How are more people not killed on our Roads

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 4:31pm

pablo128 wrote: »

You have some neck. You made the thread 'motorist v cyclist from the start. Like you usually do.:rolleyes:

Not at all - there was a long discussion about pedestrian issues you might have missed.

But regardless, it is motorists that kill in the case of 99% of road deaths. It's not me 'making' the discussion - that what the data shows.

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 4:49pm

Registration plates for bicycles should reduce it

It'd be worth it even if it's just one cyclists' life it saves

and a transponder :

https://www.raceresult.com/en/systems/passive.php

.

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 5:23pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Registration plates for bicycles should reduce it

It would certainly reduce numbers cycling, with the all the consequential impacts that would bring, like bigger traffic jams, reduced public health, jammed car parks and more.

Switzerland tried it and found it was a fairly pointless exercise, a solution looking for a problem, so they got rid of it.

What do you think it would reduce, and why/how?

McCrack · 11-11-2018 5:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The lack of patience on the roads is incredible. I was stopped at a red light earlier today in the left lane turning left. A straight only green arrow appeared for cars going straight while the red remained for cars turning left. The red remains for cars turning left as there are pedestrian lights around the corner.

The car behind me started beeping me like crazy. I looked in my mirror and a man and woman were literally screaming all kinds of abuse at me. I pointed to the red light but they just didn't seem to grasp it.

Eventually the full Green came on and I proceeded. So basically, I was beeped at and screamed at for following the rules of the road.

A learner probably would of panicked and just drove.

Are you sure your light was red?

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 6:01pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would certainly reduce numbers cycling, ....

Why would a registration plate reduce the numbers cycling ?

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 6:09pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Why would a registration plate reduce the numbers cycling ?

Because it is a barrier to cycling - it requires an administrative process and an associated cost.

One of the many advantages of cycling is the ease and simplicity of getting going on cycling. It is very easy for many people to get cycling. You just get a bike, which could cost €30 or €3,000 depending on what you need and can afford. You don't need special clothing, you don't need a reg plate, you don't need insurance - all for very good reasons, because the risks involved or minimal. So any barrier to getting people cycling will reduce numbers cycling.

What benefit would it bring, given the numbers of registered and insured drivers that we all see every day ignoring traffic laws?

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 6:19pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because it is a barrier to cycling - it requires an administrative process and an associated cost.

No it's not some huge barrier to cycling

eg. bicycles in Japan are registered :

When you purchase a new bicycle at our local bike store the salesperson will offer to register your bicycle for an additional :

500 yen ( 3.87 Euro) fee.

If you decide to register your bicycle at the time of purchase you will be asked to fill out a form with details including your name, phone number and address and details about the bicycle including maker and serial number etc. Finally you will have to present a valid form of ID.

Once done the shop assistant will place a bright yellow registration sticker on your new bicycle and you're ready to ride. Easy! They will also give you a receipt which you should hold on to for a while just in case you're stopped by police before your registration information has entered the police records.

11-11-2018 6:21pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you consider trialling a motoring helmet?

About half of all head injuries occur in vehicles, compared to about 2% on bikes, even with airbags and seatbelts etc. So motoring helmets have great potential to save lives and eliminate or reduce injuries. They've got to be worth a shot given that they should make road use safer, right?

There is a serious danger in taking the 'everyone needs to be responsible' approach. While it is factually correct to say that everyone needs to be responsible, it is in danger of missing the point. 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. If we want to reduce road deaths, that is the best place to start. This article explains the dangers of false equivalence.

https://www.roadbikerider.com/views/1194-correcting-the-false-equivalencies-in-the-cars-vs-cyclists-debate

If we could wave a magic wand and fit a mirror to every bike tomorrow, the likely outcome on road deaths is zero change. At best, it might save one or two lives. By contrast, if we could wave a magic wand and fit a speed governor to every car/van/truck to keep them under the speed limit, we would probably cut our road deaths in half, something like 50-80 road deaths saved. That would be 50-80 families less going through Christmas without a loved one.

If we actually want to reduce road deaths, we need to focus on the drivers that are killing three or four people each week. Anything else is a distraction.

If I jump into a shark tank the sharks are to blame if I am killed? EVERYONE needs to take personal responsibility. If cyclists were smart enough not to go on the inside of a truck there would be many fewer hurt. Example

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 6:43pm

gctest50 wrote: »

No it's not some huge barrier to cycling

eg. bicycles in Japan are registered :

When you purchase a new bicycle at our local bike store the salesperson will offer to register your bicycle for an additional :

500 yen ( 3.87 Euro) fee.

If you decide to register your bicycle at the time of purchase you will be asked to fill out a form with details including your name, phone number and address and details about the bicycle including maker and serial number etc. Finally you will have to present a valid form of ID.

Once done the shop assistant will place a bright yellow registration sticker on your new bicycle and you're ready to ride. Easy! They will also give you a receipt which you should hold on to for a while just in case you're stopped by police before your registration information has entered the police records.

And what happens when I change address every couple of months, as many students do? And what happens when I pass the bike over to another family member, or a workmate for a while? And what happens if I actually sell the bike?

And more importantly (and for the second time), what benefit arises? What problem does this bureaucracy solve?

Deleted User wrote: »

If I jump into a shark tank the sharks are to blame if I am killed? EVERYONE needs to take personal responsibility. If cyclists were smart enough not to go on the inside of a truck there would be many fewer hurt. Example

If you jump into a swimming pool and get killed by a shark, you might be inclined to blame whoever put the shark in there. Drivers need to not kill people - the basic minimum requirement to getting out on the road. Truck drivers/operators are responsible for their equipment, so if they're driving with blind spots, that is their problem to fix. They need to fit whatever extra mirrors or extra cameras or see-through doors or extra crew on watch - whatever it takes to make sure they don't kill or maim people who are rightfully and legally on the road with them.

Would you like to explain to Rose Hoey's family how she should have taken more responsibility?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/reverse-lights-broken-on-truck-which-killed-ranelagh-pedestrian-1.2567865

11-11-2018 6:50pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you jump into a swimming pool and get killed by a shark, you might be inclined to blame whoever put the shark in there.

So you now think I said a shark was in a swimming pool so you could make ridicule?

You have such a narrow view. You think no person should be responsible for their action. Also, it is very poor form to use one persons tragedy to support your weird idea that the only responsibility is a motorists.
Very poor form.

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 6:57pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And what happens when I change address every couple of months, as many students do?

And what happens if I actually sell the bike?

You know exactly what happens

What happens if it was a small moped you bought instead of a bicycle ?

What do students with mopeds do when they want to change address ?

.

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 6:59pm

gctest50 wrote: »

What happens if it was a small moped you bought instead of a bicycle ?

What do students with mopeds do ?

They comply with the legal requirements for mopeds, which relate to the weight, speed and potential for harm of mopeds.

Now for the 3rd time, what benefit would arise from registration?

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 7:02pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They comply with the legal requirements for mopeds, which relate to the weight, speed and potential for harm of mopeds

What has that to do with change of address ?

Do i need to spell everything out ?

Where is the problem with just a registration plate ?

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 7:08pm

.You could run a few "competitions" n stuff to get it going

Hand out free bicycle registrations and plates

Week later :

Get one of the radio stations out on the street to "spot a lucky registration "

Give the lucky winner an iPad or smth

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 7:09pm

gctest50 wrote: »

.You could run a few "competitions" n stuff to get it going

Hand out free registrations and plates

Get one of the radio stations out on the street to "spot a lucky registration "

Give the lucky winner an iPad or smth

And for the fourth time - what benefit would arise from this layer of bureaucracy?

Or should I assume that if you can't spell out what actual benefits would arise, there are no benefits.

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 7:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So you now think I said a shark was in a swimming pool so you could make ridicule?

I know exactly what you said. I just used a slightly more relevant analogy.

The roads are not a shark tank. The roads are part of the community that we all use, with our families, our children, our parents and grandparents, our relatives with disabilities, including sight loss, hearing loss, intellectual disabilities.

Drivers just need to not kill and maim. It's a fairly low bar.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have such a narrow view. You think no person should be responsible for their action. Also, it is very poor form to use one persons tragedy to support your weird idea that the only responsibility is a motorists.
Very poor form.

Go back and read my posts and you'll see that's not what I said. I said that yes, everybody should take responsibility for their action. And those that are driving multi-tonne vehicles at speeds of 15-150 kmph have particular responsibility that arise from the size, weight and speed of those vehicles. Their responsibility is to NOT kill and maim people, even if those people don't follow the rules perfectly, like most humans do.

The only 'weird' thing in my posts is the suggestion that drivers should stop killing and maiming people on the roads.

Muahahaha · 11-11-2018 7:23pm

dudara wrote: »

We’ve largely fixed the non-wearing of seat belts, we’ve largely fixed drunk driving, and excessive speeding isn’t too common either.

I had thought myself that people not wearing seatbelts was left back in the 1990s but the 2017 RSA stats say otherwise- one in five deaths in a car were due to no seat belt being worn. 20% is pretty high for a device that everyone knows can save your life. Whats worse was the 2015 stats said 30% of children killed in cars were not wearing belts.

Its an even bigger problem in the UK- over there 27% of deaths in cars are caused by people not putting their seat belt on. Mad stuff when you think about it.

pablo128 · 11-11-2018 7:45pm

Roads Policing fatalities to date for 2018
Traffic fatalities up to 9am on the 9th November 2018.

Pedestrians

35

Drivers

54

Passengers

18

Motorcyclists

11

Pedal Cyclists

8

Pillion Passengers /Other

Total Year To Date

126
There we have it. Cyclists are least likely to be killed on our roads. That should please our resident cyclists on here.

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 7:51pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They comply with the legal requirements for mopeds, which relate to the weight, speed and potential for harm of mopeds.

......

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

weight, speed and potential for harm

Chalie Alliston was doing about

14mph

when he hit and killed Kim Briggs

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 7:57pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Chalie Alliston was doing about

14mph

when he hit and killed Kim Briggs

Will your little yellow sticker make this less likely to happen in Ireland, given that it hasn't happened in the last 15 years here?

Sittingpretty · 11-11-2018 8:07pm

[quote="Truck drivers/operators are responsible for their equipment, so if they're driving with blind spots, that is their problem to fix. They need to fit whatever extra mirrors or extra cameras or see-through doors or extra crew on watch - whatever it takes to make sure they don't kill or maim people who are rightfully and legally on the road with them.[/url][/quote]

Are you serious? Have you ever actually sat into a truck? Are you suggesting that cyclists should not have to be mindful of traffic inclusive of HGVs on our roads? To cycle ignoring the blind spot of any vehicle or to assume you are visible is suicidal.

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 8:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Will your little yellow sticker...

Not sticker...........

Registration Plate....... modern version of this :

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 8:18pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Will your little yellow sticker make this less likely to happen in Ireland, given that it hasn't happened in the last 15 years here?

You know well i was referring to the weight speed and potential for harm part of your post

I even included it, look...... here it is again for you :

gctest50 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

weight, speed and potential for harm

Chalie Alliston was doing about

14mph

when he hit and killed Kim Briggs

gctest50 · 11-11-2018 8:22pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/over-350-cyclists-treated-for-head-injuries-in-irish-hospitals-last-year-1.3615589?mode=amp

216 cyclists were discharged from Irish hospitals after being treated for head injuries in “non-collision transport accidents”.

Non-collision transport accidents

- so 216 fell off and received head injuries

how many were wearing helmets ?

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 8:55pm

gctest50 wrote: »

You know well i was referring to the weight speed and potential for harm part of your post

I even included it, look...... here it is again for you :

For the 5th time, what benefits will arise from your registration system?

pablo128 · 11-11-2018 9:04pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For the 5th time, what benefits will arise from your registration system?

Jesus Christ lad, if cyclists have a number plate they are identifiable. If a cyclist is seen breaking a red light on dashcam and reported and prosecuted, others will start to take notice. Therefore more cyclists will take a more responsible attitude to using the roads and therefore will reduce deaths and injuries.

That's just one example.

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 9:12pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Jesus Christ lad, if cyclists have a number plate they are identifiable. If a cyclist is seen breaking a red light on dashcam and reported and prosecuted, others will start to take notice. Therefore more cyclists will take a more responsible attitude to using the roads and therefore will reduce deaths and injuries.

That's just one example.

So a registration system stops people from routinely breaking red lights?

https://youtu.be/Vc5VGuJvOVk

Really?

pablo128 · 11-11-2018 9:15pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So a registration system stops people from routinely breaking red lights?

https://youtu.be/Vc5VGuJvOVk

Really?

You will always have some idiots using the roads in all modes of transport. I don't need to look at a YouTube video to realise that.

MadDog76 · 11-11-2018 9:16pm

Shenshen wrote: »

How so? The point being argued is that the party capable of doing the most damage carries the most responsibility.

The/my point was Motorists and Pedestrians can take deserved criticism...... Cyclists, based on the posts/posters in this thread alone, can't.

My point has been proved by said posters......

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 9:37pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

The/my point was Motorists and Pedestrians can take deserved criticism...... Cyclists, based on the posts/posters in this thread alone, can't.

My point has been proved by said posters......

Cyclists can most certainly 'take criticism', though I'm not quite sure how that helps to reduce road deaths. You can criticise cyclists all you like for all the stupid things that stupid cyclists do every day, like breaking lights, cycling without lights, pulling out looking.

The problem is that it doesn't save lives on the road. If you want to save lives on the road, you'd want to be thinking about how motorists kill 3 or 4 people every day. Cyclists are about 5% of road deaths, but you're choosing to ignore the 95% of road deaths.

pablo128 wrote: »

You will always have some idiots using the roads in all modes of transport. I don't need to look at a YouTube video to realise that.

The evidence shows that it's not just 'some idiots'. The evidence shows that 60%-80% of registered motorists break speed limits (RSA Speed Surveys). The evidence shows that 88% of red light jumpers at the Luas red light camera were registered motorists, not unregistered cyclists. The evidence shows that registered motorists in Ireland are 2nd worst in Europe for mobile phone abuse.

Law breaking by registered motorists is not 'just some idiots'. It is the vast majority. Registration doesn't stop people breaking the law.

But more importantly, given that cyclists are involved in 5% of road deaths while motorists are involved in 99% of road deaths, which group do you think we should be focusing our efforts on to reduce road deaths?

MadDog76 · 11-11-2018 11:00pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cyclists can most certainly 'take criticism'........

LOL!!!

Shenshen · 12-11-2018 12:31am

erica74 wrote: »

Would there be more than one type of mirror to test out before writing them off? I don't understand why anyone wouldn't at least trial something that may make their road use safer.
All road users should perform a lifesaver before changing direction.

There's quite a range, the ones I tried were some of the larger ones. Still way smaller than on my motorbike, and with the handlebars a different shape than on the motorbike the angle for them was impossible.

And even on the motorbike, the mirrors give you just an idea of what may be behind you. You certainly do not get anywhere near as good an idea as with the two wing mirrors and rear mirror in your car.

When cycling, I can hear the traffic behind me. I think the reason for the mirrors on motorbikes is that you can't hear car tires through the helmet.

Shenshen · 12-11-2018 12:41am

gctest50 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/over-350-cyclists-treated-for-head-injuries-in-irish-hospitals-last-year-1.3615589?mode=amp

216 cyclists were discharged from Irish hospitals after being treated for head injuries in “non-collision transport accidents”.

Non-collision transport accidents

- so 216 fell off and received head injuries

how many were wearing helmets ?

*raises hand*
I am one of that number.
I came off my bike while cycling down a steep hill, on a road with tall walls either side. Coming around a corner, I was suddenly facing an SUV head-on. The driver was overtaking a pedestrian on her side of the road, uphill in a blind bend.
I managed to pull the bicycle to the left and avoid her, but came in contact with the wall and fell off.
I was wearing a helmet.

Ended up in A&E to check for broken bones, but luckily only sprained a few joints.

Shenshen · 12-11-2018 12:43am

pablo128 wrote: »

Jesus Christ lad, if cyclists have a number plate they are identifiable. If a cyclist is seen breaking a red light on dashcam and reported and prosecuted, others will start to take notice. Therefore more cyclists will take a more responsible attitude to using the roads and therefore will reduce deaths and injuries.

That's just one example.

I would probably find that believable, if I didn't see on average 4 - 5 cars running red lights on my daily commute.
The fact that their registrations are showing seems to be no deterrent at all.

AndrewJRenko · 12-11-2018 12:45am

Shenshen wrote: »

I would probably find that believable, if I didn't see on average 4 - 5 cars running red lights on my daily commute.
The fact that their registrations are showing seems to be no deterrent at all.

Lucky you - only one set of lights on your commute!

Shenshen · 12-11-2018 9:32am

MadDog76 wrote: »

The/my point was Motorists and Pedestrians can take deserved criticism...... Cyclists, based on the posts/posters in this thread alone, can't.

My point has been proved by said posters......

I'm a motorist, motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian. I'm very happy to take any realistic criticism for any of these groups.

But I am keenly aware that when I'm walking or cycling, I'm responsible for my own safety. I'm the only person I can kill when I'm walking or cycling. When I'm driving or on the motorbike, I'm responsible for a lot more people at any given moment, as I can kill or seriously hurt others just by a moment's inattention.

And yes, I do see idiot cyclists every day. I also see idiot pedestrians, and seriously idiot motorcyclists.
But they usually stick to being a danger only to themselves.
What I also see is an absurd number of idiot drivers - speeding, running red lights, using roundabouts incorrectly, overtaking without having a clear view of the road ahead of them, driving on the hard shoulder to undertake traffic. Two weeks ago I saw someone driving on a cycle path to undertake a line of traffic standing at a red light. And he wasn't exactly driving slowly, either.
These people are mostly endangering others. They're cocooned inside impact bars and crumple zones and protected by airbags. What they hit may not be.

Corb_lund · 12-11-2018 9:38am

Shenshen wrote: »

I would probably find that believable, if I didn't see on average 4 - 5 cars running red lights on my daily commute.
The fact that their registrations are showing seems to be no deterrent at all.

Most red light runners are people pushing the amber/red situation where it is fairly predicable.

Most cyclists (coming from someone that commutes in on a bike) take the pìss and cycle through totally red lights.

There's idiot car drivers alright, in fact I'm going back to driving soon hopefully....but cyclists really do not help themselves..

Shenshen · 12-11-2018 9:55am

Corb_lund wrote: »

Most red light runners are people pushing the amber/red situation where it is fairly predicable.

Most cyclists (coming from someone that commutes in on a bike) take the pìss and cycle through totally red lights.

There's idiot car drivers alright, in fact I'm going back to driving soon hopefully....but cyclists really do not help themselves..

What I usually see these days is one car going through amber, and another 2 or 3 following it, going through the red light. And I see that from both ends, I'm now quite used to not being able to set off once the lights turn green, because there are still cars going across after running the red light on their side.

I don't live in Dublin, so I honestly can't say what it's like there, but I've yet to see a bicycle run a red light here. I would drive far more than I cycle, as my commute is too far and way too dangerous to cycle, unfortunately.

Irish Guitarist · 12-11-2018 10:14am

The number of drivers that don't stop at pedestrian crossings is ridiculous. Then there's the gobshites parking on footpaths (not just the edge but the entire path) so pedestrians have to walk out on the road to avoid them.

What I really don't get is how more young lads on bikes don't get killed or cause someone else an injury. You see groups of them speeding along the path here, then they just decide at a whim to fly into the road. When they get bored of that they just fly back onto the path. There's absolutely no indication of what they'll decide to do next.

AndrewJRenko · 12-11-2018 4:02pm

Corb_lund wrote: »

Shenshen wrote: »

I would probably find that believable, if I didn't see on average 4 - 5 cars running red lights on my daily commute.
The fact that their registrations are showing seems to be no deterrent at all.

Most red light runners are people pushing the amber/red situation where it is fairly predicable.

Most cyclists (coming from someone that commutes in on a bike) take the pìss and cycle through totally red lights.

There's idiot car drivers alright, in fact I'm going back to driving soon hopefully....but cyclists really do not help themselves..

'Pushing the amber /red' is breaking the law. Many drivers seem to be hugely surprised that the red light comes after abmer and indeed that the amber light comes after green.

But why the obsession with red lights when comparing law breaking cyclists with law breaking motorists. If you want to compare both, bring speeding and phone abuse into the equation for a start and see how they work out.

MadDog76 · 12-11-2018 7:16pm

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm a motorist, motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian. I'm very happy to take any realistic criticism for any of these groups.

But I am keenly aware that when I'm walking or cycling, I'm responsible for my own safety. I'm the only person I can kill when I'm walking or cycling. When I'm driving or on the motorbike, I'm responsible for a lot more people at any given moment, as I can kill or seriously hurt others just by a moment's inattention.

And yes, I do see idiot cyclists every day. I also see idiot pedestrians, and seriously idiot motorcyclists.
But they usually stick to being a danger only to themselves.
What I also see is an absurd number of idiot drivers - speeding, running red lights, using roundabouts incorrectly, overtaking without having a clear view of the road ahead of them, driving on the hard shoulder to undertake traffic. Two weeks ago I saw someone driving on a cycle path to undertake a line of traffic standing at a red light. And he wasn't exactly driving slowly, either.
These people are mostly endangering others. They're cocooned inside impact bars and crumple zones and protected by airbags. What they hit may not be.

You won't find me defending idiot Motorists or Pedestrians........ criticise idiot Cyclists and you'll be met with "but but but...... the Motorists"...... if you haven't seen that on this thread, and this site as a whole, you're either blind or in denial.

AndrewJRenko · 12-11-2018 9:40pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

You won't find me defending idiot Motorists or Pedestrians........ criticise idiot Cyclists and you'll be met with "but but but...... the Motorists"...... if you haven't seen that on this thread, and this site as a whole, you're either blind or in denial.

It's just a bit more subtle than that.

Criticising cyclists is fair game. Loads of cyclists do stupid stuff all the time.

Suggesting that 'fixing' cyclists or cycling is a significant road safety priority, and you'll definitely be met with the 'but but but the evidence'. It is the data that tells you that cyclists aren't killing 3 or 4 people each week.

MadDog76 · 12-11-2018 10:01pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's just a bit more subtle than that.

Criticising cyclists is fair game. Loads of cyclists do stupid stuff all the time.

Suggesting that 'fixing' cyclists or cycling is a significant road safety priority, and you'll definitely be met with the 'but but but the evidence'. It is the data that tells you that cyclists aren't killing 3 or 4 people each week.

You've missed my point completely, it's gone way over your head...... as an aside, based on your post here alone, you've actually missed the point of this whole thread in it's entirety.

I'll give you a hint to help you figure out where you've gotten lost...... read the thread title again and remember that it's NOT a Cyclists versus Motorists thread...... good luck!

AndrewJRenko · 12-11-2018 10:05pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

You've missed my point completely, it's gone way over your head...... as an aside, based on your post here alone, you've actually missed the point of this whole thread in it's entirety.

I'll give you a hint to help you figure out where you've gotten lost...... read the thread title again and remember that it's NOT a Cyclists versus Motorists thread...... good luck!

Funnily enough, I'm one of the few people who've actually got the point of the thread - which is 'deaths on the road'.

Any talk about cyclist behaviour or helmets or hi-vis or the usual oul guff is a drop in the ocean if we're dealing with deaths on the road.

If we really want to reduce deaths on the road, we need to get drivers to slow down and put their phones down. But I guess some people aren't yet ready to face up to that inconvenient truth.

MadDog76 · 12-11-2018 11:10pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funnily enough, I'm one of the few people who've actually got the point of the thread - which is 'deaths on the road'.

Any talk about cyclist behaviour or helmets or hi-vis or the usual oul guff is a drop in the ocean if we're dealing with deaths on the road.

If we really want to reduce deaths on the road, we need to get drivers to slow down and put their phones down. But I guess some people aren't yet ready to face up to that inconvenient truth.

Funnily enough, the thread is about quite the opposite...... the question isn't about reducing deaths on the roads, it's asking why, all factors considered, aren't there MORE deaths on the road. It's literally in the thread title, which I politely and helpfully asked you to read...... I get the impression, from your posts, that you just see/read things the way you want to see them.

AndrewJRenko · 14-11-2018 10:53pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

Funnily enough, the thread is about quite the opposite...... the question isn't about reducing deaths on the roads, it's asking why, all factors considered, aren't there MORE deaths on the road. It's literally in the thread title.

Yes, you got me there - it is literally in the thread title.

And if you go back to my statement, I literally said that the point of the thread is "deaths on the road" - so I got it right, right?

When I asked the slightly rhetorical question about reducing deaths on the road, I just assumed that most people would be keen on reducing deaths on the road. Are you keen on reducing deaths on the road? If so, you're looking in the wrong place if you're chasing cyclists. And no, I don't mean that literally.

imme · 14-11-2018 11:16pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Murder isn't really appropriate here as it implies premeditation. Motorists do kill three or four people each week here, but they don't murder them.

Cyclists certainly should be respectful of pedestrians indeed, though let's not exaggerate the dangers to pedestrians from cyclists. Motorists kill about one pedestrian each week on the roads on average, just for context. I've never seen any study that shows injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists are a significant issue - have you?

And yes, vice versa is important too. One cyclist was killed as the result of the actions of a pedestrian in the Phoenix Park in recent years.

Great that you managed to see all these 'invisible' cyclists! Certainly, it's not clever or legal to be cycling without lights after dark, but let's not over-exaggerate the risk.

All but one of the relatively low number of cyclists killed on the roads last year were killed in daylight. I can't recall any case of cyclist death resulting from lack of lights in living memory, can you?

And let's not miss the significant number of motorists out there with one broken headlight, or one or two broken brake lights, or no back lights at all because they don't know how their DRLs work.

If a cyclist is cycling during lighting up time they need lights, legally and in order to save their lives and to save the nerves of other road users.

5 cyclists in a row went past me last night all without lights, none with any matter of reflective clothing, that is asking for trouble and giving a headache to all other road users.

They should have their bikes taken off them until they produce lights at least.

One can buy a set of bike lights for €10.

A broken brake light does not come onto the same scale as no lights on a bike.

AndrewJRenko · 14-11-2018 11:31pm

imme wrote: »

They should have their bikes taken off them until they produce lights at least.

Same approach for the four out of five drivers that break speed limits? They should have their cars impounded until they learn to slow down?

Or do we just turn a blind eye to one of the major causes of deaths on the road?

John_Rambo · 14-11-2018 11:40pm

In 2017 there were 157 tragic fatalities.

There were 66 car Drivers killed in their cars.

There were 26 car Passengers killed in cars.

There were 30 Pedestrians killed by cars

There were 20 Motorcyclists killed

There were 15 Pedal Cyclists killed by mostly by cars.

Of the 15 cyclist killed by cars 13 were in broad daylight.

Luas operator Transdev show drivers in 2018 have hit the brakes;

266 times to avoid cars in the tram’s path

223 times to avoid pedestrians in the tram’s path

61 times to avoid cyclists in the tram’s path.

imme · 14-11-2018 11:41pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Same approach for the four out of five drivers that break speed limits? They should have their cars impounded until they learn to slow down?

Or do we just turn a blind eye to one of the major causes of deaths on the road?

4 out of 5, is that in urban areas or rural areas, 1 km over the limit or 29 over the limit.
Is there a source for that.

There are enough measures in place to deal with speeding of vehicular traffic imo.

Cycling without lights and wearing dark clothing and no luminous clothing is asking for trouble, a death wish, apart from being illegal.

How are more people not killed on our Roads

Comments