"High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners"

hardCopy · 06-08-2015 04:24PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Actually its an annual bursary so we are looking at EU105,000 to EU140,000 if its a 3 or 4 year PhD.

I hadn't heard about that job ad before I posted my rant and worried I might come across like some weird anti-RSA conspiracy nut.

Thank you for making me feel less paranoid.

Carawaystick · 06-08-2015 04:28PM

I like the way the rsa are looking to do a cost benefit analysis on giving out free stuff after they have given out free stuff...

buffalo · 06-08-2015 04:31PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are several threads this could go into but I'll put it here. At the moment the RSA are advertising a bursary - effectively a grant - for a post graduate student to do a PhD project on the safety of vulnerable road users. The grant is worth EU35,000 a year.

That post... wow, it's terrifying really. I don't want to be a part of the RSA's future.

Granolite · 06-08-2015 04:33PM

As someone previously mentioned in this thread bringing in periodic and mandatory car driver retraining and driver tests - so as to retain one's license to drive - would probably serve us much better in protecting the so-called `vulnerable' roads user's on our roads than all the other RSA initiatives out there at present and those pending further Doctoral studies (Can already see some nice cailin or fella with a useful degree with a helpful Mayo background slotting in there). However, that would be unpopular and difficult to sell to our driver-centric notions, socially and politically. None of our current breed of senators or TD's who subscribe to the old Civil War ethos parties could consider that.

To read Ivan Yates last week pontificate on the matter of the new fixed fine penalties as being a `comeuppance' for these cycling `pests' just shows the sort of attitude people of his vintage and position - the type who see themselves as the apex of Irish political and media discourse mixing it with the maker's and shaker's and lobbyist cronies - have for anyone who doesn't fit in with their narrow car-centric, property acquisition fixated point of view. This is the thinking of the people who brought you `Leeman's brothers' as being the quick look over there' bogie man for our economic crash ad nauseam in the late noughties and now in the Dublin-centric post economic revival summer silly season it seems cyclists are the latest bogie man flavor of the day.

It was ok for a bit there when we were all broke and sure it was cool to be getting back to our roots and finding ways to save money and sure we all got a bike on the bike to work scheme (wink wink,nudge,nudge) but now that we are on the make once more the cycle `pests' are getting a bit uppity, they need to be taken down a notch or two and shown who's running the place.. great men and thinkers like Ivan Yates and George Hook, Alan Kelly, Senator Tom Sheehan et al, and not forgetting our men of honor in the judiciary, who made this country and themselves and know what's best for us all..

Rebellion · 06-08-2015 04:35PM

i for one have never felt as vunerable as i do on a bicycle, srivers just dont seem to care

hardCopy · 06-08-2015 04:42PM

Granolite wrote: »

As someone previously mentioned in this thread bringing in periodic and mandatory car driver retraining and driver tests - so as to retain one's license to drive - would probably serve us much better in protecting the so-called `vulnerable' roads user's on our roads than all the other RSA initiatives out there at present and those pending further Doctoral studies (Can already see some nice cailin or fella with a useful degree with a helpful Mayo background slotting in there). However, that would be unpopular and difficult to sell to our driver-centric notions, socially and politically. None of our current breed of senators or TD's who subscribe to the old Civil War ethos parties could consider that.

To read Ivan Yates last week pontificate on the matter of the new fixed fine penalties as being a `comeuppance' for these cycling `pests' just shows the sort of attitude people of his vintage and position - the type who see themselves as the apex of Irish political and media discourse mixing it with the maker's and shaker's and lobbyist cronies - have for anyone who doesn't fit in with their narrow car-centric, property acquisition fixated point of view. This is the thinking of the people who brought you `Leeman's brothers' as being the quick look over there' bogie man for our economic crash ad nauseam in the late noughties and now in the Dublin-centric post economic revival summer silly season it seems cyclists are the latest bogie man flavor of the day.

It was ok for a bit there when we were all broke and sure it was cool to be getting back to our roots and finding ways to save money and sure we all got a bike on the bike to work scheme (wink wink,nudge,nudge) but now that we are on the make once more the cycle `pests' are getting a bit uppity, they need to be taken down a notch or two and shown who's running the place.. great men and thinkers like Ivan Yates and George Hook, Alan Kelly, Senator Tom Sheehan et al, and not forgetting our men of honor in the judiciary, who made this country and themselves and know what's best for us all..

This bursary is a complete waste of taxpayers money. We already know what works and has worked for decades in Denmark, Belgium and The Netherlands. It's stupid and arrogant to think we can do it better. Spend the next ten years copying our continental cousins and when we've caught up we can look at ways to innovate.

tomasrojo · 06-08-2015 04:53PM

buffalo wrote: »

That post... wow, it's terrifying really. I don't want to be a part of the RSA's future.

And I don't want them "educating" my children either.

Granolite · 06-08-2015 04:53PM

hardCopy wrote: »

This bursary is a complete waste of taxpayers money. We already know what works and has worked for decades in Denmark, Belgium and The Netherlands. It's stupid and arrogant to think we can do it better. Spend the next ten years copying our continental cousins and when we've caught up we can look at ways to innovate.

This isn't about reinventing the wheel, or achieving something better, its about keeping the existing wheel(s) in motion.

tomasrojo · 06-08-2015 05:02PM

At this stage, the RSA have given up all pretence of objectivity. They're actively counteracting active travel initiatives with FUD. They contradict the Department of Transport and pretend that they have been given top-secret legal advice when challenged. And their answer to absolutely everything is high-visibility clothing.

Is there anything that can be done?

Carawaystick · 06-08-2015 05:09PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is there anything that can be done?

Wear a High Viz Vest and a full face downhill helmet when you get your photo taken for a car driving license.

Keep repeating that you are a vunerable road user as a cyclist and you've taken the rsa's advice of being afraid to heart.

Follow the whole thing through to the "court in Strasbourg" and let us know how its going. On a Friday too, if thats not too much to ask.

eeeee · 06-08-2015 05:09PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Bursary/RSA_PhD_Bursary_Award_2015_Background_Information_for_Applicants.doc

That is extraordinarily grim reading. So they're going to spend €35,000pa over the course of a PHD to justify themselves? Jesus. Incredible. Also quite a large bias set out for a researcher thinking of taking them up on it. Grumble grumble grumble...

Undercover Elephant · 06-08-2015 07:13PM

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

If you think no pedestrian has ever been killed by a poor cyclist through collision you your head examined.

More people are killed by toasters than cyclists. It's absurd to treat theoretically possible deaths as being as big a problem as actual ones.

mattser · 06-08-2015 07:21PM

Rebellion wrote: »

i for one have never felt as vunerable as i do on a bicycle, srivers just dont seem to care

Sitting in my car at red light this morning in D.15, two cyclists ( not together ) sailed straight through the red. Both adults, one causing oncoming car to swerve.
I wonder did they feel vulnerable ?

tomasrojo · 06-08-2015 07:23PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

Wear a High Viz Vest and a full face downhill helmet when you get your photo taken for a car driving license.

Keep repeating that you are a vunerable road user as a cyclist and you've taken the rsa's advice of being afraid to heart.

Follow the whole thing through to the "court in Strasbourg" and let us know how its going. On a Friday too, if thats not too much to ask.

I'll take that as No, nothing to be done.

expectationlost · 07-08-2015 01:15AM

Irish Times usually put up their data either on the story or here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NoG-yfpxeqldGW2zIKW-H9pYnAkbvaIRlvL9D0bq8rQ/edit?pli=1#gid=0 don't seem to have this time, or said exactly which RSA analysis the data is from or ask https://twitter.com/irishtimesdata

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 01:16AM

They published my scrawl:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/interpreting-road-safety-statistics-1.2309171

expectationlost · 07-08-2015 01:19AM

Review of Cyclist Injuries 2012
http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_Injuries_2012.pdf
IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF CRASH DATA SHOWS 59% INCREASE
http://rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/IN-DEPTH-ANALYSIS-OF-CRASH-DATA-SHOWS-59-INCREASE-/

• 630 cyclists injured in 2012 a ten year high
• Three quarters of cyclists injured in 2012 were male, while over half were aged 25-49
• Cyclist injuries peaked during May to September, evening and morning rush-hour are the times when cyclists are most likely to be injured
• Over 8 in 10 cyclist injuries occurred in built up rather than in rural areas
• 200% increase in spinal trauma from cycling injuries in the National Spinal Centre
Road collision factbook 2012

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2012_Road_Collision_Facts.pdf

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/pssn/rsa/Database/RSA/Road%20Safety%20Statistics/Road%20Safety%20Statistics.asp

Seaswimmer · 07-08-2015 09:22AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

They published my scrawl:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/interpreting-road-safety-statistics-1.2309171

don't be so hard on yourself:)

Far better than a scrawl.

Well done..

galwaycyclist · 07-08-2015 09:38AM

expectationlost wrote: »

Review of Cyclist Injuries 2012
http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_Injuries_2012.pdf
IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF CRASH DATA SHOWS 59% INCREASE
http://rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/IN-DEPTH-ANALYSIS-OF-CRASH-DATA-SHOWS-59-INCREASE-/

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/pssn/rsa/Database/RSA/Road%20Safety%20Statistics/Road%20Safety%20Statistics.asp

See this is the big story that Carl O'Brien and the Irish Times managed to miss. The language in the RSA report strongly suggests that the RSA have a limited understanding of terms like "risk". "risk analysis" and how to analyse and classify crashes.

This kind of thing

Almost half of cyclists injured in 2012 were injured at
junctions, with T-junctions representing the most
dangerous type of junction.

T-junctions - to point out the obvious - are the most common type of junction. You can't call them the most "dangerous" unless you relate the number of crashes, and severity of outcomes, back to some measure of exposure.

Probably what they mean is that T-junctions were the junction type at which the largest proportion of junction collisions occurred.

The BIG story here is that the Governments chief advisers on road safety have little idea how to analyse or interpret crash data.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 09:40AM

I'm strongly of the opinion that the campaigning aspect and analytical aspect of the RSA need to be separated as a matter of urgency. Two separate agencies maybe.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 09:44AM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

T-junctions - to point out the obvious - are the most common type of junction. You can't call them the most "dangerous" unless you relate the number of crashes, and severity of outcomes, back to some measure of exposure.

Similarly, their claim that Dublin is especially dangerous for cycling is based on an over-representation of cyclists in Garda injury statistics (relative to the percentage of people cycling to work/school). However, "injuries" are overwhelmingly minor injuries. So, if their data say anything, it's that you're more likely to pick up a minor injury commuting by bike than by car or public transport. That's plausible, but it's a weird definition of "dangerous".

Jawgap · 07-08-2015 10:23AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm strongly of the opinion that the campaigning aspect and analytical aspect of the RSA need to be separated as a matter of urgency. Two separate agencies maybe.

Better if they (as in DoT, DoH & DEHLG) funded a 'transport research centre' at one of the universities.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 10:30AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Better if they (as in DoT, DoH & DEHLG) funded a 'transport research centre' at one of the universities.

Yes, sounds good. Provided independent and not running to press except with findings published in peer-reviewed journals.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 10:31AM

Was it all for this? Irish Times cycling deaths coverage ends with ranting, victim-blaming editorial
http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/07/was-it-all-for-this-irish-times-cycling-deaths-coverage-ends-with-ranting-victim-blaming-editorial/

Carawaystick · 07-08-2015 12:25PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

T-junctions - to point out the obvious - are the most common type of junction. You can't call them the most "dangerous" unless you relate the number of crashes, and severity of outcomes, back to some measure of exposure.

We must immediately start a campaign to ban T junctions. Start Small by making them wear helmets and painting the kerbs a fluorescent colour, but if the T junctions don't comply, well harsher measures must be taken...

The whole rsa document is appallingly bad stuff.
page 11

the rsa wrote:

According to the 2011 census report, 6% of those living in Dublin cycle to work (see Figure 16 appendix).
However, given that 17% of those injured on our roads in Dublin in 2012 were cyclists (figure 15
appendix), this indicates that cyclists in Dublin are over-represented in injury figures by almost a factor
of three. Cycling is therefore a particularly dangerous mode of travel in Dublin per cyclist population

They use a number of people who cycle to work and extrapolate to the number of cyclists.

They have not shown what proportion of cyclists are in Dublin: if you take the 6% number of Dublin's large pop and it's 1% nationally, then you'll have more than 17% of cyclists are in Dublin...

We have a number of 335 injuries reported to ( and recorded by) gardaí in Dublin for a year. We have no number of journeys taken, no comparison to other modes of transport, nothing but a bald statement that cycling in Dublin is particularly dangerous.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 12:37PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

They have not shown what proportion of cyclists are in Dublin: if you take the 6% number of Dublin's large pop and it's 1% nationally, then you'll have more than 17% of cyclists are in Dublin...

The 17% is the percentage of the overall Dublin injury reports that have a cyclist specified as the injured party in 2012, I think. So the measure is not entirely unreasonable (if cycling were as risky as other modes on average, you'd expect something closer to 6%), EXCEPT, as you say, they treat commuting journeys as pretty much all journeys (if that's not the case, 6% is too low as an estimate of journeys made by bike), and, once again, they bundle all injuries together. Minor injuries are much, much less of a concern than serious ones. I don't think they give details of the breakdown, but it's probably about 5% or so serious injuries. So really they're showing (all other assumption they make being valid) that cycling in Dublin had a relatively high risk of minor injury in 2012 (relative to other modes).

Which isn't the same as cycling in Dublin is "dangerous". If serious injuries or fatalities could be made to look unfavourable to cyclists by this sort of analysis, you can bet they would have mentioned it.

Carawaystick · 07-08-2015 12:50PM

Is it not 17% of cycling injuries in Ireland happen in Dublin, but we don't know how much cycling in Ireland happens in Dublin?

I agree is other modes of transport were as likely to result in minor injuries as cycling, it should be 6%

The huge upswing in 2012 seems likely to be caused by a change in garda policy/recording, but there's no mention of anything like that.

One whole flaw in this thing is there are no mention or notion of injuries not recorded by gardaí.
I'd say pedestrian injuries are completely underreported - falls and assaults requiring medical attention would be more than 335 per annum I'd guess.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 12:56PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is it not 17% of cycling injuries in Ireland happen in Dublin, but we don't know how much cycling in Ireland happens in Dublin?

17% of those injured on our roads in Dublin in 2012 were cyclists

.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 12:58PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

One whole flaw in this thing is there are no mention or notion of injuries not recorded by gardaí.
I'd say pedestrian injuries are completely underreported - falls and assaults requiring medical attention would be more than 335 per annum I'd guess.

Yeah, I think these are all road traffic collisions. I don't think simple falls by either cyclists or pedestrians would be included.

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 01:06PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

The huge upswing in 2012 seems likely to be caused by a change in garda policy/recording, but there's no mention of anything like that.

Yes, the 17% figure is from 2012, isn't it? So easily the most unfavourable year, but serious injuries in line with previous high values. The minor injury value is a very big jump though.

Not sure what happened. If it's a statistical artefact, it would be extraordinary that it got through the review process and was allowed to be highlighted like this as a metric of declining safety in cycling, but stranger things have happened.

"High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners"

Comments