Road Safety Authority: 2017 Road Deaths 186->158 but Cyclists 10->15

GreeBo · 03-01-2018 8:31pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, Adams accepts that you're more likely to survive a crash wearing a seat belt.

I'm not totally on board with Adams' outlook, as I said. I actually do think risk compensation is a real phenomenon. But it's not a slam-dunk argument against the use of precautions, or even the mandation of the use of precautions (though the precautions have to be very good, and the attendant risk has to be pretty big).

I think it is a real phenomenon but not for run of the mill everyday activities.

Would I be more likely to drive aggressively if I was in a rally car complete with roll cage and 5 point harness, most definitely.

Do I cycle differently on days with my helmet versus without? I'd have to say no, it wouldnt even be a though in my head.

tomasrojo · 03-01-2018 8:40pm

It is supposed to be a largely unconscious process of compensation though.

They have done some studies (this is all off the top of my head, so may not be accurate) that showed people who usually wear helmets cycling more slowly when they didn't wear them, and some studies of taxi drivers driving faster when they were told they had ABS brakes compared with when they were told they didn't. They did a study of children running round an obstacle course, and the children ran more quickly when wearing protective equipment.

The effect isn't enormous, but I think there's reasonable evidence for it.

ted1 · 03-01-2018 9:22pm

Seaswimmer wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

As I've said before, saying there's a 50% rise is true, but misleading, because it makes it sound worse than it is. Basically, the yearly total has gone up, but it's gone 12->10->15. Which is not the direction anyone would want, but it's all in the same ballpark.

Where it differs is from the 2007-2012 period, which was consistently low, even getting down to 5.

It's worth noting, and I do think the total may be on an upward trend, due to both higher numbers of cyclists, and more HGVs back on the road, but analysing small numbers is hard to come up with vey meaningful stuff, especially on small timescales.

Strangely the cycle counter numbers on the Rock Road were down this year.

2016 275,000
2017 262,000

I expected an increase in line with the perceived notion that numbers of cyclists are up generally so not sure why there was such a substantial drop this year.

Big increase over 2013 which was last full year count (approx 210,00) but I expected trend to be continually upwards.

It was out of order for a while

tomasrojo · 03-01-2018 11:38pm

Back on topic:
http://irishcycle.com/2018/01/03/cycling-deaths-2017/

Level-headed analysis of this subject.

1bryan · 04-01-2018 9:30am

GreeBo wrote: »

I suspect its an issue of "distinguish-ability" rather than visibility, but I take the point.

what an absolute nonsense. Pretty much every fatality I'm aware of that involved a motorist (which is pretty much every fatality there is), the cyclist was exactly where they were meant to be - ie: on the left of the road.

I think your comment about sums up the problem though. Motorists react, they don't anticipate. If they see a cyclist they will avoid the cyclist. But what they should be doing is respecting the part of the road where cyclists are, AT ALL TIMES.

1bryan · 04-01-2018 9:31am

This is interesting. It's Florida, rather than Dublin, but the findings ring true for here too.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/

Ferris · 04-01-2018 11:43am

1bryan wrote: »

This is interesting. It's Florida, rather than Dublin, but the findings ring true for here too.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/

I read the data analysis section of that study and they haven't for bias on the cyclists behaviour due to being monitored? Maybe cynical but I would be a good boy too if I was being monitored by sensors, cameras, and a GPS. Driver behaviour would improve too under similar scrutiny.

Not to mention that they performed all analysis based on a 90% confidence interval which I think is insufficient when you have good quality data, in my industry 95% would be the norm.

Shame that these aspects have not been considered as I believe studies like these hold the key to making good value infrastructure changes rather than looking at the high level cyclist mortality rate.

GreeBo · 04-01-2018 12:16pm

1bryan wrote: »

what an absolute nonsense. Pretty much every fatality I'm aware of that involved a motorist (which is pretty much every fatality there is), the cyclist was exactly where they were meant to be - ie: on the left of the road.

I think your comment about sums up the problem though. Motorists react, they don't anticipate. If they see a cyclist they will avoid the cyclist. But what they should be doing is respecting the part of the road where cyclists are, AT ALL TIMES.

I dont think I said that cyclist was anywhere other than where they should be?

My point is that you can be perfectly visible in a lab setting, but not distinguishable from pedestrians, buggies, displays on shops, parked cars, etc etc that you find in the real world.

I didnt make any attempt to blame anyone, yet you jump straight into the usual, angry blame motorists response.

BTW, if it was that easy then we wouldnt have car crashes either and not crashing into a car is to both drivers benefits and yet it still happens every day.

GreeBo · 04-01-2018 12:20pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Back on topic:
http://irishcycle.com/2018/01/03/cycling-deaths-2017/

Level-headed analysis of this subject.

I wouldnt agree its level headed at all, its (obviously biased towards cyclists) its title gives that away immediately.

But also points such as

Significantly, all of the 15 collisions in 2017 included the involvement of motorists — that compares to the 2016 and 2015

when we almost all agree that there isnt enough data to draw any significant conclusions.

I might as well say thats its significant that when tossing a coin I got HEADS 15 times compared to last year where it was only 10.

1bryan · 04-01-2018 12:49pm

GreeBo wrote: »

My point is that you can be perfectly visible in a lab setting, but not distinguishable from pedestrians, buggies, displays on shops, parked cars, etc etc that you find in the real world.

my point is that your point is irrelevant. Someone offering the excuse, 'I didn't see them', when they hit a cyclist is completely unacceptable because, by-in-large cyclists occupy the part of the road that they're supposed to. If that part of the road was respected at all times, and not just when motorists 'see' a cyclist, it wouldn't even be an issue.

1bryan · 04-01-2018 12:49pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I didnt make any attempt to blame anyone, yet you jump straight into the usual, angry blame motorists response.

yes, motorists who are responsible for pretty much all cyclist fatalities.

GreeBo · 04-01-2018 1:03pm

1bryan wrote: »

my point is that your point is irrelevant. Someone offering the excuse, 'I didn't see them', when they hit a cyclist is completely unacceptable because, by-in-large cyclists occupy the part of the road that they're supposed to. If that part of the road was respected at all times, and not just when motorists 'see' a cyclist, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Any my point is that if it was that simple,you wouldnt have head on collisions or cars side-swiping each other as they would be respecting other lanes.

You need to live in reality and accept that these things happen, rightly or wrongly.

I also didnt say it was an acceptable excuse, I provided it as a reason, since, most sane people dont drive into other humans on purpose, even if they are only cyclists.

1bryan · 04-01-2018 1:16pm

GreeBo wrote: »

even if they are only cyclists.

I figured you were trolling all along. That comment confirms it.

beauf · 04-01-2018 1:19pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I suspect its an issue of "distinguish-ability" rather than visibility, but I take the point.

I don't think its either.

I'd suggest our driving habits are not to look for cyclists. But is probably also true of car vs car accident. We are reckless because there is weak enforcement of dangerous driving. You see it daily on the M50 (but all over to be honest) just really dangerously bad driving. People would be more careful driving if they thought they would be more likely to be caught and punished.

You can be lit up like a xmas tree. But if someone is looking at their phone, or just not looking at all, they won't see you.

CramCycle · 04-01-2018 1:29pm

1bryan wrote: »

I figured you were trolling all along. That comment confirms it.

MOD VOICE: If you think that someone is trolling or breaching other site rules, use the report post button. DO NOT CALL THEM OUT IN THREAD. Any questions via PM

tomasrojo · 04-01-2018 1:32pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I wouldnt agree its level headed at all, its (obviously biased towards cyclists) its title gives that away immediately.

I was thinking most specifically about him putting the 50% number in context, and looking at longer-term trends. Most of the cycling campaigners (the ones I'm aware of anyway) are making more of the 50% than it warrants, which is a pretty standard thing to do when you're essentially involved in politics, but I admire people who don't do it.

GreeBo wrote: »

But also points such as
when we almost all agree that there isnt enough data to draw any significant conclusions.

I don't think he was using "significantly" in its statistical sense, to be fair. But the majority (and sometimes, as this year, the totality) of cyclist fatalities are caused by collision with motorised vehicles every single year. It is beyond any uncertainty the leading cause of cyclist deaths in Ireland.

GreeBo wrote: »

I might as well say thats its significant that when tossing a coin I got HEADS 15 times compared to last year where it was only 10.

If every year you toss a coin you get 95-100% heads, then you know you've got a biased coin. We know that simple falls are not a large cause of cyclist deaths. We know beyond any doubt that the area we have to work on is reducing the likelihood of collisions with motorised vehicles.

1bryan · 04-01-2018 1:36pm

CramCycle wrote: »

MOD VOICE: If you think that someone is trolling or breaching other site rules, use the report post button. DO NOT CALL THEM OUT IN THREAD. Any questions via PM

done. Report sent.

Roadtoad · 05-01-2018 4:50pm

Of the 2017 fetalities, half the vehicles were 'commercial' (4x4, tractors, campervan, trucks), which seems out of kilter with the numbers of such vehicles on the roads.

Is there a driver gender count and age count? I'd prefer this to anecdotal opinion gleamed from reports at the times of the events.

CramCycle · 05-01-2018 5:44pm

It should be noted that this year, one of the fatalities involving a commercial vehicle and cyclist was the cyclists fault (the tourist), but none of the others appear to be. This was the only one where I know of the incident being the fault of the cyclist. The others (that I know of) where all the fault of the motorist involved.

GreeBo · 05-01-2018 6:13pm

CramCycle wrote: »

It should be noted that this year, one of the fatalities involving a commercial vehicle and cyclist was the cyclists fault (the tourist), but none of the others appear to be. This was the only one where I know of the incident being the fault of the cyclist. The others (that I know of) where all the fault of the motorist involved.

Were the details of the road sweeper incident in Rathfarnham released yet?

Hrududu · 05-01-2018 6:33pm

Just as a matter of interest how can we find out the details of those incidents? I'm always interested to see what happened but have no idea when or where to look. Would it be in news articles after an inquest or are they compiled somewhere together?

Mercian Pro · 06-01-2018 10:00pm

CramCycle wrote: »

It should be noted that this year, one of the fatalities involving a commercial vehicle and cyclist was the cyclists fault (the tourist), but none of the others appear to be. This was the only one where I know of the incident being the fault of the cyclist. The others (that I know of) where all the fault of the motorist involved.

I am puzzled as to how you can categorically say this. In the interest of seeing what could be learnt from the circumstances of the 15 deaths, I have been reading the various published reports. None of these apportioned blame, nor should they, as neither inquests nor trials have yet happened. Unless you have insider access to the Garda Investigation files or the results of the forensic investigations, I cannot see how you can say who was at fault.

Hrududu wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest how can we find out the details of those incidents? I'm always interested to see what happened but have no idea when or where to look. Would it be in news articles after an inquest or are they compiled somewhere together?

The inquests will hear the results of the various investigations carried out by An Gardaí and these may or may not be published depending on the level of interest of the news media. The inquest will attempt to determine how, when and where the death occurred but cannot consider or investigate questions of civil or criminal liability. If there is going to be a prosecution, the inquest will generally be adjourned without hearing the evidence and will be resumed after the trial.

One would hope that the RSA has access to all of the facts and reports in order to learn from past incidents and influence future campaigns but I'm not sure whether they do or not. The sketchy nature of their annual reports (location, time of the day, day of the week, speed limit, type of road, age of victim) makes me suspect they don't.

CramCycle · 06-01-2018 10:13pm

EDITED - part speculation

CramCycle · 07-01-2018 9:52am

Mercian Pro wrote: »

I am puzzled as to how you can categorically say this. In the interest of seeing what could be learnt from the circumstances of the 15 deaths, I have been reading the various published reports. None of these apportioned blame, nor should they, as neither inquests nor trials have yet happened. Unless you have insider access to the Garda Investigation files or the results of the forensic investigations, I cannot see how you can say who was at fault.

Based on the statements from her husband, reported in the papers. They state that she came around a sharp corner and collided with a trailer. Based on this I had made an assumption but this could be incorrect. Her husbands statement is here but it was incorrect of me to say it was her fault until a report comes out. It was not meant in a callous way, or a mean hearted way.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/husband-american-tourist-who-died-10626000

One would hope that the RSA has access to all of the facts and reports in order to learn from past incidents and influence future campaigns but I'm not sure whether they do or not. The sketchy nature of their annual reports (location, time of the day, day of the week, speed limit, type of road, age of victim) makes me suspect they don't.

Based on their focus for road safety campaigns, for any and all road users, they seem more focused on what they think are the main issues (via popular opinion) rather than anything based on analysis. I could of course be wrong.

1bryan · 08-01-2018 9:50am

Hrududu wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest how can we find out the details of those incidents? I'm always interested to see what happened but have no idea when or where to look. Would it be in news articles after an inquest or are they compiled somewhere together?

like any court case (bar those held 'in-camera'), you are entitled, as a member of the public, to attend an inquest in the public gallery.

They don't spare on the detail though so, certainly not for the faint-hearted.

tomasrojo · 01-01-2019 12:59pm

2018 stats, cyclists down from 14 to 9.
https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1080064893737414656

It's sort of good news, in the same way the higher than usual total was bad news at the end of 2017, but the usual warnings about calculating percentages on changes in small numbers apply.

AndrewJRenko · 01-01-2019 2:04pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

2018 stats, cyclists down from 14 to 9.
https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1080064893737414656

It's sort of good news, in the same way the higher than usual total was bad news at the end of 2017, but the usual warnings about calculating percentages on changes in small numbers apply.

Worrying increase in the number of pedestrian deaths - would be good to get behind these figures.

Beasty · 01-01-2019 2:17pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Worrying increase in the number of pedestrian deaths - would be good to get behind these figures.

As usual, the changes have absolutely no statistical significance (be it for pedestrians or cyclists). No doubt this year's "low" figure for cyclists will be jumped upon as soon as a similar figure is reached before the end of this year, or the next.

Clearly any death is a tragedy, but the figures for cyclists are so low I think we should be grateful that cycling remains so relatively safe within Ireland

ford2600 · 01-01-2019 4:48pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Worrying increase in the number of pedestrian deaths - would be good to get behind these figures.

It was about 50 10 years ago.

Without checking 40ish has been normal for a while from memory.

While I can understand, on some level, cnutish behaviour towards cyclists but the distain shown to pedestrians leaves me a little baffled. Literally every motorist is a pedestrian or an even more vulnerable road user.

Where I currently live two of the most aggressive drivers are parents of young children. . When you have that level of selfishness I'm always surprised the number isn't higher.

The assumption of priority, without any basis in law, on roads with no footpaths, car parks etc is pretty deeply ingrained in your average motorist.

I just checked CSO.

Jesus 2001-2007 was bleak. 4 years over 80 killed with 64 being lowest

magicbastarder · 01-01-2019 5:02pm

ford2600 wrote: »

The assumption of priority ... in car parks

this is one which i've always found baffling.

doozerie · 01-01-2019 7:23pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Where I currently live two of the most aggressive drivers are parents of young children. . When you have that level of selfishness I'm always surprised the number isn't higher.

The assumption of priority, without any basis in law, on roads with no footpaths, car parks etc is pretty deeply ingrained in your average motorist.

I've had similar experiences tying both of those things together. On more than one occasion when collecting my daughter from primary school we've been walking towards a car blocking most of the footpath, which drove towards us, still on the footpath, as the driver sought out a lower section of kerb to drive back onto the road.

The drivers are always parents of other kids in the school, they seem entirely willing to drive over other kids and parents in their enthusiasm to get going having collected their own kids.

People are bizarre. And all too often, completely irresponsible arseholes as and when it suits them.

ED E · 01-01-2019 8:05pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Worrying increase in the number of pedestrian deaths - would be good to get behind these figures.

Inquests for 2018 will sit in late 2019 and early 2020 if we're lucky so that kinda of review can only be done in 2021. Dangerous junction? Let another 5 die before recommendations can go to the LA to change it. Who cares eh?

Need to get the Coroners courts down to 6 month timeframes, no reason why it couldnt be done.

CramCycle · 01-01-2019 9:41pm

People = Sh1t

It's not a pure math equation as it is not all people, nor at all times, but statistically, all people are Sh1t. Accepting this fact or not is what defines whether you are better than everyone else or not. Regrettably, years of this BS means I am starting to accept it, which means I am falling further into the not category.

silverharp · 01-01-2019 9:51pm

Beasty wrote: »

As usual, the changes have absolutely no statistical significance (be it for pedestrians or cyclists). No doubt this year's "low" figure for cyclists will be jumped upon as soon as a similar figure is reached before the end of this year, or the next.

Clearly any death is a tragedy, but the figures for cyclists are so low I think we should be grateful that cycling remains so relatively safe within Ireland

safe relative to what?

tomasrojo · 01-01-2019 10:09pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is one which i've always found baffling.

Plus the way it's apparently ok to ignore one-way signs in car parks. Such weird behaviour. And unlike some roads, there are plenty of pedestrians walking with no footway, and it's one place you're quite likely to have children walking.

ford2600 · 01-01-2019 10:40pm

ED E wrote: »

Dangerous junction? Let another 5 die before recommendations can go to the LA to change it. Who cares eh?

Every road fatality for the last 10 years or so has been investigated immediately by a specially trained Engineer from NRA/TIL who attend often at same time as Garda Forensic team.

The investigator has a number of councils in their brief and as such will have a working relationship with local road engineer from ongoing road safety projects/audit work.

Their brief is to investigate if road infrastructure in anyway contributed to accident and if so design it out.

I'm not sure how you could improve element of process.

Stupid usually raises it's head when some dim councillor fancies a bit of road design input, usually have way through construction.

My in law has done it for a decade.. A few years back there was a fatality where a driver emerged from minor road onto a fast road at a junction where visibility was horrific owing to old house.

A month or two later I noticed all the new signs/road markings and I asked why not knock old house/make very minor road one way. Demolition was laughed as was road closure when design report recommended it. Every time it's dumb **** councillors

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 12:04am

doozerie wrote: »

I've had similar experiences tying both of those things together. On more than one occasion when collecting my daughter from primary school we've been walking towards a car blocking most of the footpath, which drove towards us, still on the footpath, as the driver sought out a lower section of kerb to drive back onto the road.

The drivers are always parents of other kids in the school, they seem entirely willing to drive over other kids and parents in their enthusiasm to get going having collected their own kids.

People are bizarre. And all too often, completely irresponsible arseholes as and when it suits them.

It's the endemic blocking of pedestrian crossing sections of junctions that bugs me. They just push, push, push forward with no consideration of others, and when they 'get stuck' in the junction, they blame the car ahead for stopping - like it was a total surprise that the car ahead stopped in heavy traffic in the city centre at rush hour.

Lumen · 02-01-2019 8:51am

CramCycle wrote: »

This was the only one where I know of the incident being the fault of the cyclist.

That's a bit of a tough judgement. She fell off going round an unsigned/unmarked downhill hairpin.

07Lapierre · 02-01-2019 9:12am

Happy new year everyone! 😡

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-law-on-drivers-overtaking-cyclists-abandoned-1.3745451?mode=amp

terrydel · 02-01-2019 10:45am

07Lapierre wrote: »

Happy new year everyone! &#55357;&#56865;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-law-on-drivers-overtaking-cyclists-abandoned-1.3745451?mode=amp

This is bloody baffling. Isn't this law enforced elsewhere? I know we are a banana 'republic' but surely if other countrys can make the law work, why cant we?
I bet the response to this will be more 'them and us' media inspired ****e, with the motorists thinking 'we've won' and some will undoubtedly celebrate by passing closer than ever.
Its not exaggerating to say this decision will directly lead to someone dying.

And we've plenty of laws that are considered impossible/highly difficult to enforce and yet are still in place.
Why is this one different? In any case, if a motorist hits a cyclist on the side or from behind while overtaking, its not ****ing difficult to prove they weren't giving a the cyclist the required gap. So unenforceable my foot.

Macy0161 · 02-01-2019 10:49am

ford2600 wrote: »

While I can understand, on some level, cnutish behaviour towards cyclists but the distain shown to pedestrians leaves me a little baffled. Literally every motorist is a pedestrian or an even more vulnerable road user.

If I have time, I might have a look at how the total of vulnerable road users stacks up. Are there blips within categories, but what's the overall?

We did a fair amount of walking as a family this christmas period - our house is only a couple of hundred meters from the footpath. The lack of respect from many motorists is shocking - close passes, not slowing, not indicating, expecting us to give way. This is on top of the amount of distracted driving. And the speed is even more noticable on foot, and with children - mainly within a supposed 50km/hr limit.

In theory, our children are old enough to walk to school on their own. And they would if we had a footpath, but at the moment it feels way too much of a risk.

I really feel the only way to change motorist attitudes is presumed liabilility.

07Lapierre · 02-01-2019 10:51am

terrydel wrote: »

This is bloody baffling. Isn't this law enforced elsewhere? I know we are a banana 'republic' but surely if other countrys can make the law work, why cant we?
I bet the response to this will be more 'them and us' media inspired ****e, with the motorists thinking 'we've won' and some will undoubtedly celebrate by passing closer than ever.
Its not exaggerating to say this decision will directly lead to someone dying.

And we've plenty of laws that are considered impossible/highly difficult to enforce and yet are still in place.
Why is this one different? In any case, if a motorist hits a cyclist on the side or from behind while overtaking, its not ****ing difficult to prove they weren't giving a the cyclist the required gap. So unenforceable my foot.

I find this bit baffling! .....

" the Road Safety Authority said it had found limited evidence to support the implementation of minimum passing distance legislation."

punisher5112 · 02-01-2019 10:53am

There are laws there and the minimum distance isn't actually needed as if anyone passes too close or clips or hits the cyclist it's dangerous driving or at the very least driving without due care and attention.

Plenty of ways to be prosecuted.

Macy0161 · 02-01-2019 10:56am

It was never just about prosecution, it was about changing mindset. The message now is that it's unprosecutable - the only thing the majority of motorists fear is penalty points - they've effectively made it a free for all.

buffalo · 02-01-2019 11:00am

punisher5112 wrote: »

There are laws there and the minimum distance isn't actually needed as if anyone passes too close or clips or hits the cyclist it's dangerous driving or at the very least driving without due care and attention.

Plenty of ways to be prosecuted.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for either of those offences after passing too close to a cyclist? (In a case where they didn't kill or drastically injure them.)

CramCycle · 02-01-2019 11:11am

Macy0161 wrote: »

It was never just about prosecution, it was about changing mindset. The message now is that it's unprosecutable - the only thing the majority of motorists fear is penalty points - they've effectively made it a free for all.

Wasn't it funny how much more space many motorists were given when they half assedly listened to the half assed reports on the radio about 1.5m being law and penalty points would apply. None of this is what happened but awareness had been raised and most Joe Soaps I chatted to thought it was law.

Now they have half assed reports on the radio about it no longer being law because it cannot be enforced, again not even close to what is happening, and they will be back to normal thinking, well if it was really dangerous, they'd have a law for that.

We can all stand here and say they do have laws for it already, but if a driver doesn't realise that what they are doing is dangerous driving then the law is pointless in this case. The law should at its very core be a deterrent to things that we morally or socially shouldn't do anyway.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 1:06pm

I wasn't emotionally invested in the MPL, though I would have liked to have seen it, but I had a feeling it would turn out this way. There are very few things Ross will do any work to implement. He's as lazy as sin and vain as a peacock, so all he really wants is outcomes that can be achieved by simple public announcements, which has the double advantage of getting him media coverage.

punisher5112 · 02-01-2019 1:24pm

buffalo wrote: »

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for either of those offences after passing too close to a cyclist? (In a case where they didn't kill or drastically injure them.)

People have and even in the UK.

There is all sorts the cops can still do.

Of course education is still needed and people in vehicles have to be aware how much can go wrong if dealing with a vulnerable cyclist.

I see so my dithering along and I honestly don't know how they don't actually drag the cyclist down the road but they seem to get away with it.

Even some of the cyclists do Bevin a different world they don't even notice the car within and inch of clipping them.

Road Safety Authority: 2017 Road Deaths 186->158 but Cyclists 10->15

Comments