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

Has ignoring red lights gotten a lot worse?

1101113151624

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    fritzelly wrote: »
    For example - worry more about cars and stop hassling cyclists
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109753776&postcount=333
    It absolutely doesn't intimate that cyclists breaking red lights 'does no harm'. That post makes no comment at all about the level of harm arising from either cyclists or cars.


    Please be careful making allegations like that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    fritzelly wrote: »
    If a cyclist rams into me (as a pedestrian) breaking a light and I end up covered up bruises whats the difference? Probably won't kill me but its gonna hurt like a b*tch with pretty much zero recourse
    To be blunt, the difference is indeed that it won't kill you. Motorists kill > 40 pedestrians each year. It is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian here. So that's a pretty significant difference.


    Yes, you could end up hurt, or badly hurt by a cyclist breaking a red light. You could end up with no recourse, though it is not necessarily so. You could also end up hurt by a pedestrian. Or by a dog. Or by a vending machine (they kill more people than cyclists apparently.


    But if you want to save lives on the road, you need to focus on motorists. Anything else is a distraction - a potentially dangerous distraction away from reducing the death toll on the road.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Your post is a great example of statisticians or researchers asking the wrong question. Why is 'more likely to' of the slightest relevance? Who cares about who is more likely to break lights? Unless this is some kind of reputational urinating competition, it is entirely irrelevant to look at who is 'more likely to' break lights.



    The real issue is 'who IS breaking lights', and the answer to that is clearly given in the article, that 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles.



    If you have any real concern about road safety, you would give a considerable safety weighting to the multi-tonne vehicles that travel at 20-150 kmph over the 10kg vehicles that go at 10-20 kpmh.


    And if you do what that that reputational urination competition, bring it on. Let's look closely at the RSA data showing that 60-82% of motorists break speed limits, depending on what year you choose. Let's look at the Aviva survey showing that Irish drivers are the 2nd worst in Europe for checking social media at the wheel. Maybe then we'll start seeing who actually complies with traffic law.




    Absolute nonsense.

    Sorry if I debunked the statistics you presented and that has upset you.

    If 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles, but also 88% of journeys were motor vehicles, then the statistic is meaningless. Cyclists are equally as bad as motor vehicles as I have shown. I know that doesn't fit with your narrative of the poor oppressed cyclist, but tough, them's the facts.

    As for the comparison between vehicles of different size and speed, the statistics appear to indicate that behaviour isn't any different in terms of red lights no matter what size of vehicle one uses. That tells us a lot about the stupidity of cyclists or the average cyclist. If you are in control of a small-sized vehicle which can be wiped out by a multi-tonne vehicle, why would you be so stupid to break a red light?

    In saying that, I am not excusing the behaviour of motorists who put cyclists and pedestrians at risk by breaking red lights, but stupidity is a human condition, and not confined to either motorists or cyclists. Intelligence would tell the more vulnerable category to be aware in the same way that birds watch out for cats. Too many cyclists (birds) think they can take on the cars (cats) in their yard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Absolute nonsense.

    Sorry if I debunked the statistics you presented and that has upset you.

    If 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles, but also 88% of journeys were motor vehicles, then the statistic is meaningless. Cyclists are equally as bad as motor vehicles as I have shown. I know that doesn't fit with your narrative of the poor oppressed cyclist, but tough, them's the facts.

    What does it matter if cyclists are or aren't "equally as bad" as motorists? What's the significance of this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    What does it matter if cyclists are or aren't "equally as bad" as motorists? What's the significance of this?

    Throughout this thread there is a constant to and fro between cyclists and motorists. Having looked carefully at the statistics, it seems that there is little difference in behaviour between them, both are equally bad (or good).

    What is interesting is that those who favour motorists haven't challenged the statistics or me, but that those, like yourself, who favour cyclists have either launched fake challenges at the statistics or had a personal go at me.

    The facts are what the facts are. At the end of the day, the real lesson is that people are people. There are bad people, there are bad motorists and there are bad cyclists. There are also good people, good motorists and good cyclists. Demonising a category or people is just demonising, especially when the facts show no difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,180 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    It absolutely doesn't intimate that cyclists breaking red lights 'does no harm'. That post makes no comment at all about the level of harm arising from either cyclists or cars.

    Your post intimates forget the cyclists and just worry about the cars
    What's harm got to do with it - that is a consequence of people doing what they shouldn't and both cyclists and car/lorry etc drivers should be penalised equally.
    End of the day lots of both are breaking the law.
    If 80% of cyclists and 80% of drivers are breaking the law then who is the worst - both!
    I don't care for this crap that a cyclist will never kill someone or hurt them badly or they get hurt as much when a cyclist ploughs in to a pedestrian (my heart bleeds for them). Pedestrian crossings in Ireland barely give you time to even get across the road never mind dodging cars and cyclists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Absolute nonsense.

    Sorry if I debunked the statistics you presented and that has upset you.

    If 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles, but also 88% of journeys were motor vehicles, then the statistic is meaningless. Cyclists are equally as bad as motor vehicles as I have shown. I know that doesn't fit with your narrative of the poor oppressed cyclist, but tough, them's the facts.

    As for the comparison between vehicles of different size and speed, the statistics appear to indicate that behaviour isn't any different in terms of red lights no matter what size of vehicle one uses. That tells us a lot about the stupidity of cyclists or the average cyclist. If you are in control of a small-sized vehicle which can be wiped out by a multi-tonne vehicle, why would you be so stupid to break a red light?

    In saying that, I am not excusing the behaviour of motorists who put cyclists and pedestrians at risk by breaking red lights, but stupidity is a human condition, and not confined to either motorists or cyclists. Intelligence would tell the more vulnerable category to be aware in the same way that birds watch out for cats. Too many cyclists (birds) think they can take on the cars (cats) in their yard.
    The 'equally as bad' claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Motorists have killed more than 3,500 people here in the last 15 years. Cyclists have killed zero people over that same period. How can those two extremes be 'equally as bad'?

    You also seem to miss the point that most cyclists are drivers too - 80% of cyclists according to the recent RTE show with Simon Delaney. Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way round - most motorists haven't cycled in traffic since they left school, so their level of understanding of what it takes to keep a cyclist alive is limited.


    To answer your question as to why cyclists would be so stupid as to break a red light, I guess it's the same answer as to why so many motorists are so stupid to break speed limits, use the phone while driving and indeed break red lights - because enforcement levels are pitifully low so they know they have a good chance of getting away with it. For cyclists breaking red lights, I guess they also know that the chances of them doing harm to anyone other than themself is low too. I guess they also know that the chances of doing harm to themself is low.

    blanch152 wrote: »
    Throughout this thread there is a constant to and fro between cyclists and motorists. Having looked carefully at the statistics, it seems that there is little difference in behaviour between them, both are equally bad (or good).

    What is interesting is that those who favour motorists haven't challenged the statistics or me, but that those, like yourself, who favour cyclists have either launched fake challenges at the statistics or had a personal go at me.

    The facts are what the facts are. At the end of the day, the real lesson is that people are people. There are bad people, there are bad motorists and there are bad cyclists. There are also good people, good motorists and good cyclists. Demonising a category or people is just demonising, especially when the facts show no difference.
    If anyone has 'had a personal go' at you, I'd suggest you report the post to the moderators. I've no idea what you mean by 'fake challenges' but if you'd like to point these out, I'm sure the people involved will be happy to clarify.


    You're absolutely right to say that there are bad people, bad motorists, bad cyclists and indeed bad pedestrians. What you seem to miss is the fact that the bad motorists kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road, while the bad cyclists and bad pedestrians don't. Holding motorists to account for the carnage they cause on the road is not demonising - it's just holding motorists to account for the carnage they cause.
    fritzelly wrote: »
    Your post intimates forget the cyclists and just worry about the cars
    Yes, it pretty much does do that. It doesn't make any comment about cyclists doing no harm, so like I said before, please be careful about making false allegations like that.
    fritzelly wrote: »
    What's harm got to do with it - that is a consequence of people doing what they shouldn't and both cyclists and car/lorry etc drivers should be penalised equally.
    End of the day lots of both are breaking the law.
    If 80% of cyclists and 80% of drivers are breaking the law then who is the worst - both!
    I don't care for this crap that a cyclist will never kill someone or hurt them badly or they get hurt as much when a cyclist ploughs in to a pedestrian (my heart bleeds for them). Pedestrian crossings in Ireland barely give you time to even get across the road never mind dodging cars and cyclists.


    What are we actually trying to achieve here? Are we trying to save lives and reduce serious injuries? Or are we trying to achieve some degree of compliance for the sake of neatness or to make motorists feel better about the carnage they cause on the road?


    For me, it's about trying to save lives, so we don't have 2 or 3 families each week grieving loved ones because one or other driver was driving at an inappropriate speed, or after a few pints, or while updating Snapchat. Are you interested in saving lives at all?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    And we're back to cyclists versus any other road user.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I think that cyclists can be divided into a number of groups whose behaviour differs significantly.

    1. The leisure cyclist that cycles in groups with, say, members of their family. These are unlikely to be in the class of red light breakers. (RLB)

    2. Children cycling to school. Again generally not RLB.

    3. Commuters, riding high-end bikes going significant distances at speed. Now here you have the classic RLB. This group travel at high speed and are very good cyclists who assess the risks and travel with their head down, determined to arrive early at their destination. They travel at speed in bus/cycle lanes inside stationary traffic, reckless towards the possible car door opening, etc. Now not every one of them is a RLB, but it is this group IMHO that has the highest proportion, and are the greatest problem - not because of the behaviour wrt red lights, but because of their disdain towards other road users.

    4. Occasional riders, and riders of crap bikes which do not have full working equipment - especially lights. They do not wear helmets or bright reflective clothing. They do not pay attention to their bikes or to legal niceties and many are colour blind. They generally are not fast riders, but some are definitely RLB.

    Having said that, motorists are a much larger problem as the risks related to RLB is so much worse. Some motorist have a strong hatred of cyclists and do the worst to discommode them and even put them at risk - quite deliberately.

    I know, for instance, it is frustrating travelling into town on the N11 from about Leopardstown to Donnybrook and have the lights turn red just as they are reached - not once but at every single successive light - almost as if it was deliberate. Perhaps it is.

    A decent city wide traffic light system that took account of traffic levels and the delays at lights to reduce this affect might reduce frustration for drivers and reduce RLB.

    Enforcement though is needed. There is no doubt about that.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,982 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    3. Commuters, riding high-end bikes going significant distances at speed. Now here you have the classic RLB. This group travel at high speed and are very good cyclists who assess the risks and travel with their head down, determined to arrive early at their destination. They travel at speed in bus/cycle lanes inside stationary traffic, reckless towards the possible car door opening, etc.
    Thank you. You gave me a good laugh.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,845 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Oh for pete's sake get off the cyclists, this is for CARS breaking reds - we have a gigantic thread for motorists to whinge about cyclist RLBs


    ffs


    Saw 5 or 6 today on a random drive - cars breaking reds and yellows ... just cannot understand it . The equation on people's heads ' if I do this I am a good driver" is wrong folks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




    To answer your question as to why cyclists would be so stupid as to break a red light, I guess it's the same answer as to why so many motorists are so stupid to break speed limits, use the phone while driving and indeed break red lights - because enforcement levels are pitifully low so they know they have a good chance of getting away with it. For cyclists breaking red lights, I guess they also know that the chances of them doing harm to anyone other than themself is low too. I guess they also know that the chances of doing harm to themself is low.

    You miss the point completely.

    A motorists who breaks a speed limit or uses the phone while driving or breaks a red light usually isn't stupidly putting their own life at risk, but a cyclist who does those things (or wears headphones while cycling) is stupidly putting their life at risk. That is an important distinction.

    Yes, the motorist is showing disdain and a lack of concern for other road-users, but that is a level of stupidity below putting your own life at risk - actually it isn't stupid, more just callous or actually just unconcerning of consequences.

    You could justifiably argue therefore that the average cyclist is a nicer person than an average motorist, but equally, it is justifiable to suggest that the average cyclist stupidly puts his/her life at risk more often and more seriously than the average motorist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 226 ✭✭Shai


    Sorry, are you arguing that drivers putting others at risk is less stupid than cyclists putting themselves at risk? No snark intended btw, I'm legitimately not sure whether I'm getting the point you're making.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,435 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    Today at the stillorgan plaza crossing two cars went straight through a green man with pedestrians standing halfway across the road. The drivers don't even seem in any way apologetic or sheepish about it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Shai wrote: »
    Sorry, are you arguing that drivers putting others at risk is less stupid than cyclists putting themselves at risk? No snark intended btw, I'm legitimately not sure whether I'm getting the point you're making.

    Eh, self-preservation.

    A motorist is throwing people out of a plane without a parachute but a cyclist is jumping out of a plane without a parachute.

    The cyclist is more stupid, the motorist more callous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You miss the point completely.

    A motorists who breaks a speed limit or uses the phone while driving or breaks a red light usually isn't stupidly putting their own life at risk, but a cyclist who does those things (or wears headphones while cycling) is stupidly putting their life at risk. That is an important distinction.

    Your important distinction is not supported by the evidence. Most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists and passengers. Cyclists are the smallest category of road deaths.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,982 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    blanch152 wrote: »
    A motorists who ... breaks a red light usually isn't stupidly putting their own life at risk
    you're going to have to repeat that, but more slowly for me so i can understand what you're trying to say.
    a motorist who breaks a red light is not risking a potentially serious collision?

    you've reverted to an argument about 'stupidity' in violation of basic road traffic laws. i guess that yes, cyclists are risking their lives more than motorists because we willingly go out on the roads, knowingly sharing them with motorists who share the opinions expressed by others in this thread.

    anyway, back on topic, it's a constant bugbear of mine that such an eye-watering number of motorists simply don't know what white lines painted on the road at junctions mean. it's quite common to see two, three or four white lines across a junction; the first being the stop line, the second often denoting the advanced stop box for cyclists, and then two more to outline a pedestrian crossing. motorists seem not to know what the stop line is, and end up sitting in a box which is clearly marked for cyclists, or worse, actually sitting across the pedestrian crossing.

    i decided to pick one junction i see it a lot at on google maps - where griffith avenue meets the malahide road, and lo and behold, on three of the four approaches to the junction, you can see cars doing exactly this:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3685317,-6.2265974,52m/data=!3m1!1e3


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭Benny Biscotti


    Some drivers don't understand the difference between a full green light and a green arrow light. Was walking across the road at a green Man, when a car coming opposite side of junction started to turn left (light would have been green arrow for straight on) stopped to let me pass and then continued through the pedestrian light.
    But sure, if there's nobody there to stop them, why waste their time waiting.

    Vehicles break the lights so much I think it would be better to ban pedestrian crossings as they are. Too much faith in a green Man light is dangerous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Your important distinction is not supported by the evidence. Most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists and passengers. Cyclists are the smallest category of road deaths.

    So if cyclists are the smallest category of road deaths, then motorists are not putting cyclists at risk, despite everything we have heard???

    As I have already shown, many statistics are twisted. I suspect this one is too. If 90% of road journeys are made by motorists, then 90% of road deaths should be motorists, all other things being equal. So telling me that most road deaths are motorists killing themselves is just another random statistic without meaningful context, but I am getting used to that on this thread.

    As I have explained already, the available statistics presented to date on this thread suggest that motorists and cyclists are equally guilty of breaking red lights, which leads to a secondary conclusion that motorists are more callous than cyclists, but cyclists have a greater (and more stupid) deathwish. I am open to revising that view with any statistics you care to present, but as someone who these days is mostly a public transport user and pedestrian (while previously been a cyclist, motorist and biker), I have little time for either urban motorists or cyclists so don't have any skin in this game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »

    As I have already shown, many statistics are twisted. I suspect this one is too. If 90% of road journeys are made by motorists, then 90% of road deaths should be motorists, all other things being equal. So telling me that most road deaths are motorists killing themselves is just another random statistic without meaningful context, but I am getting used to that on this thread.
    I'd guess it might have something to do with the weight and speed of motor vehicles compared to bicycles, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    you're going to have to repeat that, but more slowly for me so i can understand what you're trying to say.
    a motorist who breaks a red light is not risking a potentially serious collision?

    you've reverted to an argument about 'stupidity' in violation of basic road traffic laws. i guess that yes, cyclists are risking their lives more than motorists because we willingly go out on the roads, knowingly sharing them with motorists who share the opinions expressed by others in this thread.

    anyway, back on topic, it's a constant bugbear of mine that such an eye-watering number of motorists simply don't know what white lines painted on the road at junctions mean. it's quite common to see two, three or four white lines across a junction; the first being the stop line, the second often denoting the advanced stop box for cyclists, and then two more to outline a pedestrian crossing. motorists seem not to know what the stop line is, and end up sitting in a box which is clearly marked for cyclists, or worse, actually sitting across the pedestrian crossing.

    i decided to pick one junction i see it a lot at on google maps - where griffith avenue meets the malahide road, and lo and behold, on three of the four approaches to the junction, you can see cars doing exactly this:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3685317,-6.2265974,52m/data=!3m1!1e3

    The thing is, I am not defending motorists, I am just pointing to the average stupidity levels of the cyclist. Yes, motorists are guilty of all the things you are talking about, but they are in big massive metal cars that have been increasingly engineered to protect them from harm, including from their own behaviour. On the other hand, a cyclist doesn't have that advantage and when they break a red light (and they do) they are usually not travelling as fast as a car and therefore have less chance to get safely through the red light than the motorist all things being considered.

    So why would a cyclist be so stupid to have a deathwish and go through a red light? I cannot understand this. Is it a feeling of invulnerability? Is it arrogance? Is it a lack of understanding? Is it stupidity? Why do cyclists put themselves at risk?

    It has been 20 years since I commuted by bicycle, so what has happened?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,982 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I am just pointing to the average stupidity levels of the cyclist.
    yeah, we see that. keep plugging away at your honest appraisal of the statistics, i'm sure they'll lead you where you want to go with them.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,982 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    trellheim wrote: »
    Oh for pete's sake get off the cyclists, this is for CARS breaking reds - we have a gigantic thread for motorists to whinge about cyclist RLBs


    ffs
    it's funny; no matter what motorists do, we get 'but cyclists'.

    i'll repeat it till i'm blue in the face. when i'm on the bike, it's motorists i need to watch out for. when i'm in the car, it's motorists i have to watch out for. but it's the cyclists who are somehow the real menace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The thing is, I am not defending motorists, I am just pointing to the average stupidity levels of the cyclist. Yes, motorists are guilty of all the things you are talking about, but they are in big massive metal cars that have been increasingly engineered to protect them from harm, including from their own behaviour. On the other hand, a cyclist doesn't have that advantage and when they break a red light (and they do) they are usually not travelling as fast as a car and therefore have less chance to get safely through the red light than the motorist all things being considered.

    So why would a cyclist be so stupid to have a deathwish and go through a red light? I cannot understand this. Is it a feeling of invulnerability? Is it arrogance? Is it a lack of understanding? Is it stupidity? Why do cyclists put themselves at risk?

    It has been 20 years since I commuted by bicycle, so what has happened?

    Do you think that you might possibly be exaggerating the risk level involved?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    blanch152 wrote:
    You could justifiably argue therefore that the average cyclist is a nicer person than an average motorist, but equally, it is justifiable to suggest that the average cyclist stupidly puts his/her life at risk more often and more seriously than the average motorist.


    Ha ha. I tried pointing this out in a discussion about unlit and dark clothed cyclist on wet winter nights and got a similar reaction from the cycling fraternity.

    They live in a parallel universe and when those universes collide to the detriment of the health of the cyclist, it is ALWAYS the fault of someone else.

    And don't dream of mentioning helmets......


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    First Up wrote: »
    blanch152 wrote:
    You could justifiably argue therefore that the average cyclist is a nicer person than an average motorist, but equally, it is justifiable to suggest that the average cyclist stupidly puts his/her life at risk more often and more seriously than the average motorist.


    Ha ha. I tried pointing this out in a discussion about unlit and dark clothed cyclist on wet winter nights and got a similar reaction from the cycling fraternity.

    They live in a parallel universe and when those universes collide to the detriment of the health of the cyclist, it is ALWAYS the fault of someone else.

    And don't dream of mentioning helmets......
    Not ALWAYS, but more often than not, yes, it is the motorists at fault.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,030 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Not ALWAYS, but more often than not, yes, it is the motorists at fault.

    Statistically, all other things being equal, that will be true as there are more motorists and more car journeys than cyclists and bicycle journeys so more accidents, more injuries, more deaths etc. will be caused by motorists and be the fault of motorists.

    What the statistics presented to date don't tell us is whether all other things are equal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 226 ✭✭Shai


    First Up wrote: »
    Ha ha. I tried pointing this out in a discussion about unlit and dark clothed cyclist on wet winter nights and got a similar reaction from the cycling fraternity.

    They live in a parallel universe and when those universes collide to the detriment of the health of the cyclist, it is ALWAYS the fault of someone else.

    And don't dream of mentioning helmets......

    if you can show me that the common sentiment on the Cycling forum is that cycling without lights at night is okay, I will donate 20 euro to the charity of your choice. The common wisdom on that forum is very much that lights are bloody important.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,982 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cycle%20accidents.jpg

    that data is from london; what the chart is showing is an assessment on whether the road user's behaviour was a contributory factor in a KSI. the authors were keen to point out that this does not confer responsibility, that was not something they were able to judge by the looks of it.

    from here: https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,983 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Not ALWAYS, but more often than not, yes, it is the motorists at fault.

    Statistically, all other things being equal, that will be true as there are more motorists and more car journeys than cyclists and bicycle journeys so more accidents, more injuries, more deaths etc. will be caused by motorists and be the fault of motorists.

    What the statistics presented to date don't tell us is whether all other things are equal.
    All other things are far from equal. The speed and weight of motor vehicles creates the huge inequality. That's why we have motorists killing 2 or 3 people each week on the roads and maiming many more.


Advertisement