Cyclists

average_runner · 13-11-2018 9:47am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The data shows clearly exactly who is responsible for road deaths. In a strong majority of cases, it is a motorist.

Can you show us? Usually the reports doesn't blame anyone.
And we want the majority of them.

average_runner · 13-11-2018 9:55am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The difficulty is that you've just made that up. It's not part of the forum rules for either forum.

Certainly, the cycling forum has frequent discussions about keeping cyclists safe. By and large, this involves getting motorists to comply with the law.

The best way to avoid the rest of us suffering is to point out how ridiculous any kind of collective responsibility is.

Do the rest of motorists suffer 'pesky drivers' labelling because of the few idiots driving round with no back lights because they don't know how their DRLs work?

Great, so let's stop motorists from getting away with routinely breaking speed limits and red lights, and then cyclists will certainly follow. The bigger problem is the motorists that kill and maim.

I don't think that's how policing works.

If I'm a pedestrian with no lights and a black jacket crossing the road and a car driver knocks me off, who are we going to blame?

We don't need to become a nanny state and have the police hold our hands, we need to become responsible adults that sets a responsible example to our kids. That's the way we change things.

By saying it needs to be police your passing the bucket to some one else, which is not a good example to show your kids.

Instead man/woman up, lead by good example and if the majority of us do that, we will see the effect of it in the long term.

Tombo2001 · 13-11-2018 10:17am

pomgh wrote: »

I am a cyclist and a car user, yet everyday as I driver to and from work at 5am I see cyclists with no lights front or back. They are putting themselves in danger and others also. I have written to the RSA and they have ignored this issue I have highlighted to them. These cyclists are cycling on back roads with no lights either. The road traffic regulations clearly state that cyclists must have working lights on their bikes, yet a lot of them put themselves in danger and others as well as pedestrians by not following a simple rule.
The RSA have on radio and TV highlighted to give cyclists space on the road, cycle lanes, but have not once highlighted to cyclists that they like other vehicle users to have working lights on their bikes between the hours of dusk to dawn especially now that we are again in these dark evenings. The Gardaí are to blame also for not implementing the law for they will stop a car user, but I have never heard of a Garda stopping a cyclist....I am missing something here.....does it have to take a cyclist to get killed before the RSA / Gardaí broadcast this ever so important information for all?

Fed up with this bull. There must be some guidebook somewhere that says if you are going on a rant about cyclists, then it offers extra punch to your rant if you start it with 'I'm a cyclist myself but....'

Everyone can ride a bike. Thanks for sharing.

I'm a cyclist who actually cycles, for example to work and back.

In light of this particular stereotype comment, I actually stood at the traffic lights in Drumcondra early one morning last year and counted the cyclists going through the traffic lights in the dark. After about 50 cyclists in a row went by with lights and with some form of hi viz , and none went by without any lights, I moved on......never to take this type of comment seriously again.

And ALSO - Mods? Are people allowed sign up and with their first ever comment start a confrontational thread such as this?

Macy0161 · 13-11-2018 10:27am

average_runner wrote: »

But you are forgetting the bigger problem. If we allow one group away with something, all the other groups will behave the same way. Thats human behaviour.

So we need to treat all the same which in turn will make the roads safer for all and save lives.

I agree. But you start with the mode that will have the biggest impact on deaths and life changing injuries, which is the motorist.

Many motorists seem to have a bee in their bonnet about enforcement of cyclists, when the biggest offenders are motorists. Try to stick to the speed limits (even by GPS not speedo), and see how often you're passed or how quickly traffic builds. Even in urban areas, like the N11 (if it's clear enough).

This morning on my commute, every cyclist had lights that I saw for the first 3/4's (which was already outside of lighting up times). It was only passed stillorgan I saw people without lights. I didn't see any cyclist breaking any lights.

On the other hand, before parking up I was overtaken through our 50km/hr village for daring to stick to the limit. I saw people driving in the hardshoulder to avoid jams. When on the bike, as per usual, my light had gone green at Johnstown Road, Whites Cross, Brewery Road, Tree's Road and Fosters Avenue, and I still had cars entering past a clear red from the side roads. I saw many abusing the bus lane (2 gear Tuesday).

The premise that there's no enforcement on cyclists but there is on other road users is false. There's just a lack of enforcement.

Motorists are so untouchable, that the use of camera's/ ANPR is politically toxic even for our supposedly apolotical road safety organisation. We can have campaigns against the enforcement of drink driving laws. Enforcing speeding is dismissed as "Flash for Cash" - even the terminology used and accepted show how normalised law breaking is for motorists, as it's always apparently "shooting fish in a barrel". Like that is a bad thing...

fwiw I generally do 16,000km plus in the car. I'm hoping to get to 5000km on the bike this year.

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 10:34am

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And ALSO - Mods? Are people allowed sign up and with their first ever comment start a confrontational thread such as this?

Leave the moderating to the mods please. If you've an issue with a post, reported, don't complain on thread. And yes, people are entitled to express concern about cyclists cycling with no lights.

jjpep · 13-11-2018 11:52am

What I find annoying about these kind of debates is the idea that all cyclists must take responsibility for the action for other cyclists. I know other posters in this tread have touched on this already but it really must be called out for the BS that it is. I am not responsible for the actions of other people. I am no more responsible for a cyclist not having a light on than I am if another driver goes through a red light. This idea that if you use a bike you must some how take collective responsibility for other bike riders is nuts. I'm not a cop. I'm not going to start asking other people why don't they have any lights on or whatever. I'm not going to chase after someone in a car and tell them they shouldn't be breaking red lights.

As a tax payer and road user (bike, car and bus) I want the finite resources of the state put to their most sensible use. If all the stats tell us that people being stupid in cars is the biggest cause of injury and death on the road then that's where we aim at. Its not about being 'fair' or that all road users should be targeted the same. This is the group that causes the most problems so this is the group that we (society) needs to fix. Its not cyclists vs motorists. Its people who take care not to cause harm vs the careless multiplied by capacity to cause harm. Better to have an idiot on a bike than in charge of something actually dangerous.

If you find that annoying or unfair perhaps its your conduct you need to look at, not everyone else's.

incentsitive · 13-11-2018 11:58am

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In light of this particular stereotype comment, I actually stood at the traffic lights in Drumcondra early one morning last year and counted the cyclists going through the traffic lights in the dark. After about 50 cyclists in a row went by with lights and with some form of hi viz , and none went by without any lights, I moved on......never to take this type of comment seriously again.

I call bull on that claim.....there is no way 50 cyclists went by with lights AND some form of hi viz. I think a trip to specsavers might be in order!!

jjpep wrote: »

Better to have an idiot on a bike than in charge of something actually dangerous.

A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....

Moflojo · 13-11-2018 12:10pm

incentsitive wrote: »

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....

I'm a simple man, but I'm going to continue to blame the motor vehicles that are responsible for more than 99% of road fatalities and I'll continue to say that motor vehicles are the problem on our roads.

Appeals to "share the road" are just an attempt to share the blame, nothing more.

seamus · 13-11-2018 12:20pm

incentsitive wrote: »

A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

Relatively speaking, it's really, really, not. You see people falling off and tripping on kerbs on a constant basis. Does that mean kerbs are dangerous? No. Because any injury suffered is typically minimal.

Relative risk; how likely is an incident, and how severe are typical injuries.

Comparing to other risks - including tripping on kerbs, slipping down stairs, being hit by a vehicle, being outside in windy conditions, falling out of bed - bikes are not dangerous to pedestrians.

Tombo2001 · 13-11-2018 12:22pm

incentsitive wrote: »

I call bull on that claim.....there is no way 50 cyclists went by with lights AND some form of hi viz. I think a trip to specsavers might be in order!!

A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....

Give over - you cant lash out at cyclists, and then also take the moral high ground of 'everyone needs to stop blaming everyone else'.

Regarding the other comment, its not bull and I don't need to go to specsavers thanks for the advice.

You will find that the vast majority of cyclists who commute daily to work tend to invest in lights, in hi viz and are prepared and don't need to be lectured about visibility on the roads.

Of course that doesn't stop people lecturing them.

That is not to say all cyclists wear hi viz all of the time - I'd completely agree with you if you said teenagers on the way to football training in the evening are desperate culprits for both cycling on the footpath and not having lights or hi viz.

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 12:34pm

jjpep wrote: »

As a tax payer and road user (bike, car and bus) I want the finite resources of the state put to their most sensible use.

But the topic of this thread is cyclists and lack of lights. At the moment, far more of the finite resources of the state are being ploughed into promoting high viz vests than they are into promoting adequate lights. On the rare occasions the RSA have handed out free lights, they've been the type that no experienced cyclist would rely on. In that context, it's reasonable to wish that a greater focus be put on promoting adequate lighting.

jjpep · 13-11-2018 12:34pm

incentsitive wrote: »

A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....

For me, the problem with your statement is that you are again grouping road users by the type of transport they use. Its not the type of transport that dictates if someone is a danger (type of transport only increases or lessens potential impact) its the level of care and attention they give to what they are doing. The person who cycles without lights is the same kind of person who texts and drives. In the example you give of the accident you saw, the pedestrian is many times better off being hit by an idiot on a bike than an idiot in a car, bus, truck etc.

jjpep · 13-11-2018 12:41pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

But the topic of this thread is cyclists and lack of lights. At the moment, far more of finite resources of the state are being ploughed into promoting high viz vests than they are into promoting adequate lights. On the rare occasions the RSA have handed out free lights, they've been the type that no experienced cyclist would rely on. In that context, it's reasonable to wish that a greater focus be put on promoting adequate lighting.

Agree completely on lights vs hi-vis, and for me it is a waste of resources to give these out as opposed to proper lights. I was in a city in Germany recently on a work trip where one of the city by-laws is that all bikes (sold and on the road) must have as a minimum a set of dynamo lights installed. This kind of enforcing the law at point of sale is something we should bring in here too.

On the 'in use' enforcement side though I would still stand by my point. If 99.9999% of all road accidents are caused by someone being stupid in a car then we direct 99.9999% of our enforcement resources in that direction. I cannot think of a compelling reason not to.

Tombo2001 · 13-11-2018 12:42pm

Just to take the contra argument here.*

Maybe the government should make it mandatory at point of sale - enough money goes into the Bike to Work scheme, bike shops make a lot from this.

Surely wouldn't be that hard to say - here is a standard light spec that every bike needs to have, and cant be sold without that.

Could you sell a car without lights?

*Note that this doesn't take away from the much more important point that even with every single bike having an impeccable front and rear light, it wouldn't change the fact that the biggest risks to cyclist safety are poor driver attitude and bad road layouts.

Tombo2001 · 13-11-2018 12:45pm

jjpep wrote: »

Agree completely on lights vs hi-vis, and for me it is a waste of resources to give these out as opposed to proper lights. I was in a city in Germany recently on a work trip where one of the city by-laws is that all bikes (sold and on the road) must have as a minimum a set of dynamo lights installed. This kind of enforcing the law at point of sale is something we should bring in here too.

On the 'in use' enforcement side though I would still stand by my point. If 99.9999% of all road accidents are caused by someone being stupid in a car then we direct 99.9999% of our enforcement resources in that direction. I cannot think of a compelling reason not to.

What city was this?

I was in berlin last year and was quite struck by how few cyclists had lights compared to Dublin.

Against that, they had impeccable bike lanes that were well lit.

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 12:48pm

jjpep wrote: »

Agree completely on lights vs hi-vis, and for me it is a waste of resources to give these out as opposed to proper lights. I was in a city in Germany recently on a work trip where one of the city by-laws is that all bikes (sold and on the road) must have as a minimum a set of dynamo lights installed. This kind of enforcing the law at point of sale is something we should bring in here too.

An easy win would be for the government to just copy German bike lighting regulations into Irish law.

jjpep wrote: »

On the 'in use' enforcement side though I would still stand by my point. If 99.9999% of all road accidents are caused by someone being stupid in a car then we direct 99.9999% of our enforcement resources in that direction. I cannot think of a compelling reason not to.

It's important not to conflate the fact that the majority of fatalities involve a motorised vehicle with the supposition that the majority of fatalities are caused by the driver of that motorised vehicle. There is no proper system for recording who is responsible for every fatality in Ireland, but it's highly unlikely a driver is to blame "99.9999%" of the time.

jjpep · 13-11-2018 12:59pm

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What city was this?

I was in berlin last year and was quite struck by how few cyclists had lights compared to Dublin.

Against that, they had impeccable bike lanes that were well lit.

Heidelberg.

Alek · 13-11-2018 1:01pm

I think the Boards needs a 'The Visible Invisible Ninja Cyclist' super thread at this stage.

This is taking things ad absurdum. Poorly or not lit cyclists at night are a real issue - you may see them alright when they're against a bright background, but when suddenly appearing from a dark patch of the road, when someone's about to overtake or cross the traffic, they can pose a real danger.

They are probably my gripe no.1 these days.

jjpep · 13-11-2018 1:10pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

An easy win would be for the government to just copy German bike lighting regulations into Irish law.

It's important not to conflate the fact that the majority of fatalities involve a motorised vehicle with the supposition that the majority of fatalities are caused by the driver of that motorised vehicle. There is no proper system for recording who is responsible for every fatality in Ireland, but it's highly unlikely a driver is to blame "99.9999%" of the time.

I had a feeling that I shouldn't have used an exact number in my post... :-)

I take your point but in the absence of such a proper recording mechanism we have to make some assumptions. My base assumption is that in nearly all situations the person driving the car is most likely to be at fault. There is an argument to be made about how much of a contributing factor our generally poor road infrastructure has in these situations too but when your in charge of a multi ton vehicle that's allowed to operate in close proximity to people you should be taking that into your decision making.

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 1:26pm

jjpep wrote: »

My base assumption is that in nearly all situations the person driving the car is most likely to be at fault.

There isn't any data to support an assumption like that though. Not all fatalities result in prosecutions. There's plenty of inquest verdicts that return accidental death or death by misadventure. And while I think inquests are an imperfect tool for recording responsibility and would certainly take issue with some verdicts and recommendations, there's been plenty of published verdicts that you couldn't really dispute.

In Ireland I'm unaware of any academics studies, but there's been a few in the UK which found that motorist aren't always to blame.

jjpep · 13-11-2018 1:54pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There isn't any data to support an assumption like that though. Not all fatalities result in prosecutions. There's plenty of inquest verdicts that return accidental death or death by misadventure. And while I think inquests are an imperfect tool for recording responsibility and would certainly take issue with some verdicts and recommendations, there's been plenty of published verdicts that you couldn't really dispute.

In Ireland I'm unaware of any academics studies, but there's been a few in the UK which found that motorist aren't always to blame.

That's an interesting study. I'd be particularly interested in knowing how its decided that there's contributory negligence from both the driver and the rider. Here, we often read reports in the papers how it may be mentioned that a rider wasn't wearing a helmet for example - even when it would seem that in that particular incident a helmet would have not saved the riders life (I'm thinking particularly of incidents where people have been hit by bus's or trucks).

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 1:58pm

jjpep wrote: »

Here, we often read reports in the papers how it may be mentioned that a rider wasn't wearing a helmet for example - even when it would seem that in that particular incident a helmet would have not saved the riders life.

Yep, that's one of my bugbears with inquest recommendations, where juries (out of naivety rather than malice presumably) recommend helmets without realising they aren't designed to prevent head injuries caused by collisions with vehicles. That all then feeds into the helmet hysteria.

Tombo2001 · 13-11-2018 2:15pm

jjpep wrote: »

That's an interesting study. I'd be particularly interested in knowing how its decided that there's contributory negligence from both the driver and the rider. Here, we often read reports in the papers how it may be mentioned that a rider wasn't wearing a helmet for example - even when it would seem that in that particular incident a helmet would have not saved the riders life (I'm thinking particularly of incidents where people have been hit by bus's or trucks).

One of the most notable ones for me was the inquest recently into a case where a cyclist was killed by a truck turning left down in Central Dublin.

The Garda at the scene - and this was quoted quite a bit at the time - said that the cyclist was positioned dangerously on the road.

What wasn't particularly quoted (and I don't know if it was said or not) was that the reason the cyclist was positioned dangerously was because
(I) Trucks have a blind spot and the cyclist was in it - (Is that the cyclists fault?)
(II) The cycle lane directed her towards stopping at a particular point in the road (at the lights) ahead of the accident.

The road layout has since been changed at this junction - however, the narrative at the time was that that the cyclist was positioned dangerously and by implication that this contributed to the accident.

AndrewJRenko · 13-11-2018 3:20pm

jjpep wrote: »

It's important not to conflate the fact that the majority of fatalities involve a motorised vehicle with the supposition that the majority of fatalities are caused by the driver of that motorised vehicle. There is no proper system for recording who is responsible for every fatality in Ireland, but it's highly unlikely a driver is to blame "99.9999%" of the time.

I don't think anyone is suggesting 99.9999% is the right number. But in response to those who were looking for the data, it's all available at
http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

For me, the most important starting point is that 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. So if we really do want to reduce road deaths, surely that should be the obvious place to start.

07Lapierre · 13-11-2018 3:34pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

jjpep wrote: »

It's important not to conflate the fact that the majority of fatalities involve a motorised vehicle with the supposition that the majority of fatalities are caused by the driver of that motorised vehicle. There is no proper system for recording who is responsible for every fatality in Ireland, but it's highly unlikely a driver is to blame "99.9999%" of the time.

I don't think anyone is suggesting 99.9999% is the right number. But in response to those who were looking for the data, it's all available at
http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

For me, the most important starting point is that 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. So if we really do want to reduce road deaths, surely that should be the obvious place to start.

Anyone who wants to drive should have to do some sort of test, then they should have to have insurance and pay a “Road Tax”. Helmets should be compulsory (along with bucket seats, 5 point safety harness and all cars should have roll cages as standard) I mean is that too much to ask?

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 3:36pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For me, the most important starting point is that 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. So if we really do want to reduce road deaths, surely that should be the obvious place to start.

Where is the 75% figure published? I don't see it on the link you posted.

AndrewJRenko · 13-11-2018 3:54pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For me, the most important starting point is that 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. So if we really do want to reduce road deaths, surely that should be the obvious place to start.

Where is the 75% figure published? I don't see it on the link you posted.

Look at the breakdown of deaths by road user type. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

For 2016, 76% of deaths are motorists, passengers and motorcyclists.

For 2017, it is 71%.

So once again, I wonder where the repeated obsession with fixing cycling comes from, given that it represents 5-10% of road deaths, depending on what year you choose.

Tombo2001 · 13-11-2018 4:48pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Look at the breakdown of deaths by road user type. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

For 2016, 76% of deaths are motorists, passengers and motorcyclists.

For 2017, it is 71%.

So once again, I wonder where the repeated obsession with fixing cycling comes from, given that it represents 5-10% of road deaths, depending on what year you choose.

To be fair, the amount of hospital admissions due to cycling accidents is high - and that shouldn't be overlooked in the discussion; I'm one of that group this year myself.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/four-cyclists-a-day-attend-hospital-over-road-accidents-466489.html

AndrewJRenko · 13-11-2018 5:40pm

Tombo2001 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Look at the breakdown of deaths by road user type. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

For 2016, 76% of deaths are motorists, passengers and motorcyclists.

For 2017, it is 71%.

So once again, I wonder where the repeated obsession with fixing cycling comes from, given that it represents 5-10% of road deaths, depending on what year you choose.

To be fair, the amount of hospital admissions due to cycling accidents is high - and that shouldn't be overlooked in the discussion; I'm one of that group this year myself.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/four-cyclists-a-day-attend-hospital-over-road-accidents-466489.html

I wouldn't overlook it, but I would look at it in the context of the overall numbers of those injured in collisions. The number of collisions and the severity of injury is in a different league to that of motorists.

In terms of priorities for reducing, the priority would still be very much on the motoring side.

Hope you have recovered yourself.

Chips Lovell · 13-11-2018 6:08pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For 2016, 76% of deaths are motorists, passengers and motorcyclists.

For 2017, it is 71%.

But that's not what you said, hence the genuine confusion. You said 75% of road deaths are motorists "killing other motorists and passengers".

30 of the 67 driver deaths in 2017 were single vehicle collisions. 8 of the 20 motorcyclist deaths were single vehicle collisions. So in these cases it's people "killing" themselves. Even the word "killing" is problematic, since it it implies some degree of intent or negligence and excludes genuine accidents.

All the RSA statistics tell you is who died. It's impossible to infer from them who (if anyone) was to blame for each death.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So once again, I wonder where the repeated obsession with fixing cycling comes from, given that it represents 5-10% of road deaths, depending on what year you choose.

The vast majority of the meagre enforcement efforts we have are against motorists. A significant proportion of public information and education efforts are directed towards motorists. I don't see why its controversial to encourage cyclists to use decent lights.

Cyclists

Comments