red lights. So could I.

You could post a hundred pictures of car drivers breaking red lights. So could I.

That DOESN'T mean that cyclists don't break red lights, or that car drivers do or don't.

Cyclists break red lights. So do car drivers.

Maybe you think you can redefine reality, or maybe you simply imagine that readers of this thread are either impressionable or stupid, without a mind of their own.

The fact is, that those posts that take a balanced view, and there are few of them, on either side, are the only ones that inform and move the debate forward.

The majority of posts, that are heavily biased or skewed in any one direction, only serve to make the poster look like an ass.

There is a clear case to be made for vast improvements in the cycling infrastructure and cycling safety. There is also a very evident element of lunatic fringe among the cycling lobby, who simply undermine the whole debate. Try not to appear to be one of them. Be balanced in your contributions if you want to be taken seriously. That's aimed at everyone here.

19-12-2013 12:15PM

paddyland wrote: »

Monument, you could post a hundred pictures of cyclists stopped at red lights. So could I.

You could post a hundred pictures of car drivers breaking red lights. So could I.

That DOESN'T mean that cyclists don't break red lights, or that car drivers do or don't.

Cyclists break red lights. So do car drivers.

Maybe you think you can redefine reality, or maybe you simply imagine that readers of this thread are either impressionable or stupid, without a mind of their own.

The fact is, that those posts that take a balanced view, and there are few of them, on either side, are the only ones that inform and move the debate forward.

The majority of posts, that are heavily biased or skewed in any one direction, only serve to make the poster look like an ass.

There is a clear case to be made for vast improvements in the cycling infrastructure and cycling safety. There is also a very evident element of lunatic fringe among the cycling lobby, who simply undermine the whole debate. Try not to appear to be one of them. Be balanced in your contributions if you want to be taken seriously. That's aimed at everyone here.

He was simply correcting a poster who said that it would be impossible to show photographs of cyclists stopped at red lights, as none do.

Note this is also the belief of the individual in the Irish Independent article, who claims that all cyclists "consistently break the lights every single time''.

If noting that these statements are self-evidently untrue puts you on the lunatic fringe, sign me up.

My own position is that loads of cyclists jump red lights (we all know that) but in most cases it is completely harmless, in some it is an annoyance / ignorant (because it puts out pedestrians) and in a tiny number of cases it is dangerous.

On that basis, I don't understand why so much hot air is expended on the subject when there are an almost infinite number of things to address before RLJing by cyclists - if road safety (rather than giving out) is what we care about.

Again, if that is lunatic fringe stuff, guilty.

lucernarian · 19-12-2013 12:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

My own position is that loads of cyclists jump red lights (we all know that) but in most cases it is completely harmless, in some it is an annoyance / ignorant (because it puts out pedestrians) and in a tiny number of cases it is dangerous.

On that basis, I don't understand why so much hot air is expended on the subject when there are an almost infinite number of things to address before RLJing by cyclists - if road safety (rather than giving out) is what we care about.

Again, if that is lunatic fringe stuff, guilty.

I respect your honesty on the above and I'm not going to simply point out that in all cases, it is illegal. Perhaps my perspectives are shaped from mainly cycling in Dublin city centre but I feel that there is a repeated danger shown by cyclists, especially with "late ambers" where a pedestrian puts a foot on the tarmac only to have a cyclist rush past. In the vicinity of O'Connell Bridge and Lower Abbey St./O'Connell St., this is something I notice regularly. It's frustrating when the dangerous aspects of it would be mainly solved by just dismounting and walking through the area where pedestrians are about to cross. I think it's far, far more than a tiny minority of cases when you take all circumstances into account (visibility, night or daytime, vehicles blocking views, number of pedestrians etc).

I think the law should be changed to allow cycling through red lights is when one is taking a left hand turn onto another street (unless there is a red light explicitly for a left-hand turn), but that's just my opinion.

paddyland · 19-12-2013 12:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He was simply correcting a poster who said that it would be impossible to show photographs of cyclists stopped at red lights, as none do.

Note this is also the belief of the individual in the Irish Independent article, who claims that all cyclists "consistently break the lights every single time''.

If noting that these statements are self-evidently untrue puts you on the lunatic fringe, sign me up.

My own position is that loads of cyclists jump red lights (we all know that) but in most cases it is completely harmless, in some it is an annoyance / ignorant (because it puts out pedestrians) and in a tiny number of cases it is dangerous.

On that basis, I don't understand why so much hot air is expended on the subject when there are an almost infinite number of things to address before RLJing by cyclists - if road safety (rather than giving out) is what we care about.

Again, if that is lunatic fringe stuff, guilty.

Yes, but do we simply want a long, tit-for-tat thread, I post a photo of a cyclist breaking a red light, you post two of a cyclist stopped at a red light, I post three, you post ten, and so on?

That is just childish. I found monument's post childish. If we want a mature debate, then that post is not good enough. The thread too easily descends into tit-for-tat. It needs to be raised up from that.

19-12-2013 12:37PM

paddyland wrote: »

Yes, but do we simply want a long, tit-for-tat thread, I post a photo of a cyclist breaking a red light, you post two of a cyclist stopped at a red light, I post three, you post ten, and so on?

That is just childish. I found monument's post childish. If we want a mature debate, then that post is not good enough. The thread too easily descends into tit-for-tat. It needs to be raised up from that.

I am all for mature debate.

I have no issue with asking cyclists to be more considerate of pedestrians in particular (there is a class of road user who seem not to see anything smaller or slower than themselves, I hate seeing cyclists do that).

But when it comes to demands for additional law enforcement etc, I would then suggest that we are 'data driven'. It isn't good enough to say cyclists jumping red lights is 'obviously dangerous'. Is it? Where are the statistics?

I am happy for Garda resources to go into checks for drink driving or speed cameras on dangerous stretches of road. I believe the data is out there to indicate that this makes a difference. The logic is "we can spend x, and hope to reduce deaths and serious injuries by y". Makes sense.

The mature debate should be around that equation for cyclists, and to have that debate you need DATA, something that none of those demanding that 'something be done' are able to provide. Because the truth is that cycling through red lights is not actually particularly dangerous.

I made this point on another thread but I'll do it again. In most cases people are making a category error. Traffic lights in urban areas are NOT a safety measure. They are a traffic flow measure, designed to solve a problem that cars (not bikes) create. Road users know how to yield, and that is what most cyclists who break lights are doing. If they were not, there would be cycling fatalities in the hundreds every year.

Have a care if you cycle to work

Comments