Are decisions like this making public transport impossible in Ireland?

Hilly Bill · 12-05-2014 10:33AM

Quick question. What has cyclist got to do with Dublin Bus having to pay €9 million to a kid that ran blindly into a road?

This country is getting stranger when you are not held responsible for your own actions . If i ran into a busy road without looking and get knocked down by a bus then that would be my fault and not the bus company . Why should i get any compo when it was my fault in the first place?

paddyland · 12-05-2014 02:58PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

those cyclists are just traffic like the hundreds of tourists or dozens of coaches that block up that road every weekend. Trying to ban people from using the roads when the are fully entitled to legally do it is ridiculous.

Not all cyclists. Just the ones who think the public road is a racetrack.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

...cyclists are people too and you can't just ban them because of your ridiculous unjustifiable hatred of them.

Wrong again. I don't hate them. I only hate the ones who think the public road (the footpath, the park, anywhere else they please) is a racetrack.

Reasonable cyclists give and take on the road just the same as everyone else. There's nothing wrong with cyclists sharing the road with everyone else. There's everything wrong with some cyclists behaving like they are in the Tour de France, and making no allowance for anyone else because they simply must best their time on what is supposed to be a public road.

It's a bit like somebody walking on a railway line. The less informed among us would imply that people should be allowed walk where they like, even on a railway line, because, sure, they will hear the train coming. We have even read that on threads here. Similarly, there are some places cyclists should not go, or at least should not be racing. It's not called hatred. It's called commonsense.

Godge · 12-05-2014 03:28PM

paddyland wrote: »

Not all cyclists. Just the ones who think the public road is a racetrack.

Wrong again. I don't hate them. I only hate the ones who think the public road (the footpath, the park, anywhere else they please) is a racetrack.

Reasonable cyclists give and take on the road just the same as everyone else. There's nothing wrong with cyclists sharing the road with everyone else. There's everything wrong with some cyclists behaving like they are in the Tour de France, and making no allowance for anyone else because they simply must best their time on what is supposed to be a public road.

It's a bit like somebody walking on a railway line. The less informed among us would imply that people should be allowed walk where they like, even on a railway line, because, sure, they will hear the train coming. We have even read that on threads here. Similarly, there are some places cyclists should not go, or at least should not be racing. It's not called hatred. It's called commonsense.

Every commuting group has its nutters, there are drivers who try to undertake, who don't know how to merge, who try to bully their way out of secondary rat runs onto main streets instead of waiting for a break in traffic etc.

Pedestrians who just walk onto the road, who cross halfway because one side is clear and stand in the middle of a busy road expecting to survive, who walk across the pedestrian crossing as the orange man turns red etc.

It is difficult to tell which is worse but cyclists are no better. I did see one incident recently that left the mind boggled. A cyclist at a pedestrian light (he was the only one, no pedestrians) cycled (not walked his bicycle) across the road when the green man came on. At the same time, another cyclist coming down the road decided to ignore the recently turned red light as even though his vision was obscured by a bus there was no chance any pedestrian would get across quickly enough to be in his way. A crash ensued. Two cyclists both doing the wrong thing!! Neither appeared to be injured but both bikes looked wrecked.

paddyland · 12-05-2014 09:54PM

Godge wrote: »

It is difficult to tell which is worse but cyclists are no better...

Very balanced, reasonable post. Unfortunately, a small coterie of posters here would seem to argue that cyclists should not be highlighted for unsafe behaviour, because the 'statistics' say they don't kill anyone.

A cyclist careers around Killarney National Park, barging everyone out of his way. Another cyclist cycles far too fast around busy urban areas, giving nobody a chance to even see him, let alone make room for him. Other cyclists routinely break red lights, cycle on busy footpaths, or all kinds of uncivilised and dangerous behaviour. But we shouldn't mention it, because oh, the statistics, the statistics, the statistics.

Everyone else would appear to be more at fault than cyclists. So everywhere I see that apparent argument, I feel the need to pull the poster up on it, and ask for a bit of balance. We know three quarters of private motorists are paying no attention to what they are doing. We know cars kill people when driven dangerously. We know the cycling infrastructure is simply rotten. But please don't come on here and use all that to excuse cyclists from any kind of sanction against their own often careless and dangerous behaviour.

We expect the average cyclist to behave similarly to the average motorist. Motorists are subject to plenty of regulation, however badly enforced. All I suggest is that cyclists, at the very least, be debarred from using the public road as a racetrack. It is unfair to ordinary road users, ordinary cyclists included. That would be a start.

monument · 13-05-2014 07:26AM

I can't quickly find the judgment online, but the boy's lawyers covers it a bit better than the article published by the newspapers. The next three paragraphs are from their website and the link is below:

In giving her judgment and while noting that the driver of the bus was a “very careful and safe driver” she felt that the bus driver had become distracted by a conversation with a passenger in the seconds prior to the accident.

She did note that once Carlos had stepped off the footpath, the driver immediately reacted with ‘commendable alertness’ and did what he could to stop the bus but, it was sadly not enough.

She felt that the High Court Judge, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, had correctly applied the law and that a driver must be alert to the presence of children who can act in a ‘heedless’ manner.

http://carmodymoran.ie/tag/carlos-tesch/

paddyland wrote: »

That includes packs of ten or twenty or more cyclists taking over roads like the Roundwood road on Sunday afternoons, except on individually specified and authorised days, under licence, with full Garda attendance.

And why should the same restrictions not have to apply to motorists? Why is it ok to have 20 cars on these roads at the one time?

If we're banning spins on bicycles, are we also banning spins in cars or people running or jogging or walking?

paddyland wrote: »

You cannot have it both ways. There are other people around besides cyclists.

What? Who? Who can't have what both ways?

paddyland wrote: »

It's a bit like somebody walking on a railway line. The less informed among us would imply that people should be allowed walk where they like, even on a railway line, because, sure, they will hear the train coming. We have even read that on threads here. Similarly, there are some places cyclists should not go, or at least should not be racing. It's not called hatred. It's called commonsense.

I think you'll find that close to 99% of people agree that people should not walk or cycle on railways or motorways.

So, you're doing more shadow boxing.

Btw group of cyclists out for a spin on a Sunday is not a race.

paddyland wrote: »

Very balanced, reasonable post. Unfortunately, a small coterie of posters here would seem to argue that cyclists should not be highlighted for unsafe behaviour, because the 'statistics' say they don't kill anyone.

Nobody has said cyclists don't kill anybody. Although such collisions are thankfully very rare.

paddyland wrote: »

A cyclist careers around Killarney National Park, barging everyone out of his way. Another cyclist cycles far too fast around busy urban areas, giving nobody a chance to even see him, let alone make room for him. Other cyclists routinely break red lights, cycle on busy footpaths, or all kinds of uncivilised and dangerous behaviour. But we shouldn't mention it, because oh, the statistics, the statistics, the statistics.

Nobody has said you should never mention those things, however the topic here is insurance and the level of risk was discussed, nobody said there was no risk.

So, again, you're shadow boxing.

paddyland wrote: »

Everyone else would appear to be more at fault than cyclists. So everywhere I see that apparent argument, I feel the need to pull the poster up on it, and ask for a bit of balance.

Can you please start quoting where you're getting this stuff from? Nobody has said that everyone else is more at fault.

So, that's yet more shadow boxing.

paddyland wrote: »

We know three quarters of private motorists are paying no attention to what they are doing. We know cars kill people when driven dangerously. We know the cycling infrastructure is simply rotten. But please don't come on here and use all that to excuse cyclists from any kind of sanction against their own often careless and dangerous behaviour.

The point of sanctions against cyclists has not been discussed. Sanctions for cyclists would be off topic here but it has been discussed and loads of cyclists agree with on-the-spot fines.

Insurance is the topic and it's not a sanction.

paddyland wrote: »

We expect the average cyclist to behave similarly to the average motorist. Motorists are subject to plenty of regulation, however badly enforced.

The average cyclist ALREADY behaves similarly to the average motorist.

paddyland wrote: »

All I suggest is that cyclists, at the very least, be debarred from using the public road as a racetrack. It is unfair to ordinary road users, ordinary cyclists included. That would be a start.

The problem is that your perception wrongly classes a group of cyclist out for a spin on a Sunday as a "race".

Cookie_Monster · 13-05-2014 07:50AM

monument wrote: »

She did note that once Carlos had stepped off the footpath, the driver immediately reacted with ‘commendable alertness’ and did what he could to stop the bus but, it was sadly not enough.

so he reacted instantly and did as much as he could and it still his fault

How can the judge admit this and still find fault, clearly he was not distracted if he was able to react as such.
What more exactly were they expecting, for the driver to slow down to walking pace as he passes every child just in case?

Cookie_Monster · 13-05-2014 07:55AM

paddyland wrote: »

Not all cyclists. Just the ones who think the public road is a racetrack.

so how do you differentiate the two?

I regularly clock 50 on the road, and often enough hit 70, I've never been in a race though. you seem to think that a group of cyclists doing 40-50 on the roads of Roundwood as racing whereas this is simply the speed you travel at while in a group and is still still way under what cars, trucks and buses do on those roads.

Wrong again. I don't hate them.

could have fooled me.

monument · 13-05-2014 08:39AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so he reacted instantly and did as much as he could and it still his fault How can the judge admit this and still find fault, clearly he was not distracted if he was able to react as such.
What more exactly were they expecting, for the driver to slow down to walking pace as he passes every child just in case?

Another bit from the same page, I should have quoted:

"The main argument in the appeal was whether or not the bus driver had been distracted for a number of seconds while talking with a passenger and as a result did not see the boys for a number of seconds after they had come into view."

Drivers and cyclists must be aware of road conditions and act according -- and act to avoid collisions not even of their own making. Distracted driving is a real issue.

The judgment seems poorly worded, ie saying he acted "instantly"... Acting instantly even at the later point which the driver acted is commendable and I guess the judge wanted to highlight that.

Again: We're looking at insurance / damages liability, not guilt. So the bar is much lower.

schemingbohemia · 13-05-2014 08:49AM

monument wrote: »

Another bit from the same page, I should have quoted:

"The main argument in the appeal was whether or not the bus driver had been distracted for a number of seconds while talking with a passenger and as a result did not see the boys for a number of seconds after they had come into view."

Drivers and cyclists must be aware of road conditions and act according -- and act to avoid collisions not even of their own making. Distracted driving is a real issue.

The judgment seems poorly worded, ie saying he acted "instantly"... Acting instantly even at the later point which the driver acted is commendable and I guess the judge wanted to highlight that.

Again: We're looking at insurance / damages liability, not guilt. So the bar is much lower.

So the judge is stating that once a driver sees children that they must slow down immediately as they are "heedless", again it leads to an unrealistic expectation of driving behaviour.

markpb · 13-05-2014 08:53AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so he reacted instantly and did as much as he could and it still his fault How can the judge admit this and still find fault, clearly he was not distracted if he was able to react as such.
What more exactly were they expecting, for the driver to slow down to walking pace as he passes every child just in case?

The main tenant of safe driving is to be prepared for an incident, not to react quickly when one happens. Perhaps she felt that the driver, who was distracted by the person he was talking to, wasn't reading the road correctly and failed to react to a possible incident.

Any decent driver (and I'm not suggesting the bus driver wasn't) will be constantly reading the road, watching for children who might run across suddenly, watching for people in cars who might throw their doors open, watching for cyclists who might have to move out to avoid a parked car or pothole. It's too late to slam on the brakes when these things happen, especially with a bus full of passengers, many of whom will be standing.

Godge · 13-05-2014 08:57AM

monument wrote: »

The average cyclist ALREADY behaves similarly to the average motorist.

I don't think you can state this with any certainty.

This morning I was lucky to be a passenger in a car travelling into town. While I can only speak about one anecdotal experience, I saw a multiple of incidents of cyclists cycling recklessly and breaking the law e.g. 3 cyclists in a row sailing through red traffic lights where pedestrian light was green, cycling on footpaths, cycling contra-flow etc whereas incidents of illegal and reckless behaviour from motorists and pedestrians was less.

I will agree that the small number of incidents involving motorists where potentially more serious but the degree of recklessness among cyclists is much higher, most probably because they believe that they are potentially less dangerous, will get away with it more easily and will only cause minor injury or shock to pedestrians if anything goes wrong. The above statement is almost certainly untrue.

The statistics only show when reckless behaviour causes serious injury or death, they don't count incidents of reckless behaviour. They are also not weighted for the number of car journeys or cycle journeys so there are of little use in this debate or in answering that statement.

markpb · 13-05-2014 09:00AM

Godge wrote: »

I don't think you can state this with any certainty.

You can't state the opposite either though, not with anything more concrete than anecdotal evidence.

Godge · 13-05-2014 09:06AM

markpb wrote: »

You can't state the opposite either though, not with anything more concrete than anecdotal evidence.

I agree but the standard defence to any criticism of cycling behaviour is that the statistics show that cyclists don't kill anyone. I am just pointing out how that is completely misleading and offering another opinion on the subject.

It cost me €100 a few years ago to have my son's arm x-rayed in A&E after he was knocked over by a cyclist cycling on a footpath who didn't stop to check how he was.

Please feel free to stand at any junction and record the number of reckless actions by cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, control the results for the number of journeys and report back with the findings. Until then I will rely on what my eyes can see.

foggy_lad · 13-05-2014 09:35AM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

So the judge is stating that once a driver sees children that they must slow down immediately as they are "heedless", again it leads to an unrealistic expectation of driving behaviour.

No, but children should receive more attention than say the same number of adults. If you are driving a bus along a busy street and see 4 adults walking along the footpath chatting you won't be concerned or give than more than a cursury glance.

but if it is late at night and you know they have just come from coppers or some other hostlery them you will be aware that they may be drunk and may act without thinking and may fall or step onto the road so you prepare yourself for that happening. In the same way you must be more aware of children who can act in a heedless manner not through intoxication or stupidity but just because they are children.

monument · 13-05-2014 09:59AM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

So the judge is stating that once a driver sees children that they must slow down immediately as they are "heedless", again it leads to an unrealistic expectation of driving behaviour.

No, not always, but they should be alert and not distracted. They should practice defensive driving and aim to anticipate the actions of others. This goes more so for professional drivers and others driving larger vehicles.

Godge wrote: »

... whereas incidents of illegal and reckless behaviour from motorists and pedestrians was less.

(I've put the word illegal in bold)

We know from the RSA free speed surveys that 82% of car drivers surveyed exceeded the 50km/h limit on urban national roads.

And we know compliance with the city centre 30km/h zone has been reported to be 10% or under by more than one survey. That's around 90% of motorists breaking the law.

References: http://irishcycle.com/myths/myths-law-breaking/

Godge · 13-05-2014 10:41AM

monument wrote: »

(I've put the word illegal in bold)

We know from the RSA free speed surveys that 82% of car drivers surveyed exceeded the 50km/h limit on urban national roads.

And we know compliance with the city centre 30km/h zone has been reported to be 10% or under by more than one survey. That's around 90% of motorists breaking the law.

References: http://irishcycle.com/myths/myths-law-breaking/

But I have never said that motorists don't break the law.

I would guess that any survey would show 100% of cyclists break the law on cycling on footpaths, 100% of cyclists break the law on traffic lights etc. The figure on wearing headphones and listening to music is probably around 40% of commuting cyclists - one of the most reckless self-endangerment things to do of any road-user, probably only surpassed by pedestrians trying to walk across a motorway.

Motorists in general agree that road-users including motorists, pedestrians and cyclists regularly break the law. Cyclists in general only believe that the law applies to motorists. It is the misleading whiter-than-white portrayal of cyclists by other cyclists that annoys most road-users.

monument · 13-05-2014 10:56AM

Godge wrote: »

But I have never said that motorists don't break the law.

Who said you did?

My post refers to the level of law breaking.

Godge wrote: »

I would guess that any survey would show 100% of cyclists break the law on cycling on footpaths, 100% of cyclists break the law on traffic lights etc.

Why don't you look for surveys rather than guessing silly and unrealistic amounts (ie 100%)?

Godge wrote: »

The figure on wearing headphones and listening to music is probably around 40% of commuting cyclists - one of the most reckless self-endangerment things to do of any road-user, probably only surpassed by pedestrians trying to walk across a motorway.

Can't wait till you call for motorists to rip out the sound proofing around their cars and rip out their radios.

And by saying that headphone wearing is "probably only surpassed by pedestrians trying to walk across a motorway" you're putting it above walking across a road with out looking or driving out of a side road in front of a HGV -- you're just being emotive.

Godge wrote: »

Motorists in general agree that road-users including motorists, pedestrians and cyclists regularly break the law. Cyclists in general only believe that the law applies to motorists. It is the misleading whiter-than-white portrayal of cyclists by other cyclists that annoys most road-users.

Where does this apply in this thread or are you also shadow boxing?

Godge · 13-05-2014 11:09AM

monument wrote: »

Why don't you look for surveys rather than guessing silly and unrealistic amounts (ie 100%)?

OK, a more realistic amount - 98% of cyclists cycle on footpaths, 98% of cyclists break traffic lights. I have excluded the occasional random cyclist who fully obeys the law.

monument wrote: »

Can't wait till you call for motorists to rip out the sound proofing around their cars and rip out their radios.

And by saying that headphone wearing is "probably only surpassed by pedestrians trying to walk across a motorway" you're putting it above walking across a road with out looking or driving out of a side road in front of a HGV -- you're just being emotive.

I have never worn earphones while driving, cycling or on a motorbike. It is extremely reckless and there is no comparison to the amount of noise-exclusion from a car radio.

I have stopped using them on public footpaths because of a few incidents of not hearing or sensing the cyclist on the footpath approaching me quickly from behind who expected me to get out of their way. Still use them walking in public parks but even then cyclists are a danger to me as a pedestrian.

monument · 13-05-2014 11:42AM

Godge wrote: »

OK, a more realistic amount - 98% of cyclists cycle on footpaths, 98% of cyclists break traffic lights. I have excluded the occasional random cyclist who fully obeys the law.

Plucked out of thin air. Still as useless unless you get a source. People who do half-decent surveys find different results than your dreaming, for example:

"Just one in ten cyclists jump red lights in rush hour, according to a survey of six junctions in three major cities – London, Manchester and Birmingham – conducted by The Sunday Times [£]."

http://road.cc/content/news/98721-1-10-cyclists-jump-red-lights-says-sunday-times

Godge wrote: »

I have never worn earphones while driving, cycling or on a motorbike.

Good for you. But if you want to extract someone from your personal choices to the wider population, you'll have to do better...

Godge wrote: »

It is extremely reckless

You have not even tried to support this claim.

Godge wrote: »

and there is no comparison to the amount of noise-exclusion from a car radio.

You're right, it's the same before motorists turn on their radio:

Cyclists with iPods hear the same as motorists listening to nothing: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/claud-butler-appointed-uk-distributor-for-rst/013330

Godge · 13-05-2014 03:03PM

monument wrote: »

Cyclists with iPods hear the same as motorists listening to nothing: ]

You really have a disconnect here.

You argue constantly that cars are more dangerous road-users than cycles yet you defend a practice by cyclists that exposes them to more danger by shutting off their ability to hear cars!

I don't defend reckless behaviour by motorists. Similarly, I don't defend reckless behaviour by cyclists.

As for your surveys and evidence, they are all limited surveys. 10% of people breaking a light at extremely busy city centre road junctions is not indicative of the overall rate of red-light braking. It is like saying only 15% of smokers get lung cancer so it can't be that bad.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.htm

There are numerous statistics and surveys produced by cycling sites based on dubious assumptions and extrapolations that try to show that cycling is good and safe. Why? Why are they so defensive when the surveys and statistics can be rubbished so easily and anyone with half a brain would realise that such studies have no prospect of capturing overall cyclist behaviour?

monument · 13-05-2014 09:55PM

Godge wrote: »

You really have a disconnect here.

No disconnect.

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that motorists are more dangerous than cyclists. It's at the very heart of the topic of this thread.

You however have not even attempted to support your claim.

Godge wrote: »

You argue constantly that cars are more dangerous road-users than cycles

That's not just something I argue, that's proven beyond reasonable doubt at this stage.

And to be an extra prig about it: Cars are not road users and I don't think cars are dangerous. Just like bicycles, it's some users who are dangerous and all users have the potential to be, it's just the scope and level for danger is far higher with cars.

Godge wrote: »

yet you defend a practice by cyclists that exposes them to more danger by shutting off their ability to hear cars!

Two things:

If what you're saying is correct (I clearly don't agree), then you seem to be fine with motorists "shutting off their ability" to hear people walking and cycling and the likes of HGVs... That's fine? Is it?

Wearing headphones does not automatically mean that you're "shutting off their ability to hear cars" and hearing cars is of limited importance depending on the person or the situation.

Godge wrote: »

I don't defend reckless behaviour by motorists. Similarly, I don't defend reckless behaviour by cyclists.

Just to be clear here: I'm not defending any reckless behavour by cyclists.

You have been asked to explain how wearing headphones is automatically reckless, and it speaks volumes that you have not even attempted to do so.

Godge wrote: »

As for your surveys and evidence, they are all limited surveys. 10% of people breaking a light at extremely busy city centre road junctions is not indicative of the overall rate of red-light braking.

Still waiting for even limited proof to back up you claim that 90-100% of cyclists break the law in all the ways you listed.

Godge wrote: »

There are numerous statistics and surveys produced by cycling sites based on dubious assumptions and extrapolations that try to show that cycling is good and safe. Why?

Unnamed numerous statistics and surveys. Unnamed assumptions and extrapolations.

That's just more shadow boxing.

Godge wrote: »

... that cycling is good...

If you want to go against everything that shows that cycling is generally or overall good, please do at least try to explain how this is.

It seems to be a recurring theme that you think making statements without backing them up is good enough.

Godge wrote: »

Why are they so defensive when the surveys and statistics can be rubbished so easily and anyone with half a brain would realise that such studies have no prospect of capturing overall cyclist behaviour?

So defensive about what?

Where are the examples of this defensiveness on this thread? Please do quote them!

SeanW · 13-05-2014 11:04PM

I was not answering your why question, I was challenging your bs that "99.999999999% of the time" strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect protect the idiot cyclist in the video.

You cannot deny that reduced speed limits and strict liability help people like in my video far more than they do law abiding pedestrians and cyclists, by slowing traffic so as to make their behaviour "safe" (I can personally attest to seeing stuff like this on routine occasion in Dublin city) and by promoting the view that "I can make the motorist stop, if they hit me it's their fault."

monument wrote: »

(1) It's liability and not guilt. These are not as interlinked as people thing.

(2) It's noting to do with being a "favoured" or "non-favoured" group.

(3) It's not fully strict, ...

Now its my turn to call bullcrap.
1) Had that judgement of that scale been levelled against a private individual, the implications on their insurance record would preclude them from ever driving again. Which is presumably the same as a criminal conviction for dangerous driving. One causes the motorists license to be withdrawn, the other prevents them for ever getting insurance again.
It's a bit like the indefinite detention rules in the U.S. NDAA 2012, the effect of a criminal conviction but without actually having to charge the poor sod beyond proving that they were driving.
2) Your own link clearly shows that its a case of preferntial treatment of non-motorised traffic over motorised traffic. That is beyond dispute.
3) Ok, so the motorist can get a slight discount on what would otherwise be 100% liability if they can prove to a criminal standard that they were not negligent and couldn't have prevented the accident. I'm impressed. Not.

Regarding your survey: Bull. Perhaps if they tried watching pedestrian crossings or other lightly trafficed junctions, the figures might be would be a lot higher.

Godge wrote: »

OK, a more realistic amount - 98% of cyclists cycle on footpaths, 98% of cyclists break traffic lights. I have excluded the occasional random cyclist who fully obeys the law.

From what I witness day to day here in the city, I would agree with most of the above assessment.
More than 98% of cyclists read red lights as "yield". Less than 1% read them as "if the traffic oppsing me is going slow enough, sail through and make them stop." Less than 1% further still actually treat them as "STOP" lights.

The last part I know, because I've seen cyclists treat red lights the same way most motorists do, i.e. as "Stop and wait for green, even if the way ahead is clear" lights.

I've seen them.

Twice.

Godge · 13-05-2014 11:56PM

monument wrote: »

No disconnect.

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that motorists are more dangerous than cyclists. It's at the very heart of the topic of this thread.

You however have not even attempted to support your claim.

Motorists are more dangerous than cyclists in the same way that those that control nuclear weapons are more dangerous than those with a bow and arrow.

A mistake by a person who controls nuclear weapons is more serious than a mistake by an archer but that does not mean a person who controls nuclear weapons makes more mistakes than an archer.

If you can't understand the difference in the argument from that analogy, you have your head buried in the sand.

Nuclear weapons (used twice) have caused more deaths than bows and arrows (used thousands of times) but I am more likely to get injured by an arrow than a nuclear weapon.

monument wrote: »

Two things:

If what you're saying is correct (I clearly don't agree), then you seem to be fine with motorists "shutting off their ability" to hear people walking and cycling and the likes of HGVs... That's fine? Is it?

Wearing headphones does not automatically mean that you're "shutting off their ability to hear cars" and hearing cars is of limited importance depending on the person or the situation.

I forgot to make the point earlier that a motorist has a rearview mirror and two wing mirrors which enable him to be aware of what is behind him no matter how loud his music is or how well sound-insulated his car is.

A cyclist with headphones does not have any ability to be aware of what is behind him.

If you believe that a cyclist with an iPod is cycling in a reasonable and safe manner, then you have a seriously distorted view of the world. As I have said already, pedestrians with iPods are even a danger to themselves.

monument wrote: »

Still waiting for even limited proof to back up you claim that 90-100% of cyclists break the law in all the ways you listed.

I don't have time to look up the surveys in detail but here is one article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541739/More-11-000-cyclists-caught-running-red-lights-riding-pavements-just-one-year.html

"Research by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) shows that nearly six out of ten (57 per cent) cyclists admit to running red lights.with14 per cent doing so regularly or sometimes. A quarter (24.9 per cent) say they do so ‘rarely’ and one in five (19.1 per cent) doing so ‘once or twice.’ Nearly three quarters(73 per cent) of cyclists admit to riding on the pavement.
A YouGov poll revealed that almost a quarter (24 per cent) of cyclists think it is acceptable to go through a red light if they can see the way ahead is clear. Nearly one in five (18 per cent) said they had jumped a traffic light in the past six months.
More than 60 per cent of people polled — including non-cyclists — said they thought it was common for cyclists to run a red light. Some 78 per cent said they should be prosecuted for such an offence"

monument wrote: »

Unnamed numerous statistics and surveys. Unnamed assumptions and extrapolations.

That's just more shadow boxing.!

See above, will get back to it tomorrow.

monument wrote: »

If you want to go against everything that shows that cycling is generally or overall good, please do at least try to explain how this is.

It seems to be a recurring theme that you think making statements without backing them up is good enough. !

Now where did I say that cycling was not good. I have said that cyclist behaviour is not good, they are probably a decade or more behind motorists in that respect - I know several people who would not drive with a few drinks but would happily cycle with a few drinks.

Think about it for a moment. There has been a large increase in cyclists in the last few years in Dublin, all let loose on the road without training, without having to learn the rules of the road while at the same time the requirements for driving a motorbike or a car have been tightened considerably.

monument wrote: »

So defensive about what?

Where are the examples of this defensiveness on this thread? Please do quote them!

Well this is funny or ironic, depending on your point of view. It might help your arguments if you took less of an absolutist tone. There are no absolute rights and wrongs in this world and cycling is not the solution to every problem.

paddyland · 14-05-2014 12:28AM

monument wrote: »

Two things:

If what you're saying is correct (I clearly don't agree), then you seem to be fine with motorists "shutting off their ability" to hear people walking and cycling and the likes of HGVs... That's fine? Is it?

Wearing headphones does not automatically mean that you're "shutting off their ability to hear cars" and hearing cars is of limited importance depending on the person or the situation.

So a motorist with a radio is 'shutting off their ability' to hear, yet when a cyclist wears headphones, he is not 'shutting off his ability?' There you go again. If it's a cyclist, it's grand, but if it's a motorist, it's wrong.

Can't you acknowledge there is a huge difference between a radio playing, where you can still be fully aware of everything around you, so long as it's not cranked up ridiculously loud, and headphones, which, by their very nature, wedged into the eardrum, block out everything except the sound they play?

You yourself admit that a cyclist is a more vulnerable road user. Does it not make more sense, then, that the cyclist would raise his awareness as much as possible, instead of blocking it out? Or are you of the belief that any accident is automatically the motorist's fault, because, statistically, motorists 'kill people?'

All the motorists of the world are not out to 'get' you, you know. I see a new ad on telly, promoting motorists and cyclists to share the road, and have consideration for each other. Each other. It's not all about statistics, and killing people. It's about ordinary, everyday, caring and sharing. Cyclists travelling too fast for the circumstances, or travelling in packs where there isn't safe room to do so, like long, narrow country roads, is not sharing. It's just careless and dangerous. You need to own that as well as blaming motorists for 'killing people.' You don't need to rebut that by telling me motorists are careless and dangerous too. We know that. That's a given. There's no need for cyclists to add to it.

Cue 'a dangerous motorist kills someone, a dangerous cyclist doesn't.' The next post will probably be the justification for dangerous cyclists, on that basis...

Cookie_Monster · 14-05-2014 01:39AM

Godge wrote: »

Motorists are more dangerous than cyclists in the same way that those that control nuclear weapons are more dangerous than those with a bow and arrow.

poor comparison. nukes are highly regulated and secure with multiple redundant safeties. a much better comparison would be guns (as allowed in the US) vs bows. Both are easy to get a hold of and use, sure the gun requires a licence but this is easy to get also and they can do far more damage. There is little overall enforcement of regularion in both but guns are widely accepted and you can even carry them around without anyone batting an eyelid but a bow stands out and people notice.

Godge wrote: »

Nuclear weapons (used twice) have caused more deaths than bows and arrows (used thousands of times) but I am more likely to get injured by an arrow than a nuclear weapon.

bollox. nukes have killed 246k people, in the entire of history bows will be at the very least 20 times that

A cyclist with headphones does not have any ability to be aware of what is behind him.

a simple turn of the head solves that problem

SeanW wrote:

From what I witness day to day here in the city, I would agree with most of the above assessment.
More than 98% of cyclists read red lights as "yield". Less than 1% read them as "if the traffic oppsing me is going slow enough, sail through and make them stop." Less than 1% further still actually treat them as "STOP" lights.

The last part I know, because I've seen cyclists treat red lights the same way most motorists do, i.e. as "Stop and wait for green, even if the way ahead is clear" lights.

I've seen them.

Twice.

100% of cyclists I see daily follow the rules and stop at lights.
The last part I know, because I've seen them :rolleyes:

Hilly Bill · 14-05-2014 08:36AM

Another thread turned into a cyclists versus motorist argument by the same posters. Let it go

.

edit. Its now Nukes versus Arrows.

.

Godge · 14-05-2014 08:41AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

a simple turn of the head solves that problem

If that was true, cars wouldn't need mirrors.

Turning the head takes attention of what is in front, which is why cars have mirrors to reduce the amount of head turning. Bicycles don't which requires the extra sense.

Everyone needs to be responsible on the road. Even if cars are more dangerous and motorists more reckless, it is madness to put yourself at risk by wearing in-ear headphones while cycling, thereby increasing the risk to yourself. If people can't see this, they have a problem.

monument · 14-05-2014 10:00AM

Godge wrote: »

If that was true, cars wouldn't need mirrors.

Turning the head takes attention of what is in front, which is why cars have mirrors to reduce the amount of head turning. Bicycles don't which requires the extra sense.

Everyone needs to be responsible on the road. Even if cars are more dangerous and motorists more reckless, it is madness to put yourself at risk by wearing in-ear headphones while cycling, thereby increasing the risk to yourself. If people can't see this, they have a problem.

Turning your head often to look behind you is a basic skill for cycling. It's a key part of the cycling training for the UK and is highly likely the Irish standard will have the same when they get around to setting it.

Driving cars is not comparable to cycling in this respect for a number of reasons including the size and make up of a car, the blinds posts, the average speeds etc.

It just shows you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to cycling.

paddyland wrote: »

So a motorist with a radio is 'shutting off their ability' to hear, yet when a cyclist wears headphones, he is not 'shutting off his ability?' There you go again. If it's a cyclist, it's grand, but if it's a motorist, it's wrong...

Did you miss the but where I said:

"If what you're saying is correct (I clearly don't agree), then ..."

Every post you write seems to be arguing with something that has not been said -- and here's more of your shadow boxing!

Godge wrote: »

Motorists are more dangerous than cyclists in the same way that those that control nuclear weapons are more dangerous than those with a bow and arrow.

A mistake by a person who controls nuclear weapons is more serious than a mistake by an archer but that does not mean a person who controls nuclear weapons makes more mistakes than an archer.

If you can't understand the difference in the argument from that analogy, you have your head buried in the sand.

Nuclear weapons (used twice) have caused more deaths than bows and arrows (used thousands of times) but I am more likely to get injured by an arrow than a nuclear weapon.

As explained by cookie -- you're wrong about nukes vs arrows, so your analogy is flawed from the off. And you being wrong is becoming a bit of a theme now.

But we'll put it this way:

When the numbers of cyclists increased in Dublin, the numbers of cyclists and pedestrian deaths and injuries decreased according to the stats and Dublin central gardai.

Godge wrote: »

If you believe that a cyclist with an iPod is cycling in a reasonable and safe manner, then you have a seriously distorted view of the world. As I have said already, pedestrians with iPods are even a danger to themselves.

It all depends. Notice canceling earphones or headphones or very loud volumes clearly puts some people at a disadvantage.

You might want to take your own advice and stop being so absolutist!?

Godge wrote: »

I don't have time to look up the surveys in detail but here is one article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541739/More-11-000-cyclists-caught-running-red-lights-riding-pavements-just-one-year.html

"Research by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) shows that nearly six out of ten (57 per cent) cyclists admit to running red lights.with14 per cent doing so regularly or sometimes. A quarter (24.9 per cent) say they do so ‘rarely’ and one in five (19.1 per cent) doing so ‘once or twice.’ Nearly three quarters(73 per cent) of cyclists admit to riding on the pavement.
A YouGov poll revealed that almost a quarter (24 per cent) of cyclists think it is acceptable to go through a red light if they can see the way ahead is clear. Nearly one in five (18 per cent) said they had jumped a traffic light in the past six months.

Nowhere as bad as 90-100% lawbreaking!

Godge wrote: »

Now where did I say that cycling was not good.

The bit I quoted which you replied to.

Godge wrote: »

they are probably a decade or more behind motorists in that respect

Not according to your research which puts cyclist law breaking lower or at best about on par with motorists.

Godge wrote: »

Think about it for a moment. There has been a large increase in cyclists in the last few years in Dublin, all let loose on the road without training, without having to learn the rules of the road while at the same time the requirements for driving a motorbike or a car have been tightened considerably.

Yet deaths and injuries are down.

Godge wrote: »

Well this is funny or ironic, depending on your point of view. It might help your arguments if you took less of an absolutist tone. There are no absolute rights and wrongs in this world and cycling is not the solution to every problem.

Please do quote examples as you were already asked to do so.

paddyland · 14-05-2014 11:26AM

monument wrote: »

Every post

It's not

monument wrote: »

you write

what

monument wrote: »

seems

has been

monument wrote: »

to be arguing

said

monument wrote: »

with something

or not

monument wrote: »

that

said

monument wrote: »

has not

it's

monument wrote: »

been said

what

monument wrote: »

and here's

has been

monument wrote: »

more

implied

monument wrote: »

of your

multiquote

monument wrote: »

shadow boxing!

multiquote

What's with all the multi quotes? It's like every single solitary word of implied or imagined criticism has to be singled out and refuted forensically, word by word, lest one single word gets through that is critical of anything to do with cycling. It just looks neurotic. Could we not have one single quote, followed by two or three paragraphs of an argument? It would be far more readable, and less extremist-seeming.

You know, it's the extremists on one side that turn people on the other side into extremists, too. I'd love to see a forum of people from all walks of public life come together to rethink our whole outlook on roads, transport, and the environment in general. Including cyclists. But I wouldn't have someone who perpetually bangs a pro-cycling drum to the exclusion of everything else, and constantly shouts everyone else down, coming out with all the statistics that proves his point, and refuting and bawling about every statistic that doesn't. What is moderate about that?

The thread title is 'Are decisions like this making public transport impossible in Ireland?' I would suggest that one of the things making debate impossible are the same old faces coming out, banging the Lambeg Drums, every time someone says boo about a cyclist. It's okay to be critical about a cyclist, or an aspect of cycling. I myself raised two issues that I think are valid. Cyclists speeding, and cyclists travelling in packs. That doesn't mean I hate cyclists. I share the road with thousands of them every day. The vast majority cause me no problem or delay, even the ones breaking red lights, unless it causes me to have to brake unduly. My problem is with the ones who are deliberately obstructive, and I reserve the right to criticise them repeatedly, without being refuted with entirely irrelevant statistics that motorists kill people. They do. But that is nothing to do with me criticising deliberately reckless cyclists. And I am singling out the deliberately reckless. The ones who know damn well they are being obstructive. You should acknowledge them. Because they are the ones undermining your whole thesis about the logic of increasing cycling numbers.

As a pedestrian, I don't want to share my space with more and more cyclists, unless I am getting some kind of guarantee that reckless cyclists will be acknowledged, and stopped. The same goes for when I am motoring. I welcome more cyclists. But if it is only going to be more of the militant, I-own-the-road cyclists, well then no, I don't want more of that, thank you.

monument · 14-05-2014 12:45PM

paddyland wrote: »

What's with all the multi quotes? ...

There's nothing wrong with multi quotes. And me debating that would be off topic.

paddyland wrote: »

But I wouldn't have someone who perpetually bangs a pro-cycling drum to the exclusion of everything else,

Like any other question I've asked, I'm guessing you're not going to answer this one, but we'll try anyway...

Where have I said cycling should be provided for at the "exclusion of everything else"?

paddyland wrote: »

and constantly shouts everyone else down, coming out with all the statistics that proves his point, and refuting and bawling about every statistic that doesn't. What is moderate about that?

Shouts? Bawling? Err... What?

What you call "shouts everyone else down" is commonly called replying to a post. You might not like your views questioned, but that's what will happen when you post silly things like causing people of saying things they have not said.

paddyland wrote: »

My problem is with the ones who are deliberately obstructive, and I reserve the right to criticise them repeatedly, without being refuted with entirely irrelevant statistics that motorists kill people. They do. But that is nothing to do with me criticising deliberately reckless cyclists.

If you want you sure can reserve the right to criticise within the rules of this site. You, however, don't have any right to do so without being refuted.

The statistics about the overall danger of motoring is very relevant to the topic at hand. The comparable danger of people walking and cycling is interlinked with the topic and people questions on strict liability.

And strict liability is at the centre of the topic.

paddyland wrote: »

As a pedestrian, I don't want to share my space with more and more cyclists, unless I am getting some kind of guarantee that reckless cyclists will be acknowledged, and stopped. The same goes for when I am motoring. I welcome more cyclists. But if it is only going to be more of the militant, I-own-the-road cyclists, well then no, I don't want more of that, thank you.

First, exactly who is is it that you think is not acknowledging reckless cyclists?

And bringing your logic here to its conclusion: No more road building for motorists, cars to be sold, or licence a to be issued until all motorists obey the law. That's your logic extended -- not my view point.

As a pedestrian, I don't want to share my space with more and more cyclists. Full stop. Cyclists and pedestrians should not be mixed expected for very limited areas.

Are decisions like this making public transport impossible in Ireland?

Comments