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"

12346

Comments

  • #152
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    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.

    There's a hi-viz thread for this sort of discussion, but Dublin Bikes uses mostly don't wear hi-viz (and don't have a very good rear light either), and they have a very good safety record (one fatality, no serious injuries in about 12 million journeys).

    So it can't be all that risky, in the city centre anyway.


  • #153
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    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.

    Clearly also the driver of the car could see well enough in the street lights not to realise that their own lights were not on.


  • #154
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    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.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93376592&postcount=61

    Tiddly, not what my light meter says


  • #155
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Snickers Man, you say yourself that these are a frequent occurence yet you are still 'surprised' each time?

    I didn't use the word "surprised" at all. I said "terrified". I don't actually WANT to hit a cyclist. I just wish they'd make it easier for me to see them when I'm driving. What is so terrible about that?
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    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.

    EXACTLY!!! It's the motorist's fault if he/she totals a cyclist even if the cyclist was behaving in a risky fashion. Overtaking in the dark and wet without making every effort to be seen. Or even undertaking in the dark and wet while a motorist is making a right turn across slow-moving traffic (the most frequent cause of heart-in-mouth moments for me).

    I have never hit a cyclist (yet) but I think they (we) have a duty of basic common courtesy if nothing else to make it easier for motorists to ensure their (our) safety. It's stressful enough driving on dark wet slippery roads without having to second-guess the actions of an irresponsible muppet who thinks the sole duty of care lies with everybody else.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    If you know, based on your examples, that an 'unseen' danger may be there then you drive appropriately.

    Well of course. But don't you think that argument cuts both ways? I'm a cyclist: If motorists say that they often have difficulty seeing cyclists in the dark then what can I do within reason to make it easier for other road users to ensure MY safety?

    As I have already said I don't WANT to hit any cyclists. Dammit I AM a frequent cyclist.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    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.

    Well yes. But that's MY argument. And again, one that cuts both ways.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    In the case of a cyclist, that pretty much means anything goes as they can do little real harm to anyone.

    :eek:

    (There's our problem right there) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    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.

    You get a completely different perspective as a motorist, a cyclist and a pedestrian. For various reasons. Yes. I usually spot unlit cyclists when I am walking. Or even cycling. It's harder to spot them as a motorist for a variety of reasons. (Greater speed, loss of some perception from being cocooned inside a car, glare off the windscreen, probably some other factors that I can't think of)

    Why do you have such difficulty believing someone who says in good faith that cyclists can be very hard to see and that they can take REASONABLE steps to improve that?

    I even got my eyes tested (they're fine) to see if it was just me. It isn't.


  • #156
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,275 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    There is no such thing as undertaking on a bike, unless you're towing a coffin.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    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.

    I don't at all suggest that hi-viz are an alternative to lights, and the brighter the lights the better, of course.

    I am just stating my opinion as a driver who, as a frequent cyclist, is aware of the challenges faced by cyclists that wearing a high viz is a very good idea.

    I can't understand the hostility to it. Making bike helmets compulsory is a different thing. I would not be in favour of that because a) it has no effect on the behaviour of other road users and b) it would kill schemes like Dublin Bikes (best 20 euro I ever spent) stone dead if you had to carry a helmet around with you all day.

    But hi-viz bibs can be rolled up small enough to fit in a pocket or a purse. It's a REASONABLE step to take to make it easier for other road users to improve your safety.

    Why the hostility?


  • #158
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But hi-viz bibs can be rolled up small enough to fit in a pocket or a purse. It's a REASONABLE step to take to make it easier for other road users to improve your safety.

    Why the hostility?

    Because they are a poor substitute for good lights and are often completely ineffective.


  • #159
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Why the hostility?

    Because it's a red herring that distracts from the real issue of absent or inadequate bike lights. A high-viz vest is a very, very poor substitute. Their promotion by the likes of the RSA is only encouraging a false sense of security.


  • #160
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,275 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    But hi-viz bibs can be rolled up small enough to fit in a pocket or a purse. It's a REASONABLE step to take to make it easier for other road users to improve your safety.

    Why the hostility?
    CramCycle wrote: »
    Because they are a poor substitute for good lights and are often completely ineffective.
    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Because it's a red herring that distracts from the real issue of absent or inadequate bike lights. A high-viz vest is a very, very poor substitute. Their promotion by the likes of the RSA is only encouraging a false sense of security.

    Also, people don't like being told what to do. For instance, I might think it's completely reasonable that all cars sold in Ireland should be painted black to allow vulnerable road users to stand out more. This is a completely reasonable measure that would be cheap to implement. What's not to like?

    Being told what colour your clothes/car must be is irritating.


  • #161
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Lumen wrote: »
    Also, people don't like being told what to do. For instance, I might think it's completely reasonable that all cars sold in Ireland should be painted black to allow vulnerable road users to stand out more. This is a completely reasonable measure that would be cheap to implement. What's not to like?

    It would also free up alot of time for the fashion police who would have to stop hunting down people in white cars.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,822 ✭✭✭cython


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    I don't at all suggest that hi-viz are an alternative to lights, and the brighter the lights the better, of course.

    I am just stating my opinion as a driver who, as a frequent cyclist, is aware of the challenges faced by cyclists that wearing a high viz is a very good idea.

    I can't understand the hostility to it. Making bike helmets compulsory is a different thing. I would not be in favour of that because a) it has no effect on the behaviour of other road users and b) it would kill schemes like Dublin Bikes (best 20 euro I ever spent) stone dead if you had to carry a helmet around with you all day.

    But hi-viz bibs can be rolled up small enough to fit in a pocket or a purse. It's a REASONABLE step to take to make it easier for other road users to improve your safety.

    Why the hostility?

    Actually there is a study that is quoted here quite often in the helmets megathread which found that cyclists wearing helmets actually got less clearance when overtaken than those without, with the apparent mindset being that there was less risk in the close pass when a helmet was worn. Utterly fallacious reasoning really, but because of a message being pushed, some people have an inflated sense of the protection provided by a helmet. Apologies to the mods for going a bit OT, and I'm not trying to bring helmets in here, but just wanted to point out that a message rather than evidence can impact where not expected.


  • #163
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    When cycling safety gets discussed it seems almost inevitable that the usual range of opinions get trotted out as indisputable fact for the umpteenth time. Some of the more persistent ones are: hi-viz clothing is essential, helmets are essential, bike lights are rubbish, cyclists are a danger to no-one but themselves, motorists are a scourge, cyclists get the least respect of all road users.

    None of those is true, in my opinion. As for that last one in particular, I've been through the poxy junction under the LUAS bridge at Dundrum many times in both a car and on a bike. It's always a pain in the arse. Fairly recently though I crossed there as a pedestrian with my daughter, and discovered the utter misery that it is to be a pedestrian at a junction designed primarily to accommodate large numbers of vehicles. When that junction was "designed", pedestrians were clearly an irritation at best, it seems to have been put together with a mindset of "pedestrians, just fcuk off and come back in a car, until then you shall not pass". Next time I'm stuck at those lights on my bike or in the car and feel the self pity take hold I'm going to try to remember to get over myself and instead offer moral support to the people stood waiting through several cycles of lights for a green pedestrian light.

    Anyway, back to cycling safety, as anyone that cycles regularly knows, it's safe. As far as I am concerned, what dangers exist arise largely from moronic, obnoxious, or downright aggressive behaviour by people on foot, people on bikes, and people in or on motor vehicles. There are certainly some roads and junctions which introduce additional risks unnecessarily, but take the humans out of the picture altogether and almost all of the dangers disappear.

    There is no simple "solution" to road safety, what it takes is for us all to take our various chips off our shoulders and just cooperate. And basically stop being dicks to each other. *group hug*


  • #164
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Specifically on the topic of kids and cycling to school, my daughter's primary school is a small school of less than 200 kids. On a good day roughly about 6 kids cycle there, that's up from about 3 last year. I believe that a couple of teachers may have started cycling to the school this year too. Small numbers clearly, but small increases seem huge at that level, the optimist in me hopes that the increase will motivate others.

    The point that I wanted to make though is that the immediate vicinity of the school is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous for pedestrians and very young cyclists in particular. It is made that way by the parents who park their cars on the footpath, often blocking it completely so that pedestrians and small kids on bikes have to take to the road. It's a twisty road with several blind bends, it's also basically a country road, the kind of road that drivers with a heavy right foot like - that's a bad combination.

    I've had a few parents in the school express shock that I commute by bike in Dublin. "Isn't it really really dangerous?", they inevitably ask. "No", I say, though more than once I've been tempted to add "except when people act the complete bollix. Where did you park your car today, by the way?".

    In short, if we want the roads to be a safer place, we have to start with ourselves and our own behaviour. I'm not a fan of the school of thought that says you are either part of the problem or part of the solution, but when it comes to road safety I think it fits.


  • #165
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,302 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    In this guys case a cycle helmet was essential after he wiped out on patch of oil on the road:

    2q827w5.jpg



    Source:www.facebook.com/HowthCyclingClub


  • #166
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    doozerie wrote: »
    I've had a few parents in the school express shock that I commute by bike in Dublin. "Isn't it really really dangerous?", they inevitably ask. "No", I say, though more than once I've been tempted to add "except when people act the complete bollix. Where did you park your car today, by the way?".
    I do occasionally get this too, and in addition I get the "I hope you wear a helmet/hi-viz/don't break red lights". Imagine if someone mentioned to me that they'd driven somewhere and I said "I hope you didn't park on the footpath when you got there."


    Crossing under the Luas bridge at Dundrum on foot: if you're heading from Taney Road to Churchtown Road or vice versa, use the Luas bridge instead. Plenty of people do; you can see a "desire line" worn in the grass leading to the bridge on the Churchtown Road side.


  • #167
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    doozerie wrote: »
    Next time I'm stuck at those lights on my bike or in the car and feel the self pity take hold I'm going to try to remember to get over myself and instead offer moral support to the people stood waiting through several cycles of lights for a green pedestrian light.

    Someone pointed out recently that there are no pedestrian crossings on Chesterfield Avenue in the Phoenix Park. I had never realised this - probably because I spend so little time in the park as a pedestrian.

    But if pedestrians aren't given priority in a park, what hope is there for the rest of the city/country?


  • #168
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Plenty of people do; you can see a "desire line" worn in the grass leading to the bridge on the Churchtown Road side.
    I can't understand the thinking of the path they actually laid down over the "desire path". I do wonder about the planners and then those who do the job who don't have the idea or the system to report the stupidity of it.
    buffalo wrote: »
    But if pedestrians aren't given priority in a park, what hope is there for the rest of the city/country?
    In Dublin, there are only a few places where peds have priority (outside of ped zones). I was crossing the road near my house at a junction. 1.5 cyles of the lights for the ped light to turn green, and then another 2 for the second leg of the junction crossing.

    Its beyond a joke the complete lack of respect for pedestrians at all levels in Irish Society.


  • #169
    JBokeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭JBokeh


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    In this guys case a cycle helmet was essential after he wiped out on patch of oil on the road:

    Busted helmet



    Source:www.facebook.com/HowthCyclingClub

    :eek::eek: How bad was the rest of him? Did he pick him self up or was he knocked out? I can't click the link because it is blocked here. I've totalled a few helmets in my time, but i've never seen the likes of that.


  • #170
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    buffalo wrote: »
    Someone pointed out recently that there are no pedestrian crossings on Chesterfield Avenue in the Phoenix Park. I had never realised this - probably because I spend so little time in the park as a pedestrian.

    But if pedestrians aren't given priority in a park, what hope is there for the rest of the city/country?
    Pedestrians have priority at all the junctions.
    SI 182/1997 S8(3) wrote:

    (3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way ... to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.

    It's just routinely ignored at all junctions by all motorists...


  • #171
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Pedestrians have priority at all the junctions.

    It's just routinely ignored at all junctions by all motorists...

    That's a nice rule, but there's a stretch of road between the two roundabouts that's probably about 2km long. If I arrive at the middle of it, and need to cross to the other side, I shouldn't have to walk 1km to the roundabout junction, cross, and then walk the 1km return to the opposite point.

    I'm probably in the Park for a nice walk anyway, but still...


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    In this guys case a cycle helmet was essential after he wiped out on patch of oil on the road:

    2q827w5.jpg



    Source:www.facebook.com/HowthCyclingClub

    You’ll be wanting this thread. I’d brace yourself before posting that there though, I’d suggest a read through the thread itself first.


  • #173
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,302 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    JBokeh wrote: »
    :eek::eek: How bad was the rest of him? Did he pick him self up or was he knocked out? I can't click the link because it is blocked here. I've totalled a few helmets in my time, but i've never seen the likes of that.

    Bit of road rash and some scrapes and bruises, looks like the helmet got the worst of it...


  • #174
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Crossing under the Luas bridge at Dundrum on foot: if you're heading from Taney Road to Churchtown Road or vice versa, use the Luas bridge instead. Plenty of people do; you can see a "desire line" worn in the grass leading to the bridge on the Churchtown Road side.

    I learned of that route only recently, I'm curious to try it just for the views from the bridge if nothing else. On the recent occasions though I was crossing the other way, from the village side to the city side, and back again. "Crossing" seems like too small a word though, "expedition" seems more appropriate, with a hint of "suicidal" tagged at the front.

    I was actually heading into Joe Daly's bike shop so not only was I an affront to the junction design as a "mere" pedestrian, the journey was to buy a new bike for my daughter and therefore promoting cycling amongst the next generation. In the circumstances I was essentially pissing on the idealised image of motorised vehicle harmony that presumably motivated the appalling (for pedestrians more than anyone) junction layout and design - I picture the gnashing of teeth and the throwing of pencils/crayons on the ground in some some road design engineering office somewhere.


  • #175
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Bit of road rash and some scrapes and bruises, looks like the helmet got the worst of it...

    It should have had a helmet of its own. It's an untapped market.


  • #176
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Pedestrians have priority at all the junctions.

    It's just routinely ignored at all junctions by all motorists...
    They don't have right of way though. The piece you quoted says they have only once they have commenced to cross. They should yield to oncoming vehicles before they start to cross though (at least that's always been my understanding)


  • #177
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    buffalo wrote: »
    That's a nice rule, but there's a stretch of road between the two roundabouts that's probably about 2km long. If I arrive at the middle of it, and need to cross to the other side, I shouldn't have to walk 1km to the roundabout junction, cross, and then walk the 1km return to the opposite point.

    I'm probably in the Park for a nice walk anyway, but still...

    If you arrive at the road from another road, it is a junction and by definition you have right of way when crossing...

    The longest stretch with no junctions in the Park seems to be the Acres road


  • #178
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    If you arrive at the road from another road, it is a junction and by definition you have right of way when crossing...

    The longest stretch with no junctions in the Park seems to be the Acres road

    Surprisingly, I can arrive at the road from a footpath as a pedestrian. :)


  • #179
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    This is very standard helmet mega-thread stuff.


  • #180
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    This is very standard helmet mega-thread stuff.

    And over there it's gone. If anyone would like to continue the discussion of how valuable or not helmets are here's the helmet megathread:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057030568


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Because they [hi-viz] are a poor substitute for good lights and are often completely ineffective.
    Jep Gambardella wrote:
    Because it's a red herring that distracts from the real issue of absent or inadequate bike lights. A high-viz vest is a very, very poor substitute.

    Two Fearless Foes of straw men here!

    I specifically said that a hi-viz was not a "substitute" for adequate lighting, just that it is a very useful complement to a good light.

    The notion that paying attention to one safety concern renders all others irrelevant because they are "substitutes" is absurd. Does driving while wearing a safety belt preclude you from checking the tread on your tyres for example? Or would you object to wearing a seat belt because it "detracts from the real issue" of ensuring your brakes are working properly?
    Lumen wrote:
    Also, people don't like being told what to do.

    Fair point. But sometimes you just have to suck up being told what to do in the public interest. Like stopping at red lights; being aware of the different light sequences for cyclists and motorists travelling in the same direction, especially when there are dedicated cycle lanes like along the canal in Dublin.

    In any case, I am not actually calling for compulsory wearing of a hi-viz in the dark while cycling, just advising that it is a good idea.


Advertisement