Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

12357

Comments

  • #122
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


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

    This page seems to say the raw data can be downloaded as as px file. Has anyone managed to do that?


  • #123
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


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

    The Gardai showed no interest when I attempted to report a serious accident a few years ago as no motor vehicle was involved (the local authority did eventually accept responsibility and their insurers settled up due to the appalling state of the road which caused the accident). I am pretty sure that accident did not make its way into any official road accident stats)


  • #124
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I seen the article and tweeted the irish times to see has Carl O'Brien any knowledge or background in statistics or were his misleading BS accidental, no response as of yet.
    Subpopulus wrote: »
    I'm surprised that in 2015 we still have to have this argument. Almost every city that has increased the amount of cyclists on its streets and lowered the injury rates has done so by building segregated infrastructure. Countries that advocated the vehicular cycling approach (no segregated paths/lanes; cycling with motor traffic) such as the UK and US have extremely low levels of cycling, and high injury rates. Thirty years of promoting vehicular cycling in these countries has led to no measurable improvement in the safety of cycling.
    Quite misleading in that both countries, and ourselves could be included, promote motorised vehicular traffic only at the expense of all other road users, particularly pedestrians but also cyclists. Nowt to do with segregation but more to do with wilful neglect.
    buffalo wrote: »
    I think the IT is the only decent national paper in the country, but their track record on cycling rivals the Indo's coverage at times. Call me a cynic, but this is how the editorial sounded to me...

    I would have agreed with you a few years ago but they are racing the indo to the top of the red top trashpile. Using nicer language and be less crass, does not make either less rubbish. The times lost my respect completely when they lost their journalistic backbone, but the decline had already begun, I had just fooled myself. Sunday Business post, while not a paper I read cover to cover, may be the last self respecting paper but as I said, I am not as well versed in all areas they cover so could be wrong.
    LaGlisse wrote: »
    Used to cycle to work myself on a national road but a few close calls just put paid to that, too much distracted/ignorant driving
    Which is the reaction of the RSA, the government and occasionally the Gardai. Some drivers are woeful but instead of taking them to task or at least putting a fear of enforcement and reasonable punishments, they turn to the typical victim blaming BS. If I do not wear a helmet or hi vis, this does not make the bus driver "teaching" me a lesson, any more acceptable, the same way me taking a baseball bat to a person smoking in the workplace would not be acceptable. But yet this is often a point of the defence in such cases.
    gadetra wrote: »
    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...
    Wish I'd applied, would like more experience with stats, nice way to get qualified and maybe change their opinion from the inside (if thats what the numbers suggest, no bias, obviously).


  • #125
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    This page seems to say the raw data can be downloaded as as px file. Has anyone managed to do that?
    I just tried it now. You need to choose a table (ROA...), select whatever you want from the parameters displayed (I selected all options for every parameter to get the complete database for the table I had chosen), and then click 'Show table'.
    The resulting table can then be downloaded not only as .px but also as .csv, .xls etc.


  • #126
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,473 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    This page seems to say the raw data can be downloaded as as px file. Has anyone managed to do that?

    px or csv format is in the download file, once you've selected categories

    PX Axis software is here http://www.scb.se/sv_/PC-Axis/Programs/PC-Axis/PC-Axis-2008/

    doesn't seem to be ready raw data to recreate the graphs with serious and minor injuries of pedal users


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    magicbastarder pointed this out on the Dangerization thread
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96544115&postcount=43
    Throughout the 1990s, an average of 28 cyclists lost their lives on Irish roads annually (with 46 lost in 1990 alone); for the period 2000-2010, the average was just over 12, and it has been in single digits for all but one of the past five years. Therefore, fatality numbers are declining quite steadily and, crucially, the decline occurs in the context of rising numbers of (adult) cyclists on the roads in recent years, particularly in Dublin.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/we-need-to-tackle-the-real-dangers-facing-cyclists-on-the-roads-1.2310268

    Good to have it pointed out that the narrative that cyclists deaths are on the rise is not supported by the numbers as they stand.

    (Some other good points in there too.)


  • #128
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,246 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    another comment in that article was the massive fall in numbers in kids cycling to school; no analysis on how that may have affected the fall in cyclist fatalities.


  • #129
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    That's a very good point. The lack of independent travel among the very young and very old probably makes our road figures look a lot better generally, and allows us to present our roads as being as safe as or safer than the European average. Similarly, the Dutch road safety record looks pretty average (depending on what metric you use), but it's been achieved while maintaining a very laudable level of independent travel by the vulnerable.

    However, the rise in cycling fatalities between 2013 and 2014 and the rise in cycling injuries between 2011 and 2012 are unrelated to changes in independent travel by the vulnerable. It's definitely a major and hidden problem with our roads though.


  • #130
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Another cyclist death
    http://connachttribune.ie/man-injured-in-kinvara-crash-dies-in-hospital/


  • #131
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    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.

    I would have to agree.

    I'm no statistician, but I have seen a few instances of where RSA officials display a very poor grasp of statistical principals.

    snubbleste wrote: »
    Another cyclist death
    http://connachttribune.ie/man-injured-in-kinvara-crash-dies-in-hospital/

    That's an awful road for driving, never mind cycling.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    My mind went back to the inept (or deliberately misleading) report that is the basis of this thread today, because I read this article:
    “Bicycle Traffic Deaths Soar; California Leads Nation,” screams the Los Angeles Times headline from Oct. 27, 2014. The lead includes the gleefully macabre fact that “between 2010 and 2012, U.S. bicyclist deaths increased by 16%.”

    Odd thing is, the 2012 stat is macabre only in relation to 2010, which had the lowest number of cycling fatalities ever recorded. (Of course, the 2010 figure isn’t even mentioned.)
    http://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2015/11/04/rick-vosper-haunted-ghosts-dead-cyclists?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.VjqXlTZOfDs

    Really rather reminiscent of the way the stats were treated in the RSA report.

    (Will put a link to that article in the "dangerization" thread.)


  • #133
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The total fatalities fell in the end, from twelve in 2014 to nine in 2015.
    http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

    It's fairly meaningless to look for a signal in such small numbers over such small time frames, but it seems an appropriate way to round off the thread, begun back in August when the RSA started a national conversation, re-affirming that cycling is dangerous and getting more dangerous, based on what might well be statistical noise.


  • #134
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Also, in contrast to the RSA's claim back in August that cycling in Dublin was especially dangerous, the majority of cycling deaths in 2015 were, as usual, on rural roads.

    (The RSA's claim was down to a large number of minor injuries in Dublin in 2012.)


  • #135
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    The total fatalities fell in the end, from twelve in 2014 to nine in 2015.
    http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

    It's fairly meaningless to look for a signal in such small numbers over such small time frames, but it seems an appropriate way to round off the thread, begun back in August when the RSA started a national conversation, re-affirming that cycling is dangerous and getting more dangerous, based on what might well be statistical noise.

    Just looking at graphic in your link(and basing commentary on nothing else) cycling has gone from 45(I nearly fell off chair) deaths in 1990 to 10ish now; that is a spectacular drop.

    Do we know why this has happened? The number of cyclist has surely increased in the interim(I know CI number has increased a lot).

    Is there any breakdown on who the cyclist being killed in 1990 were? Rural/urban, day/night, adult/child etc etc


  • #136
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Some of the drop between the late 90s and about 2007 would be down to a sharp decline in numbers cycling as a mode of transport, and the almost complete disappearance of children cycling to school. But the decline has continued despite an increase in cycling from about 2008 or so.

    I'm not sure the very young or the very old have returned to cycling though. I don't think so.

    The removal of 5+-axle HGVs from Dublin city centre brought Dublin down a lot, as did the disappearance of a lot of construction traffic during the crash. Single fatality last year, which is fairly typical now, even with economic growth returning.

    The demographic breakdown in the 90s is not something I know. You could ask below the article at irishcycle.com.


  • #137
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I think there has been a significant decrease in road deaths across the board. Driving has improved. Cars have improved. Roads have also improved with much more traffic now on motorways. There are probably a lot fewer inclined to drink and drive. Cyclists are taking action to reduce risks including having much better lighting than was available back in 2000.

    One thing is for certain, despite what some will try to make out, cycling is actually a relatively safe activity.


  • #138
    duskyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭duskyjoe


    The stats will be healthy this winter.......the amount of clowns rising around (and I can only speak for the metropolis of Dublin ) in the dark with no lights or high vis is just gob smacking. For me the biggest safety improvement is visibility. I am lit up like a light house front and back......heap I may p!ss a few motorists off but they see me.....Nuff said.


  • #139
    Mercian Pro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭Mercian Pro


    While accepting the point that it is dangerous to read too much into such a thankfully small numbers of fatal accidents, 3 of the 9 cyclist fatalities in 2015 were described as single vehicle crashes, ie. there was no car, truck, bus etc involved. While much has been written here and elsewhere about the dangers of mixing bikes and cars, I have seen very little commentary on accidents only involving bikes. There seem to be details of only one of the three and this involved a 71 year old man out on a group training spin in West Cork. Does anyone have any information on the other two?


  • #140
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,047 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    There is a misnomer with regards to lights and bicycles. Whilst there is no doubt that having lights make a difference, and there is no excuse for not having them, lack of them is being used as somehow making the cyclist invisible.

    True for non-urban environment, where street lighting may be lacking, but in a city centre there is simply no way that a motorist cannot see a cyclist. What they really should be saying is that in the time that they gave in checking they did not see the cyclist. Had they spent more time and paid closer attention they would have spotted the moving object.

    In urban environments we are awash with light, and very few surfaces have the ability to absorb the entirety of the light so will always reflect some of it. It is the same with people in daylight who exclaim they simply didn't see the cyclists, and the conversation quickly accepts this premise and moves onto Hi-vis and helmets. Again, what they really mean is that they took insufficient time to ensure that they were safe to take the action they intended and that in hindsight, had they spent a little more time and concentration rather that hurrying they would have seen the cyclist.


  • #141
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    True for non-urban environment, where street lighting may be lacking, but in a city centre there is simply no way that a motorist cannot see a cyclist. What they really should be saying is that in the time that they gave in checking they did not see the cyclist. Had they spent more time and paid closer attention they would have spotted the moving object.

    Have you ever driven a car in an urban area at night? It's incredibly difficult to see unlit cyclists, particularly if the weather is bad.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,307 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    but in a city centre there is simply no way that a motorist cannot see a cyclist. What they really should be saying is that in the time that they gave in checking they did not see the cyclist. Had they spent more time and paid closer attention they would have spotted the moving object.

    There's no way I would take that for granted, especially on these dark wet mornings where visibility is quite poor even with street lighting... I'd always have a good strong(800lumen) light on the front of the bike...


  • #143
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,047 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Have you ever driven a car in an urban area at night? It's incredibly difficult to see unlit cyclists, particularly if the weather is bad.

    Yes, and whilst it is difficult it is far from impossible. If the weather/light conditions are bad then it beholds each of us to take additional care. Cyclists should put lights, working and useful lights, but motorists must drive with the view that the possibility exists that other road users are present and their ability to gauge distance etc is diminished by the conditions. Motorists always seem to be surprised when a bike appears "out of nowhere". The cyclist of course came from exactly the same place that the previous traffic came from.

    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    There's no way I would take that for granted, especially on these dark wet mornings where visibility is quite poor even with street lighting... I'd always have a good strong(800lumen) light on the front of the bike...

    I clearly said that lights should be used and there is no excuse for not using them. I am saying that the other end of the arguement is also false.

    For example, I heard a colleague this morning bemoaning the number of cyclists on the road with no lights. I asked them how many and they dozens. WHen I queried how they could count them if they couldn't see them they said they could see them but they should have been brighter. They didn't seem to acknowledge that therefore the problem was more about degrees rather than an absolute.


  • #144
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Can't completely agree with you Leroy. Yesterday evening in Dublin City I was crossing the road - as a cyclist myself I always watch out for other ones - particularly at this junction (the old City Arts Centre opposite the IFSC) - at about 6pm. No cars coming so I started walking across and only at the last minute saw the cyclist - all dressed in black with not a single light and this was in a well lit area after dark. Now I was at walking speed and almost missed him coming - how much harder for a motorist?


  • #145
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yes, and whilst it is difficult it is far from impossible. If the weather/light conditions are bad then it beholds each of us to take additional care. Cyclists should put lights, working and useful lights, but motorists must drive with the view that the possibility exists that other road users are present and their ability to gauge distance etc is diminished by the conditions. Motorists always seem to be surprised when a bike appears "out of nowhere". The cyclist of course came from exactly the same place that the previous traffic came from.




    I clearly said that lights should be used and there is no excuse for not using them. I am saying that the other end of the arguement is also false.

    For example, I heard a colleague this morning bemoaning the number of cyclists on the road with no lights. I asked them how many and they dozens. WHen I queried how they could count them if they couldn't see them they said they could see them but they should have been brighter. They didn't seem to acknowledge that therefore the problem was more about degrees rather than an absolute.

    Motorists see what they are looking for, it's not a simple matter of lights/visibility all the time.

    I have a study somewhere on a comparison of accident rates at T junction involving motorcycle state police in one of the US states pre/post introduction of day light front light; there was no difference.

    How often has that happened you at a T junction, that a motorists looks in your direction but pulls out anyway? Sometimes motorist is being a pr1ck, a lot of the time you don't register in the traffic his is looking for.


  • #146
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,047 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Orion wrote: »
    Can't completely agree with you Leroy. Yesterday evening in Dublin City I was crossing the road - as a cyclist myself I always watch out for other ones - particularly at this junction (the old City Arts Centre opposite the IFSC) - at about 6pm. No cars coming so I started walking across and only at the last minute saw the cyclist - all dressed in black with not a single light and this was in a well lit area after dark. Now I was at walking speed and almost missed him coming - how much harder for a motorist?

    But that higlights the point I am trying to make.

    You said yourself, there was no cars coming so you started to cross. Your main concern is that of vehicular traffic, understandably, and second is cyclists. No doubt the cyclist was at fault, I am not trying to say otherwise, but he was at no time invisible. Had you looked more closely you would have seen him earlier.

    Given that cyclists by their very nature are harder to spot, but you say yourself the the area is well lit, how can cyclists see pedestrians. How can cars see pedestrians? Last time I looked the vast majority of pedestrians have no lights yet I can still see them walking and its not because of my lights but because of the street lights and the movement coupled with my expectation.


  • #147
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I'm a big fan of strong, clear lights, correctly adjusted.

    I have to say, while acknowledging that I don't drive all that much, I have no trouble seeing unlit cyclists at night in areas with good street lighting when weather conditions are good. But even in the city centre, not all streets have good lighting.

    Actually, I was driving at night in one of our recent deluges through Newcastle and other small towns on the outskirts of Dublin. I saw the pedestrians ok (definitely harder than usual, but I was driving slowly), but I couldn't see road markings at all. Getting into lane was almost impossible. (Last bit off-topic, sorry.)


  • #148
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    True for non-urban environment, where street lighting may be lacking, but in a city centre there is simply no way that a motorist cannot see a cyclist.


    Speaking as a motorist AND a cyclist AND a pedestrian, that statement is bull****. With all due respect.

    I am frequently terrified at how close I have come to hitting inadequately illuminated cyclists in the dark. Even when they have lights on. They just DON'T stand out in many situations. Especially if they are coming along the outside of a line of stationary traffic (a frequent occurrence in urban environments) and encroaching into the lane of oncoming traffic. (another frequent occurrence).

    I don't know what the technical term is but if they are not illuminated by reflective clothing they are effectively "drowned out" by the larger lights of the other traffic. The tiddly little bicycle light just does not stand out from its surroundings.

    I am not a great fan of making everything compulsory; I think ideas gain much more entrenched acceptance if people believe they came up with them themselves. But I think a cyclist who takes to the road in the dark without a hi-viz is an idiot. Whether of the urban or village variety.

    Take it from a motorist who loves cycling and wishes there was more of it.


  • #149
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    There is a misnomer with regards to lights and bicycles. Whilst there is no doubt that having lights make a difference, and there is no excuse for not having them, lack of them is being used as somehow making the cyclist invisible.

    True for non-urban environment, where street lighting may be lacking, but in a city centre there is simply no way that a motorist cannot see a cyclist. What they really should be saying is that in the time that they gave in checking they did not see the cyclist. Had they spent more time and paid closer attention they would have spotted the moving object.
    .......

    As you point out - too many driving around in lala land

    Plenty of things roaming in the countryside have no tail or headlights ( 'cept rudolph of course )

    For example even small-ish deer are just the right height to come through the windscreen.

    Z7cgU90.jpg


  • #150
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    I don't know what the technical term is but if they are not illuminated by reflective clothing they are effectively "drowned out" by the larger lights of the other traffic. The tiddly little bicycle light just does not stand out from its surroundings.

    I am not a great fan of making everything compulsory; I think ideas gain much more entrenched acceptance if people believe they came up with them themselves. But I think a cyclist who takes to the road in the dark without a hi-viz is an idiot. Whether of the urban or village variety.

    The conversation has been had here many times before, but the solution to "tiddly little bicycle lights" isn't high-viz vests (which are an inadequate alternative to, or supplement for, poor lights) but proper, decent bicycle lights.

    Minimum vehicle lighting standards for bike lights would go a long way to addressing this but, considering the existing vehicle lighting regulations are barely enforced, I wouldn't hold out hope of this happening any time soon.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,047 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Snickers Man, you say yourself that these are a frequent occurence yet you are still 'surprised' each time?

    People cycle bikes. Bikes are not cars and do not have the same lighting set up as cars. But there is no need.

    I am not argueing against the need for lights, the opposite in fact. But I am saying that lights or no lights, the motorist still has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that they are aware of their surroundings. If you know, based on your examples, that an 'unseen' danger may be there then you drive appropriately. Much like driving through flood waters. Sure, the puddle may not be too deep but its better to err on the side of caution.

    AS a road user, including cyclists, we each take the responsibility to drive in such a way as to avoid harm to other road users. In the case of a cyclist, that pretty much means anything goes as they can do little real harm to anyone. A motorist is different story. Not paying attention, not taking adequate care, can and does lead to serious injuries and death of themselves and others.

    I saw a car last night driving with no lights. Other cars were flashing them. Funny thing is that despite the absence of even the smallest of blinky lights, I was still aware of them due to the street lighting and other vehicles providing a reflection. The car didn't simply disappear.


Advertisement