Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

Jawgap · 05-05-2016 9:43pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Depends on the route you cycle, the time of day you cycle. The junctions you have to negotiate etc?

Not really, the RSA data shows that while urban areas account for the greater number of collisions injuring cyclists, by far the greater proportion of fatalities occur in rural areas - so yes, while there's a greater chance of getting hit in Dublin (understandable given traffic densities) the chances of being killed are significantly less.

Dublin also had the lowest (1.5 per 100,000) number of persons killed per 100,000 population. It's Monaghan you'd want to avoid

Plus junctions are not inherently dangerous. The big thing as a cyclist is to avoid being on the inside of a left turning HGV - if we followed Paris' example with the equivalent of their 'right on red' (left on red in our case) they'd be even safer again.

A DCC Traffic Department Study from 2009 found that

Of the 427 collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city from 2002-2006, only 11 involved fatalities. However, eight of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning lorries. Of the three other fatalities, one involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes, in another a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist while the third was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.

Their findings clearly indicate that cyclists not poor or reckless driving are the problem :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 05-05-2016 10:02pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Well I have been knocked down twice, but haven't been killed. Based on the stats used here unless I have been killed cycling is safe.

I'll see your "I have been knocked down twice" and raise you a "I've never been knocked off my bike in Dublin" - I was in Meath once, but for all my cycling in Dublin I've never had a tip. To add some context - I cycle about 10,000 km per year - a decent proportion of which is commutes inside the M50.

traprunner · 05-05-2016 10:29pm

I haven't been knocked down but I did manage to knock myself out when my front wheel slipped on a manhole. I'll be down as one of those stats that hospitals and the social welfare count as they have both noted it.

I've had one driver recently decide to close pass me, then proceed to swerve in front of me and then slam on his brakes just because he was in the left turning lane and crossed the junction to go straight on and I had the audacity to look over my left shoulder in surprise when I heard him there. He did try to jam on the brakes a couple more times up the road but I was hanging well back because he was obviously a deranged looney.

There were a few more close misses over the past 18 months or so and all down to drivers not looking and either pulling in or across me. But I've had similar things happen while driving too. I don't think it's particularly dangerous but I'm always aware.

One thing I can say is that cycling has made me a safer driver. I'm far more aware of cyclists since I started commuting on the bike.

magicbastarder · 05-05-2016 10:48pm

i've had two accidents; one my fault. thankfully no broken bones in either one, just a few stitches and sprained ankle.

Jawgap · 05-05-2016 10:49pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Lucky you, I stand by my argument that cyclists deaths is not the most accurate way to determine how safe Dublin cycling is.

I would do about 5000km cycling commuting a year for the last 3 years. Knocked down twice, slipped on ice once and landed on my head and four flat tyres.

I'd consider myself a fairly defensive cyclist so I wouldn't put myself in a position to be in danger where I can avoid it. Never break lights, obey the rules of the road, wear my helmet and hivis etc

Still got knocked down. Twice. So from my POV, where Dublin may not be the most dangerous city in Europe to cycle it's far from the safest either.

I'd agree with you - that's why I referenced collision data earlier in the thread in the context of km travelled - your perception that cycling is not safe is not supported by the evidence.

BTW, only about 8 to 10% of injuries suffered by cyclists are incurred commuting to/from work according to the RSA, but admittedly 'trip purpose' was marked as 'unknown' for 45% of the incidents examined.

Finally, even if you are unfortunate to be hit or fall, EU data also shows that in the case of "non-fatal road accident casualties who were admitted to
hospital" cyclists require the second shortest stay and have injuries that require a lower admission rate than other road user categories.

Cookie_Monster · 05-05-2016 10:51pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe we could limit bikes to 25kph, unless a competency test has been passed?

how, bike don't require speedo so you could never tell. There are no speed limit for bicycles anyway and you could never implement them because of the speedo thing.

also 25kph is my average speed on the bike, making it the max is absurd and is just further draconian limitations being put in place to sate the motoring lobby. In reality it would achieve nothing and be impossible to apply and enforce

magicbastarder · 05-05-2016 10:52pm

that was a tongue in cheek comment.

MJohnston · 05-05-2016 10:53pm

Only injury I've suffered due to cycling is when Michael O'Leary tried to shoot me

Cookie_Monster · 05-05-2016 10:54pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

that was a tongue in cheek comment.

you can never be sure when the anti-cycling rants start up...

magicbastarder · 05-05-2016 10:58pm

i've hit near 70kph on the bike. i'm not exactly living by those imaginary rules.

Grandeeod · 05-05-2016 11:02pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you can never be sure when the anti-cycling rants start up...

The pro-cycling rants aren't much better. They tend to be littered with the same old arguments that nobody seems to challenge to any great degree. Maybe its because people in general don't care about cyclists.

traprunner · 05-05-2016 11:10pm

A lot of cyclists are also drivers. Not a lot of drivers are also cyclists. It does give a bit more perspective when you are a user of both.

If the same old arguments are not challenged then why don't you give it a shot?

Carawaystick · 05-05-2016 11:59pm

Deedsie wrote: »

I never reported either of my collisions and I'd imagine most other people don't either if they are perceived to be minor. Not saying that's right but any collision statistics are flawed as a result.

How do you expect things to get better if you take no steps to prosecute those who endanger you personally?

TheExile1878 · 06-05-2016 8:47am

Well I've just been knocked over - almost into traffic on the Quays - by a cyclist who came across the Millennium Bridge, over the road (where pedestrians should be) and then came on to the pavement to go down towards Jervis.

Mr O'Leary - start with her.

magicbastarder · 06-05-2016 8:57am

i would assume a pedestrian bridge would be covered by a ban on cycling on the footpath? or cycling without due care and attention?

magicbastarder · 06-05-2016 9:02am

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is cycling on a footpath not banned full stop?

i think this would cover the above scenario:
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-face-on-the-spot-fines-for-seven-road-traffic-offences-1.2270816

RobertFoster · 06-05-2016 9:05am

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Well I've just been knocked over - almost into traffic on the Quays - by a cyclist who came across the Millennium Bridge, over the road (where pedestrians should be) and then came on to the pavement to go down towards Jervis.

Mr O'Leary - start with her.

He didn't say he'd be the one doing the shooting. Do your own wetwork.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 9:07am

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is cycling on a footpath not banned full stop? Impossible to police but if AGS ever get their act together and start lashing out fines for cycling on the footpath then maybe it will stop.

So you want to ban kids from cycling? That would suit many motorists as there would be fewer cyclists due to virtually no exposure as a child. Foothpaths are the safest place for kids to cycle.

In saying that, here are laws covering cycling on footpaths already but like most traffic laws they are not enforced.

ED E · 06-05-2016 9:16am

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

Tell that to the Finns, Norwegians, Swedes..... They all cycle on the path.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 9:16am

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

So you'd put a child on a bike on the Rock Road heading to the park? I'm just using that as one example that a lot of people would know.

magicbastarder · 06-05-2016 9:20am

when i was maybe eight, i was ordered off the footpath onto the road by a garda in blanchardstown. i remember my mum being furious when i told her. there would have been a couple of busy bus routes using that road.

magicbastarder · 06-05-2016 9:25am

Deedsie wrote: »

Irish people are fundamentally different to Scandanavians.

yep, we reproduce by sexual reproduction and they do it by parthogenesis.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 9:39am

Deedsie wrote: »

No, I'd take them to a bike friendly park and teach them how to cycle with a bit of respect and consideration for others. They could cycle to school from secondary on the road.

So what if they are lets say 7 or 8 and have learned to cycle...."sorry child, you can only cycle your bike in that bike friendly park and we're not heading there until next week". Yep, that works with kids. I don't ever recall cycling into a pedestrian when I was a child on the footpath. Maybe I was very lucky to get away without spending time in prison.

I totally agree that adults shouldn't be on the footpath though. Just like rollerbladers, skateboarders and people on scooters shouldn't be on bike tracks.

magicbastarder · 06-05-2016 9:41am

i thought the whole point of being able to cycle when you're 10 was getting away from your parents for a while and having fun.
note: 'fun' for me included pulling a wheelie on my raleigh strika and the front wheel falling off. longest wheelie i ever pulled.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 9:53am

Deedsie wrote: »

I have no major issue with kids on footpaths. I rarely see it to be honest. As a child I definitely did it but times have changed a lot. I'd be more in favour of cycle friendly infrastructure to be constructed and maintained that they could use.

Out of curiosity what's your opinion on electric bikes in the cycle lanes? A couple of people on my route have them and use the cycle lane. I don't know what I make of them using the cycle lane really

They don't really bother me as I always seem to be going past them. Although since they do have a form of engine then they should probably be on the road.

What does bother me is the guys that have hooked up a small petrol engine to their bicycles. I haven't seen any of them in a while though.

Jawgap · 06-05-2016 10:01am

Deedsie wrote: »

I never reported either of my collisions and I'd imagine most other people don't either if they are perceived to be minor. Not saying that's right but any collision statistics are flawed as a result.

Yeah, there's a 'pyramid' effect - for every fatality there is a greater number of major injuries and a greater number again of minor injuries.

I don't have the data to had bit iirc the ratio for cycling is 1:37:264 - so yes they're will still be a lot of unreported cycling injuries, as well as unreported pedestrian and driver injuries - that doesn't mean cycling is unsafe.

If you think it is why not counter by posting up data instead of repeatedly relying on your own perception which is based on your experience - 'longitudinal' studies while interesting rarely allow conclusions to be drawn at a more general level

Jawgap · 06-05-2016 10:08am

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

What about......

......parking on the pavement?

......motability scooters?

.....powered wheelchairs?

.....prams and buggies, esp the 'all terrain' ones?

Cycling on the footpath is only dangerous if the cyclist is being a tw@t.

And yes it's illegal but it's not automatically dangerous.

MJohnston · 06-05-2016 10:20am

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think this would cover the above scenario:
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-face-on-the-spot-fines-for-seven-road-traffic-offences-1.2270816

Cycling rules and laws are too vague. What constitutes a 'pedestrianised street' is never clear - does it also apply to a basic footpath that diverges from the road? For example, is the Royal Canal path not arguably illegal to cycle on by this law? I'd like to see more specific rules because they'd help everyone and it'd hopefully stamp out some of the more ridiculous cycling provisions that the city does make (eg. the kind of messy mix of crossing they've added at both sides of the Talbot bridge).

Cookie_Monster · 06-05-2016 10:26am

Jawgap wrote: »

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

And yes it's illegal but it's not automatically dangerous.

Add your reply here.

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

traprunner · 06-05-2016 10:42am

Deedsie wrote: »

Are we not all encouraged to question and query statistics if we see possible errors?

But stats are exactly stats. They can only report on what is known. They don't take into account personal experiences and views.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 10:44am

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree it's not automatically dangerous but it is potentially dangerous and as such shouldn't happen. What if a motorist wishes to pull out of their driveway across the footpath and a cyclist crashes into the vehicle. Who pays for the potential damage to the vehicle? What if a cyclist on a footpath see's glass on a footpath swerves to avoid it and unintentionally hits an elderly pedestrian and breaks their wrist? Who is at fault and who pays for medical treatment. Etc etc etc Ad Infinitum

What if two people are walking towards each other and one bumps into the other causing them to fall over and bang their head. Who pays for the medical treatment. All of these hypothetical scenarios are already covered in law.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 10:51am

Deedsie wrote: »

Yes but relying on statistics you know to be not accurate... People under reporting collisions etc makes those stats flawed and not very useful.

It's a much better gauge and much more accurate than picking a figure out the the air. Not ever minor bump between cars is reported either. I'd love to know how you'd come up with totally accurate figures because to me it appears impossible because it relies on people making reports and many people just will not go to the hassle. So the stats as recorded are the best we can hope for and are technically accurate. The what if's are not considered statistics because there is no evidence apart from anecdotal that they occurred.

Jawgap · 06-05-2016 11:02am

Deedsie wrote: »

I made no argument other than that death stats are not the only statistic to be used to decided whether cycling in Dublin is safe or not. I only shared my own experiences as they are the only ones I know to be accurate and true. A safe, rule abiding cyclists was knocked down twice over 3 years or 15000 km of cycling. I never suggested I had stats to back it up I just argued that collision stats may not be that accurate.

I 100% concede my posts are solely from my experience of cycling in Dublin and throughout Ireland. I have no studies to back up my suspicion that the collision stats you have referenced are not accurate.

I also didn't say it wasn't safe, I said it's not the most dangerous city in Europe nor is it the safest. Do you get to choose how people reach conclusions? Are we not all encouraged to question and query statistics if we see possible errors?

'not the most dangeorus'? Interesting choice of language considering you've not produced much to back that up.

I think that it's usual to query stats and discuss errors by highlighting the errors (in methodology) or offering contrasting evidence, rather than simply saying "the stats don't gel with my experience."

But if experience is the metric my experience is that Dublin is safer than London, Birmingham, Newcastle and Cardiff - but not as safe as Berlin, Copenhagen and Strasbourg, but it's not too far behind them, it's significantly, in my experience, behind Lyon.

Jawgap · 06-05-2016 11:10am

Deedsie wrote: »

I didn't say the stats don't gel with my experience. I said they are inaccurate due to under reporting. For everything else you said there I would be in agreement with. Not the safest, not the most dangerous.

Again, how do you know there's under reporting to the point that they are not representative?

Any statistical study is going to be a sampling exercise - problem arises is when the sampling is unrepresentative.

traprunner · 06-05-2016 11:11am

Deedsie wrote: »

Encourage greater reporting of rtc's and incidents? Regardless of arguments about the accuracy and usefullness of incomplete data. The "fact" remains that sections of Ireland's road network remain unsafe for cyclists and investment is required to improve the network.

Encouraging greater reporting is still not definitive. In the scenario of cyclist injuries there will never be a statistic that is 100% accurate. I had my second fall of the bike a few months ago. Very minor injuries (cuts and bruising) apart from my ego. No one else was involved and I got up and cycled on. Who would I report this to?

Jawgap · 06-05-2016 11:20am

Deedsie wrote: »

Encourage greater reporting of rtc's and incidents? Regardless of arguments about the accuracy and usefullness of incomplete data. The "fact" remains that sections of Ireland's road network remain unsafe for cyclists and investment is required to improve the network.

There is very little of the network inherently unsafe - the bits that are 'unsafe' are rendered unsafe by driver behaviour

Carawaystick · 06-05-2016 11:20am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Add your reply here.

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

But if cars should never be on footpaths, that removes the danger of cars coming out of driveways....

How are these dangers removed when local authorities make shared use paths?
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3773198,-6.2485864,3a,75y,359.88h,77.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDekUNXJ35wEWBLckSIuM2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

ED E · 06-05-2016 11:22am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

Any proof? No.

Come back when you have a real argument.

cdebru · 06-05-2016 11:25am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Add your reply here.

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

how does the car get from the driveway to the road without being on the footpath ?

Wanderer78 · 06-05-2016 11:26am

Mol would wanna shut up. He's not the saviour of the planet

Roadhawk · 06-05-2016 11:46am

Regardless of injury and fatality stats apportioning blame on a particular group the bottom line is that all road users should be abiding by the current laws and uphold a level of courtesy to others on the road.

Motorists:
Stop speeding
Stop drink driving
Stop being on the phone while driving
etc.

Cyclists:
Stop breaking red lights
Stop cycling in pedestrianized areas
Put a bell on your bike
Make sure that you have a front and back light on during lighting up hours
etc.

It really should be quite easy.

Carawaystick · 06-05-2016 11:57am

Roadhawk wrote: »

Put lights on your bike

Why this? It's not a legal requirement, except under certain conditions, which apply less than half the time.

Roadhawk · 06-05-2016 12:04pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why this? It's not a legal requirement, except under certain conditions, which apply less than half the time.

Ok i will go back and edit the post just for people like you :rolleyes:

MJohnston · 06-05-2016 12:20pm

Roadhawk wrote: »

Regardless of injury and fatality stats apportioning blame on a particular group the bottom line is that all road users should be abiding by the current laws and uphold a level of courtesy to others on the road.

Motorists:
Stop speeding
Stop drink driving
Stop being on the phone while driving
etc.

Cyclists:
Stop breaking red lights
Stop cycling in pedestrianized areas
Put a bell on your bike
Put lights on your bike
etc.

It really should be quite easy.

I disagree on the red lights for cyclists to be honest - I think we should adopt the system used in several other countries that would allow cyclists to proceed (carefully and slowly) through red lights where their movement is 'hugging the curb'. This would still allow bicycle GDS (of whom I think there should be a lot more) to fine people on the basis of 'dangerous cycling', but give cyclists the leeway to proceed in a safe way.

I know most pedestrians will scream bloody murder at the very idea of this, but I think it's reasonable because when it's legal and expected, cyclists will take more care, pedestrians will be more aware, and motorists will be less angry because they won't have to get tangled up with cyclists as often.

Let's take an example I encounter every day:

At this junction, there's a long green phase for the traffic travelling left-right along Dorset Street, then that turns red, and there is a short green phase for pedestrians crossing Dorset Street (the yellow path). At this point, it's illegal for a cyclist following the red path to proceed, even though the pedestrians crossing at the green path (across Frederick St) have a red light (because of cars that have a green to turn left out of Frederick St at this point). This means that a cyclist has to wait for the green phase of the vehicle traffic from Blessington to Frederick Street, and that means you have several large buses to your right and lots of left turning cars on your left (thanks to the location of the straight-ahead bike lane) which is just more dangerous for cyclists, and slows down the vehicle traffic.

Really, in this case, a cyclist should be given the ability to cross parallel to the yellow pedestrian route (again, remember that pedestrians aren't allowed to cross at the green route at this point), even though that means passing through red traffic lights.

There are other examples too - I think cyclists should have a 'stop then proceed when clear' rule for light-assisted pedestrian crossings (such as the ones along OCS) similar to the 'right on red' rules for cars in America. I also think we need to look at offering more contraflow cycle lanes on one-way streets.

I genuinely think this would make things safer for everyone, because it gives cyclists a clearer, self-responsible framework to operate within, where breaking those rules should be even more harshly punished than currently. And it would give pedestrians and drivers a more predictable cyclist behaviour to expect.

magicbastarder · 06-05-2016 1:24pm

one thing with which there seems to be a disconnect, in relation to cyclist fines is the penalty for running a red light in a car, and running one on a bike.

if you're to take a single offence, the penalty for RLJing on a bike is €40, and for a car is €80 and two penalty points.
for a driver with a single offence (which may sound like cherry picking, but i know plenty in this position), the penalty points have not had any impact on them, just the €80 fine. so in this common scenario, the difference is a factor of two.

to quantify the difference in terms of potential danger - a car breaking lights at 50kph is carrying maybe 50 times the potential energy of a cyclist breaking them at 30kph. so it doesn't exactly seem proportional.

Rew · 06-05-2016 1:56pm

Funny thing is Red Light jumping is far more common for cars then bikes but its the main thing that gets jumped on in relation to cycling

TheExile1878 · 06-05-2016 1:59pm

Rew wrote: »

Funny thing is Red Light jumping is far more common for cars then bikes but its the main thing that gets jumped on in relation to cycling

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

TheExile1878 · 06-05-2016 2:01pm

[QUOTE=MJohnston;99629043
I genuinely think this would make things safer for everyone, because it gives cyclists a clearer, self-responsible framework to operate within, where breaking those rules should be even more harshly punished than currently. And it would give pedestrians and drivers a more predictable cyclist behaviour to expect.[/QUOTE]

There alreasy is this.

It's called "the law".

traprunner · 06-05-2016 2:03pm

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

I'm not a RLJ but I'm curious to know how many pedestrians have actually got hurt by bikes at that junction seeing that we are back to perceiving rather than than stats?

Rew · 06-05-2016 2:11pm

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

No crap, every day when I'm in the car or on the bike ill see people jump red lights. The particular lights you mention I was nearly squished by cash in transit who seemed to think he's a garda an not a delivery van driver.

Around Dublin green means go, yellow means go faster and red only applies if the car in front of you has stopped or the cars who have the green have made it into the junction. There is no exaggeration there that is exactly what happens.

Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

Comments