CramCycle wrote: » Which in of itself is skewing the statistics, as in the majority of roads cyclists use, there are pedestrians nearby or on them, whereas motorists use many roads in the UK that pedestrians do not have access to including motorways, ring roads, tunnels. How would the stats change if you removed the distance covered on motorways?
smash wrote: » I like how you omitted the statistics based on distance traveled. Which was the point of the article.
smash wrote: » because figures are higher for motorists, even when it's not who were discussing.
RainyDay wrote: » Don't make me come down there and explain prioritisation and opportunity cost again. Which bit of it are you having trouble grasping?
smash wrote: » Well the issue I have is that we're discussing cyclists. You're going off topic and shouting about motorists. I've stated a few times now that there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists. All I want to know is the percentage of accidents involving cyclists where the cyclist is at fault. But all you want to do is talk about cars.
RainyDay wrote: » The issue I have is that we're discussion a theory test for cyclists. Any such road safety measure will take resources away from other road safety initiatives, such as the ones aimed at reducing the death toll caused by motorists.
StewartGriffin wrote: » But the issue I have is that I would like to see the majority of cyclists behave better towards other road users.
StewartGriffin wrote: » That applies to motorists and pedestrians, but also to good cyclists, who are possibly the most put out by the behaviour of bad cyclists.
StewartGriffin wrote: » I think a theory test will help this.
StewartGriffin wrote: » And I think sooner or later, it will be introduced.
RainyDay wrote: » You're right - I've never seen any statistic to say who's at fault for accident involving cyclists. I can only imagine that the reason why no such statistics exist is that the answer is patently obvious, and doesn't need any research or statistics.
RainyDay wrote: » They break red lights because they are impatient, or because they've made a considered safety decision to avoid getting bunched up with other cyclists
wtlltw wrote: » So a cyclist gets knocked down due to their ill informed decision, then to me it is obvious. But likewise if a motorist knocked down a cyclist due their ill informed decision then likewise it's pretty obvious. I get the impression you don't see cyclists making ill informed decisions and that the motorist is always at fault. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.
wtlltw wrote: » Makes no sense, either obey the rules of the road or own up to the consequences of your actions
RainyDay wrote: » You are misunderstanding my post. I see cyclists making bad decisions every day. Most of the time there are no consequences, the odd time there can be a minor consequence. I don't think I've ever seen a major consequence, but it can happen. I don't say 'the motorist is always at fault'. I do say that I've never seen any credible report of a case where a cyclist caused a major injury to another person in Ireland over the past ten years. If there is such a report from a coroner's report or court case, I'll read it with interest. And over this period, motorists killed three or four thousand people. I didn't mention anything about consequences, good, bad or indifferent. But I do hope that those who lecture others about obeying rules of the road NEVER break a speed limit themselves.
wtlltw wrote: » Forget about a cyclist causing an injury to anyone else and think about a cyclist causing a major injury to themselves.
wtlltw wrote: » As for breaking the speed limit comment your just moving the goal posts. See my previous post my friend was at zero when a cyclist went across the bonnet of the car
smash wrote: » … there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists.
A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a [British] government-commissioned study has discovered… The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time… The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions… With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
316 wrote: » They should be made do an eye test, perhaps this is why they constantly break lights.
RainyDay wrote: » I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk
Pinch Flat wrote: » Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence. No - it's just car upon car breaking thelghts and is typical of any junction in an Irish town on a given day
Pinch Flat wrote: » Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.
MadDog76 wrote: » You know what I like about that clip? The fact that the drivers can be tracked down and held accountable for breaking the red lights ......... unfortunately when cyclists do it there is little or no way of ever tracking them down so they're rarely held accountable for their actions on the road ......... which is probably why they do it so often!
RainyDay wrote: » Don't forget the 'dog ate my homework' excuse, which is about as relevant as any of the points you mention. How's that accountability working out? Given that you see the same stuff at every junction in Dublin every day, how's that accountability working out in practice? Why do you think drivers break lights so often, given your scary accountability?
RainyDay wrote: » I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.
steamengine wrote: » Sure and these cyclists too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbttAigUIjI
Pinch Flat wrote: » So as we've said from the outset of the thread - cyclists and motorists break lights. I don't get your point
steamengine wrote: » Well let's see them both doing it then, not just cars, as portrayed in the first video. Frankly, as a cyclist, the second video is a total embarrassment.
MadDog76 wrote: » You're missing the point (as you tend to do when it conveniently suits you), enforcement is a separate issue (as are motorists as a matter of fact) to the issue of cyclists being in some way registered with the State so that they can be held accountable for their illegal actions on our roads.
MadDog76 wrote: » A Theory Test would be a good start
RainyDay wrote: » How do you plan to hold them accountable without enforcement? It would be a good way to divert attention and resources from the death toll on road caused by motorists, if that's what your trying to achieve.
MadDog76 wrote: » I don't personally plan to hold them accountable as I'm not the "State" or a member of any enforcement agency. :rolleyes:
MadDog76 wrote: » How many people was it that die on our roads every year because of motorists? Oh wait ......... 200+ wasn't it? Think you might have mentioned that once or 200+ times in your posts ....... regardless of the actual topic being discussed. :rolleyes:
RainyDay wrote: » I see. So you want to build an expensive layer of bureacracy to create an academic theoretical possibility of accountability, even though you know well that; 1) that 'theoretical accountability' doesn't stop drivers from routinely breaking traffic laws, as seen in the Phibsboro video 2) the current level of enforcement does little to prevent this behaviour, and any enforcement resources diverted to cyclist will make this bad situation even worse 3) the presence of a theory test does nothing to stop drivers from routeinly breaking traffic laws as seen in the Phibsboro videos 4) discouraging cycling and cyclists will increase traffic jams, as cyclists get back in their cars 5) most of the cyclists seen breaking lights have already done a theory test when they got their driving licence 6) ALL of the cyclists seen breaking lights know that breaking lights is against the law Sheer genius, and great public policy development - let's ignore the evidence to satisfy some strange need for theoretical retribution Don't make me come down there and explain opportunity cost again? Is it really that hard to understand that any focus of legislation or enforcement resources on cycling is inevitably a reduction of the already stretched resources aimed at reducing the death toll of 200+ people on the road each year (killed by motorists).
MadDog76 wrote: » You really don't have any concept of sarcasm do you!?!
MadDog76 wrote: » Anyway ........... that's like saying "Let's ignore the rapists and just focus on the murderers" ..........
MadDog76 wrote: » I'd personally rather live in a society were we don't just ignore illegal acts because it's convenient.
MadDog76 wrote: » Btw how many deaths was it that motorists caused ......... just in case anybody missed it?
RainyDay wrote: » No. No I don't.Except that it's not. But what others are proposing on this thread is a bit like saying "Let's bring in a sexual etiquette theory test for all potential rapists and hope that will make things better" or maybe "let's bring in a new registration system for all alcohol drinkers to stop 'intoxication in a public place' instead of focusing on the murderers". No-one has suggested ignoring any illegal acts. We have existing legislation that deals with the illegal acts in question. All I'm suggesting is a sensible risk-based prioritization approach, similar to that used by every law-enforcement body worldwide. About 200 each year, with thousands more maimed - so that's about 4 or 5 people killed in the week that we've been discussing the issue on this thread, just for context.
MadDog76 wrote: » Except that it actually is ........... it really really is ......... like it or not.
MadDog76 wrote: » Sorry I missed that about the deaths on the road ......... how many was it?
RainyDay wrote: » These are real people, with real families.
StewartGriffin wrote: » Yes they are. So how about you keep them out of your long winded smug little rants and stop using them to score points in your argument?
