Journalism and cycling

Hurrache · 03-10-2018 1:07pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

It's ok to use compulsory purchase in Dublin, but not in rural Ireland, eh?

In fairness I'd have an issue myself with the removal of many ditches.

Rechuchote · 03-10-2018 1:09pm

Hurrache wrote: »

In fairness I'd have an issue myself with the removal of many ditches.

Wouldn't have to be removal of ditches - it would be possible and socially good to buy a strip along the inside of ditches and hedges to make a walking/cycling lane.

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 1:14pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

Wouldn't have to be removal of ditches - it would be possible and socially good to buy a strip along the inside of ditches and hedges to make a walking/cycling lane.

Tell them to put down decent fiber and underground electricity cables too while they are at it.

Hurrache · 03-10-2018 1:15pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

Wouldn't have to be removal of ditches - it would be possible and socially good to buy a strip along the inside of ditches and hedges to make a walking/cycling lane.

I wouldn't agree that it's socially good, hedgerows and ditches are massively important to our eco system, you can't just cut a strip away from one.

Anyway, it shows you how bad it is that we're even discussing the destruction of them in order to facility the importance of the car over everyone else.

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 1:20pm

Hurrache wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that it's socially good, hedgerows and ditches are massively important to our eco system, you can't just cut a strip away from one.

Anyway, it shows you how bad it is that we're even discussing the destruction of them in order to facility the importance of the car over everyone else.

So you don't want roads to be made safer and you get outraged when pedestrians are asked to adapt to the conditions on the roads to make themselves safer? OK.

Rechuchote · 03-10-2018 1:25pm

Hurrache wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that it's socially good, hedgerows and ditches are massively important to our eco system, you can't just cut a strip away from one.

Anyway, it shows you how bad it is that we're even discussing the destruction of them in order to facility the importance of the car over everyone else.

Absolutely agree with you - and I wasn't suggesting destroying them, of course not. I was suggesting that they should stay in place, and a strip behind them, parallel with the road, should be made into cycling and walking infrastructure.

Hurrache · 03-10-2018 1:27pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So you don't want roads to be made safer and you get outraged when pedestrians are asked to adapt to the conditions on the roads to make themselves safer? OK.

I don't recall saying any of that?

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 1:32pm

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't recall saying any of that?

What are you saying then? That we should just rely on drivers always being 100% attentive, never loose moment of concentration, have excellent eyesight and never make a mistake. You can do that, I won't.

As for separate cycling and walking paths, I would be delighted. Realistically though Ireland is low population density country with people spread out. I don't think it will happen any time soon judging by the rural wifi project. Similarly overhead electricity lines aren't that common on continent either for decades. I can only assume that there is either no political will or too expensive to do it in Ireland.

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 2:15pm

meeeeh wrote: »

What are you saying then? That we should just rely on drivers always being 100% attentive, never loose moment of concentration, have excellent eyesight and never make a mistake. You can do that, I won't.

As for separate cycling and walking paths, I would be delighted. Realistically though Ireland is low population density country with people spread out. I don't think it will happen any time soon judging by the rural wifi project. Similarly overhead electricity lines aren't that common on continent either for decades. I can only assume that there is either no political will or too expensive to do it in Ireland.

How about we just speed limit cars and actually start enforcing the RTA for poor driving. A car doing 80 on a windy country road isn't going to miss you because of Hi Vis, they are going to hit you because they are not driving for the conditions. I agree with you about helping yourself but implying that is that is ridiculous. That should be an interim measure (that can continue after its needed if you want), until drivers are brought to account for poor behaviour. All of which is easily done only there is no political will for it

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 2:23pm

CramCycle wrote: »

How about we just speed limit cars and actually start enforcing the RTA for poor driving. A car doing 80 on a windy country road isn't going to miss you because of Hi Vis, they are going to hit you because they are not driving for the conditions. I agree with you about helping yourself but implying that is that is ridiculous. That should be an interim measure (that can continue after its needed if you want), until drivers are brought to account for poor behaviour. All of which is easily done only there is no political will for it

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

xckjoo · 03-10-2018 2:33pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

Speed limits aren't a target. If visibility is poor we're supposed to slow our speed to account for it. That's the theory anyway. Doesn't seem to happen much in real life.

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 2:40pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

They are breakign the law though, and people, including the gardai forget this. They still must drive with due care and attention, as well as a host of other laws.

Long story short, if driving , you must be driving at a speed, that if you dropped anchor, you would stop in the space you can observe to be clear, simples.

cdaly_ · 03-10-2018 2:43pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

This speed limit sign says "drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions". If they've killed you, they weren't. Simple as...

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 2:59pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Long story short, if driving , you must be driving at a speed, that if you dropped anchor, you would stop in the space you can observe to be clear, simples.

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

xckjoo · 03-10-2018 3:05pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

No because you're supposed to drive with "due care" or whatever the wording is. There's no condition where you would reasonably expect to come across someone lying in the middle of the road in the dark so you wouldn't expect people to drive with that expectation.

Eamonnator · 03-10-2018 3:59pm

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

A driver can be held to account for his driving in other ways apart from his speed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/53/enacted/en/html

Dangerous driving covers other aspects of driving, eg. road conditions, weather conditions, condition of the vehicle, other traffic, use of the vehicle etc. etc.
In some cases driving at 60kph in an 80kph zone could be proved to be dangerous or careless driving.

Eamonnator · 03-10-2018 4:02pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

Can you show me, where it says, that it is illegal to dress in dark clothes?

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 4:04pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

What your stating is the wild assumption that people cannot see someone with their full beams on unless they have Hi Vis, I challenge you that such a person should not be driving as they have poor eyesight.

Your example is extreme, but lets say it is a blind bend and the pedestrian collapses and is wearing Hi Vis but because the driver came round the corner at 80 rather than 40, they were not able to stop in time when they did see them.

I am not against Hi Vis, certainly pro lights for the benefits it brings on top of making you visible (being able to see rather than just be seen) but letting some people off the hook because a driver was driving to fast, all because someone forgot a Hi Vis, even though it was a clear night and if they were paying attention, they would have seen them.

It is not like these cars are driving off road, through forests. They are on surfaced roads, with a clear and predictable pattern as to what is next if they are driving with due care and attention.

AndrewJRenko · 03-10-2018 4:13pm

xckjoo wrote: »

No because you're supposed to drive with "due care" or whatever the wording is. There's no condition where you would reasonably expect to come across someone lying in the middle of the road in the dark so you wouldn't expect people to drive with that expectation.

Though you should be driving with the expectation that there could well be a slow tractor round the next bend, or a crashed car, or a bunch of hillwalkers or whatever.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2018 4:23pm

xckjoo wrote: »

There's no condition where you would reasonably expect to come across someone lying in the middle of the road in the dark so you wouldn't expect people to drive with that expectation.

you don't drive 'expecting' that situation, you drive such as you can deal with that situation.
if your headlights are insufficient to pick out a human sized lump in the road ahead, less than braking distance based on the speed you are doing, you are either driving too fast for the conditions, or your lights are illegally defective.

Fighting Tao · 03-10-2018 5:21pm

meeeeh wrote: »

1. I wear high viz on a country road with high hedges in the dark.
2. I'm making sure that even if traffic doesn't drive at speed suitable to the conditions I have a chance to be seen.
3. I didn't experience any close shaves and I don't want to. The aim is too avoid them.
4. Pedestrians should adopt to road conditions too.

And now a question for you, on what side of the white line on the road in the link would you walk? And do you notice the distinct lack of greenery by the side of the road?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-austria-tyrol-close-innsbruck-country-road-view-karwendel-europe-nordtirol-140551608.html

Since when are white lines force fields?

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 5:34pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

Can you show me, where it says, that it is illegal to dress in dark clothes?

Nowhere, I meant it's illegal to lie on the road but you knew that you just took a cheap shot at my English not being as good as of a native speaker. Is that how you silence any opinion that isn't differs from yours?

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 5:37pm

CramCycle wrote: »

It is not like these cars are driving off road, through forests. They are on surfaced roads, with a clear and predictable pattern as to what is next if they are driving with due care and attention.

Well the law disagrees with you. There are plenty of examples where drivers were not prosecuted if someone was hit when trying to commit suicide or lying on the road drunk.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2018 5:51pm

what isn't successfully prosecuted is not an infallible guide for what is legal.

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 5:52pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Since when are white lines force fields?

That's why people in other countries don't wear hi viz. Pedestrians and drivers understand where each of them is supposed to drive or walk and they have the facility to do so.

Fighting Tao · 03-10-2018 6:18pm

meeeeh wrote: »

That's why people in other countries don't wear hi viz. Pedestrians and drivers understand where each of them is supposed to drive or walk and they have the facility to do so.

What country are the white lines force fields? I’d like to see it.

Drivers here know what they should be doing on the road but in truth most couldn’t give a crap. Hi vis will not make you any safer. If I driver is not looking, they won’t see you.

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 6:27pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

What country are the white lines force fields? I’d like to see it.

Those nasty people in Europe say you should use road verge. (Or you are making a point I don't understand, I'm not sure what force field is).

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/special_regulations_for_pedestrians_and_cyclists/traffic_rules_for_pedestrians_en

Traffic rules for pedestrians
In addition to the rules which normally apply to all public highway users, according to the Vienna Convention, pedestrians are subject to specific rules defined in their national legislation in order to ensure that they can travel safely and easily:

If, at the side of the carriageway, there are pavements (sidewalks) or suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them. Nevertheless, if they take the necessary precautions:
(a) Pedestrians pushing or carrying bulky objects may use the carriageway if they would severely inconvenience other pedestrians by walking on the pavement (sidewalk) or verge;

(b) Groups of pedestrians led by a person in charge or forming a procession may walk on the carriageway.

If it is not possible to use pavements (sidewalks) or verges, or if none is provided, pedestrians may walk on the carriageway; where there is a cycle track and the density of traffic so permits, they may walk on the cycle track, but shall not obstruct cycle and moped traffic in doing so.

Fighting Tao · 03-10-2018 6:39pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Those nasty people in Europe say you should use road verge. (Or you are making a point I don't understand, I'm not sure what force field is).

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/special_regulations_for_pedestrians_and_cyclists/traffic_rules_for_pedestrians_en

Traffic rules for pedestrians
In addition to the rules which normally apply to all public highway users, according to the Vienna Convention, pedestrians are subject to specific rules defined in their national legislation in order to ensure that they can travel safely and easily:

If, at the side of the carriageway, there are pavements (sidewalks) or suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them. Nevertheless, if they take the necessary precautions:
(a) Pedestrians pushing or carrying bulky objects may use the carriageway if they would severely inconvenience other pedestrians by walking on the pavement (sidewalk) or verge;

(b) Groups of pedestrians led by a person in charge or forming a procession may walk on the carriageway.

If it is not possible to use pavements (sidewalks) or verges, or if none is provided, pedestrians may walk on the carriageway; where there is a cycle track and the density of traffic so permits, they may walk on the cycle track, but shall not obstruct cycle and moped traffic in doing so.

Not a sci-fi fan then? A force field stops objects from passing through it. Therefore, if a painted line was a force field it would stop a car or truck.

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 6:50pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Well the law disagrees with you. There are plenty of examples where drivers were not prosecuted if someone was hit when trying to commit suicide or lying on the road drunk.

I am not wrong, a judge or jury may find a person not guilty or hand down a menial sentence, it does not make the offence less valid.

meeeeh wrote: »

Those nasty people in Europe say you should use road verge. (Or you are making a point I don't understand, I'm not sure what force field is).

The accepted practices are the same here, just that many roads do not have verges, I really don't get what your point is here other than to cloud a pretty clear issue.

Eamonnator · 03-10-2018 6:53pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Nowhere, I meant it's illegal to lie on the road but you knew that you just took a cheap shot at my English not being as good as of a native speaker. Is that how you silence any opinion that isn't differs from yours?

No, I certainly did not take a cheap shot at you.
You made a statement, with which I disagreed and asked you a question about that statement.
I did not know that you were not a native English speaker.
I honestly cannot remember, ever trying to silence anybody, who disagreed with me.
I'm sorry, if you took offence, none was intended.

meeeeh · 03-10-2018 7:24pm

CramCycle wrote: »

The accepted practices are the same here, just that many roads do not have verges, I really don't get what your point is here other than to cloud a pretty clear issue.

That Irish roads are more dangerous because there is no part of the road that separates pedestrians from cars and it might be beneficial to use extra visibility aids on dark country roads. It's the point I am making all the way. But apparently it's all victim blaming and it's all just the nasty drivers behaving so much worse in Ireland. Btw Irish road safety stats are actually fairly good. Probably helped by low density traffic outside cities...

And by people wearing hi viz clothing.

tomasrojo · 03-10-2018 8:05pm

Use a flashlight. It's more effective, and you don't have to look outlandish. I don't know how this basic truth has been forgotten.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2018 8:12pm

meeeeh wrote: »

(vienna covention)If, at the side of the carriageway, there are pavements (sidewalks) or suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them.

i will parse out how this should be read:
If, at the side of the carriageway, there are ... suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them.

i.e. you should only use the verge if it's suitable. and what do they mean by 'suitable verge'?
they quite clearly are distinguishing it from the carriageway.

07Lapierre · 03-10-2018 8:23pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Use a flashlight. It's more effective, and you don't have to look outlandish. I don't know how this basic truth has been forgotten.

Agreed...hi-viz is a poor substitute for a bright light(s)! Also..lights can be seen through overgrown hedges. lights can be seen with the naked eye and are not dependent on a cars headlights illuminateing the wearer. In short, anyone who goes out walking or cycling on rural roads,after dark or in low light conditions without lights is a numpty!

tomasrojo · 03-10-2018 8:29pm

Yeah, I'd bring one if there was no footway.

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 8:43pm

Lights are always the preferred option, it lights the way, makes you visible around corners, attributes motion to the user which can be a psychological trigger for recognition for someone not paying enough attention, the benefits are obvious. The fact that most phones have torches mean that excuses for not having one are pretty thin as well. I seen a guy on his bike awhile ago using his iphone torch shining from his shirt pocket, which done the job.

The other stuff I referred to earlier are not taking the blame away from pedestrians for being ignorant or stupid, they are simply trying to point out the very simple fact that if motorists drove slower, and paid more attention, alot of collision simply would not happen, regardless of if the pedestrian done all they could do or not. Unfortunately, alot of people are unaware of the danger they can cause when behind the wheel.

When you hear of papers laying the blame at the foot of a pedestrian for walking on the road when the driver was breaking the speed limit on a road that the speed limit was excessive for anyway, then you have to wonder what went wrong with how we view the world. Funny also how when a pedestrian or a cyclist is wearing Hi Vis or using lights, it doesn't seem to get reported much, only if either was missing. It really is the definition of victim blaming.

07Lapierre · 03-10-2018 9:22pm

Last year one cyclist was killed during the hours of darkness. The other SIXTEEN were killed in daylight hours on urban roads. Speed and lack of observation/awareness are key factors in road deaths. I also think a lot of drivers do see pedestrians/cyclists, but they are simply driving too fast and can't react quick enough to avoid a collision.

tomasrojo · 03-10-2018 9:34pm

I think a lot of the roads were 80km/h roads though, weren't they? Maybe I've misremembered that.

07Lapierre · 03-10-2018 10:12pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think a lot of the roads were 80km/h roads though, weren't they? Maybe I've misremembered that.

At least two were killed at junctions in Dublin City (HGV turning left)

The man killed at night was crossing the road near Christchurch Cathedral.

I'd have to look up the details regarding the others.

Moflojo · 03-10-2018 10:24pm

Some of the info around cyclist fatalities in 2017 are compiled here:

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/948208638191169536

tomasrojo · 03-10-2018 10:36pm

Someone in the thread says that 73% of fatalities were on rural roads. I don't know if that's true. I just have a vague recollection of most of them being on 80km/h roads. Might be faulty memory, obviously

EDIT: Yeah, the @dublincycling account says 11 of the 15 were on rural roads, 2 of that 11 at night. I'm not sure how many rural roads are 80km/h roads.

CramCycle · 03-10-2018 10:56pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

EDIT: Yeah, the @dublincycling account says 11 of the 15 were on rural roads, 2 of that 11 at night. I'm not sure how many rural roads are 80km/h roads.

Nearly all of them, if you exclude national roads, villages and small nucleated housing areas.

Rechuchote · 04-10-2018 8:46am

Most rural roads, others city and suburban junctions?

meeeeh · 04-10-2018 9:10am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Someone in the thread says that 73% of fatalities were on rural roads. I don't know if that's true. I just have a vague recollection of most of them being on 80km/h roads. Might be faulty memory, obviously

EDIT: Yeah, the @dublincycling account says 11 of the 15 were on rural roads, 2 of that 11 at night. I'm not sure how many rural roads are 80km/h roads.

Too many. I've driven on a local road that had pot hole after a pot hole and an elastic string accross the road to hold the farm gate open and it was classified as 80 kph road. One of us had to get out of a car and lift the elastic to drive on. That being said it would be interesting to know how many accidents happened at the junctions.

Rechuchote · 04-10-2018 9:13am

meeeeh wrote: »

an elastic string accross the road to hold the farm gate open

:eek:

Macy0161 · 04-10-2018 9:23am

CramCycle wrote: »

Lights are always the preferred option, it lights the way, makes you visible around corners, attributes motion to the user which can be a psychological trigger for recognition for someone not paying enough attention, the benefits are obvious. The fact that most phones have torches mean that excuses for not having one are pretty thin as well. I seen a guy on his bike awhile ago using his iphone torch shining from his shirt pocket, which done the job.

Yes, I'm trying to drum into my children the importance of torches and lights, in the face of (frankly) the hiviz indoctrination they get in school. On top of phones, LED torches are so small.

Less branding opportunity for the RSA on torches and lights though - Be Safe, Be Seen (To be doing something)...

fwiw when I'm walking to and from the pub I use an old style Browne Belt and Torch. The two combined pack down smaller than a builders vest.

meeeeh · 04-10-2018 9:23am

Rechuchote wrote: »

:eek:

In fairness it was in the middle of nowhere and shouldn't even be classified as a road, never mind 80 kmph road. But it just shows you how little sense is put into road classification.

Fian · 04-10-2018 11:01am

Most rural roads are 100km/h not 80km/h.

In fact very little of them are 80km/h in my experience - it is 100 km/h in teh countryside dropping down in towns and villages.

of course limits are not targets and people generally drive at a speed appropriate to the road not 100km/h.

Hurrache · 04-10-2018 11:10am

Interesting and relevant article
http://www.safecyclingireland.org/media-matters-%F0%9F%A7%90/

xckjoo · 04-10-2018 11:19am

magicbastarder wrote: »

you don't drive 'expecting' that situation, you drive such as you can deal with that situation.
if your headlights are insufficient to pick out a human sized lump in the road ahead, less than braking distance based on the speed you are doing, you are either driving too fast for the conditions, or your lights are illegally defective.

Sorry. Forgot this was the forum of the omniscient driver who never goes above 50kmph so they can stop on a dime.

The poster was clearly trying to give an extreme situation where you don't see the person/object until you're upon it. Arguing the semantics of his specific argument doesn't help anyone. It can happens no matter what speed you're at or how much attention you pay, so be careful out there everyone.

Journalism and cycling

Comments