Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which, considering the basis of the topic is cars parked on footpaths and cyclists on footpaths I think Thelonius is just a tad incongruous in pointing out deaths so far this year.

Actually this thread was about cyclists on paths, car parking was only introduced as the usual diversion to prevent substantive discussion on the topic. It has suceeded only too well as all that is left is endless whataboutery.

Zebra3 wrote: »

So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?

This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures."

And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness.

Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018.

But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation.

Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians.

There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate.

However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective.

And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety.

magicbastarder wrote: »

this was not my point. my point was that if alternative forms of transport are discouraged or considered too dangerous to undertake (pun unintended), that people will gravitate towards other modes of transport.
hence my 'swimming in the shark infested pool' analogy from earlier in the thread.

in short - it doesn't really matter how safe driving is if people have been forced off their bikes into cars; the topic here (and i know the topic is a little freeform) is how safe *cycling* is, not how safe *driving* is.

Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.

RoversCeltic wrote: »

Under what law

The citizens advice website isn't clear

Google it. Or search this thread, the exact law has been pointed out by several posters now, including quotes of the relevant text.

ixoy wrote: »

I remember crossing that junction, with the pedestrian light, and a car turning right there and coming through the lights. I called out to him that it was a green man and he shouted back that he had a right to turn?! Is there some unusual legislation about that junction or something?

Nope, just a ****/entitled driver who doesn't know the rules of the road - or really terrible observation. I've experienced the same as a pedestrian crossing a road in town, with a cyclist insisting the lights meant he could cycle through a pedestrian crossing on a pedestrian green light. I suspect just poor observation in that case.

SeanW wrote: »

This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures."

And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness.

Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018.

But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation.

Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians.

There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate.

However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective.

And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety.

Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.

What should be the target of road deaths is zero.

How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?

Why when I go out cycling should I feel so at risk because of other road users?

Why should anyone who is caught using their phone while driving be allowed behind the wheel again?

People all over the world were dying because of people smoking in bars. The idea that people can do that any more is seen as insanity.

The reality is though that there is no political will to hold motorists accountable for most of their crimes. Driving licences are issued by the state subject to compliance by the holder. Sadly, too many seem to think there is a right to be driving in this country.

liamog wrote: »

One thing thta really winds me up is the paths with a tarmac cycle lane and a concrete path. We've quite a few of them in my area. I never understand some pedestrians insistince on walking in the cycle path, or some cyclists inability to stick to the cycle lane. I'm not talking about moving into the other to avoid a hazard, it's just a complete lack of ability to follow simple guidelines when it comes to lanes that manifests itself at all levels of road user.

Maybe we could do what they do in Denmark and have cycling lanes at a different level to both the road and the footpath.

liamog wrote: »

I think that would be a good idea, but no doubt it would be rejected here as a trip hazard.

Why?

We already have the road and footpath at separate levels.

SeanW wrote: »

If you haven't read the thread, don't bother. It's just the usual suspects hijacking the thread to take a dump on motorists.

That's a show of power from the cycling lobby against the poor downtrodden motorist. Better watch your back, they won't like being exposed.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Great input. You can walk in the pedestrian section though or you could just accept a typo as exactly that

Fair enough, I'll accept your typo if you'll also accept that cycling two abreast is not "Blocking the road"?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It generally is unless isn't. the cyclists are making an effort not to and hug the kerb

FYP

ewc78 wrote: »

In fairness I've seen comments on those news items where people automatically blame the driver when no one actually knows the details of the accident. I'm sure even some of the time it's the cyclists own fault? Not that anyone deserves to die of course but there are cyclists who take ridiculous risks on the road, and before anyone mentions it, yes I know motorists take stupid risks also...

Which recent cyclists deaths are down to the fault of the cyclist?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Motorists cause next to no danger when mounting a footpath. They are almost universally cautious of pedestrians and yield fully in almost all instances. The idea that motorists mounting curbs is markedly dangerous is nonsense. What it is is irritating and rude, which are exactly the same gripes pedestrians have with cyclists.

Universally cautious? Have you ever seen a van driver or truck driver pulling up to load or unload?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I know they both relate to the same accident, that's why the words "Fatal result of the above" are typed in between them, anyways perhaps you could contact the author of the article and ask if the pedestrian was on the shared cycle path or not, I see nothing in the article to indicate either way.

The Coroner's Inquest into this accident incident hasn't taken place yet, so I don't think the full details are in the public domain.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

Maybe we should move on from red light jumping to look at, ooh let's say' speeding by motorists. How often does this happen, do you think?

SeanW wrote: »

You didn't "point out" anything, you simply expressed your own opinion that all the data and evidence is irrelevant to you.

You have chosen to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all international context that disproves your view, but you have given no reason why any reasonably well balanced person should follow. Your argument basically consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same empty platitudes.

As to why I mentioned Canada specifically, it's generally accepted by your ilk that Irish motorists are horrible and need to be regulated much more heavily. Yet Canada regulates its motorists much more heavily than Ireland, and yet they suffer significantly more road fatalities than Ireland by every relative measure? Why are the lesser-regulated Irish motorists involved in fewer fatalities? Surely, if you and your ilk are to be believed, Canada should have fewer road deaths per captia/vehicle/km traveled than Ireland.

You have also singled out Irish motorists specifically, but given ZERO reason why Irish motorists specifically deserve the level of opprobrium directed towards them. ZERO. None. Nada. Squat. Zip. People are entitled to ask you why you are singling out Irish motorists in that way.

And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

You've chosen to ignore the context, and the facts, so I really have no idea what you're trying to suggest here.

I pointed out that you're strawmanning - argueing against a position that was never made. No-one was making international comparisons but you.

The standard that I hold Irish motorists to is the standard of not killing two or three people each week. All the research from the RSA shows the major causes of deaths to be down to lawbreaking - speeding, drink driving, phone use.

So maybe if we start actually enforcing traffic laws, maybe we'd have fewer deaths? Do you think?

SeanW wrote: »

Yet you single out Irish motorists specifically. So comparisons, data, evidence are all appropriate in judging your claims.

It's not just "very hard" the evidence shows that it is not feasible. I mentioned Canada specifically because they regulate motorists much more heavily than Ireland yet suffer more fatalities. Yet according to people like you, Canada should have less fatalities, not more.

You also choose to ignore things like vehicular suicide which contributes significantly to road fatalities.

If you choose to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all the international context, that is your right, but everyone else has the right to draw their own conclusions and object to your nonsense.

The evidence that you've presented from Canada shows you nothing of the sort. For a start, you'd need to look how serious they are about enforcing their laws.

ewc78 wrote: »

30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.

How slightly? If it's 20 seconds, do you think that's OK?

ewc78 wrote: »

Yup it's wrong and dangerous, anyone breaking a red light motorist or cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road imo.
I've seen plenty of cars break red lights, never after 30 seconds though. Then im not from Dublin, maybe ye are all a bit more kamikaze up there.
I have seen plenty of cyclists zoom through red lights minutes after they have turned red without a care in the world also though.
Both wrong, both need to be stopped.

Yeah, I've seen cyclists doing this too at red lights. It happens all the time. And yet, no-one dies. Is it really as dangerous as, say, speeding by drivers - being one of the top three causes of road deaths?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually I don't think I whinged anywhere about kids having fun, I think the matter I'm concerned with is the fake news from people arguing about cars being parked on footpaths being relative to 18 people being killed on the roads.

What post in particular argued that cars parked on footpaths were relative to 18 people being killed on the road?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Actually this thread was about cyclists on paths, car parking was only introduced as the usual diversion to prevent substantive discussion on the topic. It has suceeded only too well as all that is left is endless whataboutery.

No discussion has been prevented. Discuss away.

SeanW wrote: »

Most of us will have heard stories about what people used to do "back in the day," especially regarding driving home after a session. I know I have, and it explains a lot.

OK, let's assume that it is even possible to prevent all the accidents (It's not, but for the sake of argument). How do you prevent the vehicular suicides?

Every society finds it acceptable because the societal benefits to people from the use of motor vehicles (in terms of the functioning of society and the quality of life improvements for their people) FAR outweigh the costs.

Simply put, if an action causes a million people to have a 100 times better quality of life but one person dies, most sane people will consider that a fair trade-off.

Are all the motorists driving like they're out to get you?

Because they are punished appropriately with penalty points that will haunt them for 3 years. Their insurance might go up, depending on their circumstances.

Meanwhile, lawbreaking cyclists are never punished at all, no matter what they do.

You're comparing smoking (which only benefits the tobacco companies) with the use of motor vehicles (which literally benefits every single person). Are you sure that's a route you want to go down?

Unlike lawbreaking scum on bikes, who are free to cycle on footpaths and jump red lights with total impunity, motorists can be and are punished for transgressions, up to and including suspension of their licenses.

I have only once seen a cyclist stopped by Gardai for being a lawbreaking ****. And that was on the pedestrian part of Grafton St.

If you haven't read the thread, don't bother. It's just the usual suspects hijacking the thread to take a dump on motorists.

Factually incorrect, yet again;


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141

Rogerrabit wrote: »

You are following the Irish health experts advice pity these so called experts were not in favour of the wearing of face masks by the general irish public from the outset of the virus here...and are still not in favour...the advice given by these so called experts is totally out of touch with what is working across Europe and asia to combat the virus.

Congratulations ,when did you get your Masters degree in epidemiology?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It generally is unless the cyclists are making an effort not to and hugging the kerb

Cyclists don't hold up traffic. Cyclists ARE traffic.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed. Today, a house for sale at €450,000 is considered "affordable"! For most people, that means both parents must be in full time employment. If they have kid(s), they need two cars (because they both work different times/locations), which in turn means they need child care 5 days a week.

When you compare this to our parents generation. My parents bought a house based on my Dads sole income. my mum was a stay at home mum, so no childcare and only one car needed. Even then, we lived on a bus route which gave us direct access to Dublin City Centre.

I don't think you can blame cars for that, this was caused by a wide variety of factors, not least of which is the de-industrialisation of the Western world - whereas before there were factories that could support small towns, now more and more people have to pile into bigger cities to gain access to a market for more specialised employment. That causes the regions formerly supported by industry to die and the cities to overheat.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Coroner's Inquest into this accident incident hasn't taken place yet, so I don't think the full details are in the public domain.

Are you claiming that one or more of the parties may have acted on purpose?

Maybe we should move on from red light jumping to look at, ooh let's say' speeding by motorists.

Oh, I don't know, but here's a crazy idea:
MAYBE YOU SHOULD START YOUR OWN SODDING THREAD.

I pointed out that you're strawmanning - argueing against a position that was never made. No-one was making international comparisons but you.

You were ****ting on Irish motorists. I provided context. Yes, you consider context, data and evidence to be irrelevant, but that's just you.

The standard that I hold Irish motorists to is the standard of not killing two or three people each week.

Which is not only provably impossible, but the data shows that Irish motorists are actually relatively good at not killing people.

All the research from the RSA shows the major causes of deaths to be down to lawbreaking - speeding, drink driving, phone use.

Yet you focus solely on speed?

So maybe if we start actually enforcing traffic laws, maybe we'd have fewer deaths? Do you think?

No. I don't. For one thing, Ireland has a very strange definition of "urban area" and so the risks you claim from "speeding in urban areas" is severely overstated.

For example, according to Irish transport planning, this road is an "urban road" with an urban area speed limit of 60kph. Or how about this, also an "urban area" with a 60kph limit. Or, how about this "core urban street" with its 50kph limit?

AFAIK, this crap is unique to Ireland.

I don't think that having a large scale clampdown on people driving above 50kph past fields and out-of-town ribbon developments would accomplish a whole lot. Furthermore, I dare say that most sane people would agree. But according to you, anyone who does so is part of your "98%"

The evidence that you've presented from Canada shows you nothing of the sort. For a start, you'd need to look how serious they are about enforcing their laws.

Try getting a drivers license in Canada. Their system would rival any Byzantine absurdity. It takes many years and a multitude of tests to become fully licensed. If they enforce their laws anything like the way the regulate their Byzantine licensing system, then there should be fewer road deaths per capita/vehicle/km driven than Ireland - and BOTH should be contributing to that.

Because according to your kind, regulating motorists more should result in lower road deaths. But as Ireland v. Canada proves, not only is that untrue, but the exact opposite is true. There's a similar dynamic in China where the laws regulating motorists are so severe that you're not even allowed to change the colour of your car. Doesn't stop the drivers from driving like they're trying to kill everyone.

Factually incorrect, yet again;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141

FYP. I stand corrected - some lawbreakers are being held to account with a small fine.