"a lot more responsibility among cyclists"

monument

Irish Times article today, March the safest month on roads since records began, quoted Gabriel McIntyre chief supt of the Garda National Traffic Bureau in this paragraph:

The safe year for cyclists was due to “a lot more responsibility among cyclists”, more of whom are using high-visibility clothing and helmets, he said. A reduction in the amount of heavy goods vehicles in city centres had also increased cyclist safety, he added. The reduction in deaths had been matched by a “proportionate decrease” in serious injury crashes, he said. Gardaí would concentrate in the coming year on reducing these injuries that had a “life-changing effect on the individual”.

My feeling is it's actually drivers behaving a bit better or maybe getting used to more cyclists on the road. If anything I've seen more and more new or other cyclists behaving badly in the last 6 or 12 months.

Are there more cyclists using high-visibility clothing and helmets?

Can this really be counted as "more responsibility" when very few take up proper road positioning etc?

monument

And amazing stuff from the RSA's newly redesigned website.

Cycling Safety

Advice and tips on how to stay safe while cycling on Irish roads.

Cycling is a common means of transport in Ireland. It’s popular for several reasons: it’s great exercise, it’s cheap and it cuts down on travel time, especially during rush-hour.



But cyclists are also a vulnerable category of road user. Every year there are several cycling fatalities on Irish roads and countless collisions involving cyclists.



As a cyclist, you can reduce your risk of death or injury by following some simple advice:

• Never cycle in the dark without adequate lighting – white for front, red for rear
• Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
• Wear a helmet
• Follow the rules of the road, never run traffic lights or weave unpredictably in and out of traffic
• Maintain your bike properly – in particular, your brakes should work properly and your tyres should be inflated to the right pressure and be in good condition
• Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath
• Watch your speed, especially when cycling on busy streets and going downhill
• Steer well clear of left-turning trucks: let them turn before you move ahead

Many of the of the standard safety advice given on these parts are missing while low level stuff is even put ahead of keeping clear of left turning trucks?

Nothing about blind spots.

Nothing about looking over your shoulder / behind you before pulling out, signalling, and then looking again?

Nothing about road positing, when even the Department of Transport recommends keeping "WELL AWAY" from the kerb (that means stop cycling on double yellow lines like the majority of cyclists I see do).

But you should wear a magic helmet and high-viz jacket!

And no cycling on footpaths says the RSA:



:rolleyes:

tomasrojo

I've yet to see bike safety advice in any jurisdiction that puts "make sure the brakes work" at the top. That space is usually reserved for helmets and hi-viz. And yet, brakes are obviously the most important thing, closely followed by other aspects of roadworthiness and of course relevant road-handling skills. Helmets and hi-viz should really be no higher than the middle of any such list.

And it's not as if "check the brakes" is redundant advice. One place I worked I got the reputation of being the go-to guy for cycling and I used to fix punctures for people and do other small jobs. I always checked the brakes for them. 95% of them had brake pads worn down to the metal, brakes that wouldn't engage fully no matter how far you pulled the lever, or broken brake cables. Most of these people wore hi-viz and helmets though.

tomasrojo

Looking at the RSA list again, it's pretty obvious that those points are written from the point of view of a motorist. Make sure motorists can see you, wear a helmet so motorists don't have to be careful, don't weave in and out of traffic, don't have verbal fights with motorists ...

Not that it's all bad advice by any means, but the ordering seems to be ordained by how motorists perceive cyclists, and partly by how they perceive cyclists can be less of a nuisance.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

I've yet to see bike safety advice in any jurisdiction that puts "make sure the brakes work" at the top. That space is usually reserved for helmets and hi-viz. And yet, brakes are obviously the most important thing, closely followed by other aspects of roadworthiness and of course relevant road-handling skills. Helmets and hi-viz should really be no higher than the middle of any such list.

And it's not as if "check the brakes" is redundant advice. One place I worked I got the reputation of being the go-to guy for cycling and I used to fix punctures for people and do other small jobs. I always checked the brakes for them. 95% of them had brake pads worn down to the metal, brakes that wouldn't engage fully no matter how far you pulled the lever, or broken brake cables. Most of these people wore hi-viz and helmets though.

I've heard the same thing about breaks from somebody who repairs bikes, and most of the time people will just say they are fine or whatever. He actually brought this up when I was talking about high-vis, saying people wrongly put high-vis before everything else.

Even the RSA's own research shows between 2006-2008 of the cyclists killed, the vast majority (6 of 8) were killed between 10.00-16.00. Of the other two, one was killed 16.00-19.00 and one 23.00-03.00. Maybe they have further reserch to show it was dark or poor lighting in most cases, but between the hours of 10.00-16.00 are more likely to be bright or at least daylight hours.

Within Dublin, all deaths (2) in those three year were within the hours of 10.00-16.00. The only death within Cork city was also within these hours.

High-vis gives no protection over HGV blind spots -- and given trucks turning are one of the main causes of cyclist deaths -- this promoting high-vis and helmets over nearly everything is reckless behaviour for any state agency (and I'm not just talking about the RSA's website here).

tomasrojo

It's slowly becoming orthodoxy that one should wear hi-viz during daylit hours, so the RSA, if they were to see monument's stat.s there, would probably counter that it doesn't have to be night for hi-viz to make a difference.

However, in this case, I think the evolving orthodoxy is largely wrong; I haven't seen any evidence that hi-viz helps massively during times of good visibility. I wouldn't say that it is of absolutely no use during such times, but given that roadworthiness and bike-handling skills are obviously far more important, it's odd to give priority to measure that have at best a very modest chance of making a difference.

One's road positioning in my opinion (and in the pages of Cyclecraft) makes the biggest difference to conspicuity in daylight (being where motorists expect a road user to be), which is another reason road-handling skills should be much further up the RSA's list and a cycle training curriculum like the UK's Bikeability programme should be introduced here.

daymobrew

tomasrojo wrote: »

And it's not as if "check the brakes" is redundant advice.

One Sunday morning I got the track pump out and pumped up the tyres of a bunch of kids bikes on my road. I also reaffixed the chain of a go-kart (and put WD-40 on the rusted chain).

During that session I saw some disconnected brakes - presumably they were rubbing and the parent disconnect them instead of fixing the problem. I frequently see disconnected brakes on adult bikes, normally on BSOs.

With respect to the list on the RSA web site - Contact them ("Research & Education" maybe) and suggest additional items for the list.

tomasrojo

I think I will contact them. I wouldn't hold out much hope of persuading them that they're going about this the wrong way, but then again there's no point in being defeatist at the outset.

tomasrojo

I emailed them, kept it short: just asked them to move "check your brakes" to the top of the list, and maybe to include recommendations on the site of books and sites that describe good road technique for cyclists.

I expect their reply, if any, will imply or directly tell me that hi-viz is more important than brakes.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think I will contact them. I wouldn't hold out much hope of persuading them that they're going about this the wrong way, but then again there's no point in being defeatist at the outset.

It's worth noting that road safety groups like the RSA live in their own world.

For example, the Danish Road Safety Council promotes helmets for adults. This is a country where very, very, very few cyclists wear helmets, but at the same time bicycle usage is very high and death and injurious per km is only lower in the Netherlands.

Both here and there, these groups grab on to pro-helmet research while dismissing what seems to be mounting research showing their negative affect in different ways.

tomasrojo

I've seen some of the Danish helmet promotion. Really negative fear-mongering stuff. Hard to believe such campaigns can come from a country with such a healthy number of cyclists.

gbee

It could be that the idiots are just .. dead.

Had a serious problem with one cyclist on a 'dual carriage way' section of road; on more than one occasion he'd fly down the slip road and bang on my van to 'move over' despite there being a full sized hard shoulder available.
I also saw him do the same to other motorists and some had to swerve violently to avoid him. Anyway he was killed off his bike and I’ve not seen an incident on this section of roadway since.

tomasrojo

gbee wrote: »

It could be that the idiots are just .. dead.

Had a serious problem with one cyclist on a 'dual carriage way' section of road; on more than one occasion he'd fly down the slip road and bang on my van to 'move over' despite there being a full sized hard shoulder available.
I also saw him do the same to other motorists and some had to swerve violently to avoid him. Anyway he was killed off his bike and I’ve not seen an incident on this section of roadway since.

Before I take issue with the tone of what you just said, can you clarify whether that was an example of your sophisticated sense of humour?

gbee wrote: »

Post by post ... what I say in one thread has relevance in that thread at the time of posting.

Sure, why not ban all bikes ... if the story is legit it's no more idiotic ... I did not take it seriously for a minute as my obvious and over the top post should have been taken for that, it was April's fools after all.

I've a sophisticated sense of humour and a turn of phrase, one needs to be up speed on current affairs to get my satire.

My post was funny at the time.

SleepDoc

gbee wrote: »

It could be that the idiots are just .. dead.

Had a serious problem with one cyclist on a 'dual carriage way' section of road; on more than one occasion he'd fly down the slip road and bang on my van to 'move over' despite there being a full sized hard shoulder available.
I also saw him do the same to other motorists and some had to swerve violently to avoid him. Anyway he was killed off his bike and I’ve not seen an incident on this section of roadway since.

Tim Allen without the wit or insight?

buzzingnoise

gbee wrote: »

It could be that the idiots are just .. dead.

Had a serious problem with one cyclist on a 'dual carriage way' section of road; on more than one occasion he'd fly down the slip road and bang on my van to 'move over' despite there being a full sized hard shoulder available.
I also saw him do the same to other motorists and some had to swerve violently to avoid him. Anyway he was killed off his bike and I’ve not seen an incident on this section of roadway since.

ban this idiot please

tomasrojo

I got a reply. A very prompt reply, I must say, and they obviously had read my email (which was essentially just please put the bit about brakes and the top of the list and the bit about obeying the rules of the road and not weaving all over the place second).

I'm not sure what the protocol about quoting from private correspondence is, but I'll just sum up the jist of what they said.

• Always happy to get new ideas and your points are important. When the website is revised your points will be taken into consideration
• We are developing an information booklet which will be available via our website, and that will address the points you made. The booklet will be distributed to schools, cycling clubs, the Gardai and others

I made a point about good brakes and road technique being more important than wearing high-visibility clothing during times of good visiblity (implicit in item number two on their list), to which they replied:

In relation to high visibility clothing, the RSA promote the wearing of high visibility clothing during dusk and hours of darkness and bright/florescent clothing during day time hours. It is important that cyclists are visible to other road users to maximize their own personal safety.

Edit: On the last point, I think wearing bright clothing during daylight isn't a bad idea at all. It just doesn't belong near the top of the list.

daymobrew

tomasrojo wrote: »

I got a reply. A very prompt reply, I must say, and they obviously had read my email (which was essentially just please put the bit about brakes and the top of the list and the bit about obeying the rules of the road and not weaving all over the place second).

That's good to hear.

I would like RSA to look into training people to cycle on the road. When I was on the George Hook show :cool: he said cycling was dangerous. I countered that if an untrained driver was put in the city centre they would have problems and similarly, it is not surprising that untrained cyclists think that cycling is dangerous.

monument

Spot the cyclist, RSA style:

tomasrojo

That cyclist's jacket is not high-visibility. Nor is his/her outstretched hand, buttocks or face. Does he/she have a death wish? Does he/she not want to maximise his/her visibility, always? What kind of message is that for the RSA to be sending out?

concussion

Shouldn't the girl in the first photo also have her designated driver in frame - I'd hate for people to think they could drive by themselves while they were learning

DirkVoodoo

Why are they all women?

Where is Anto in his japanese import with no L plates racing up and down the M50?

jaqian

tomasrojo wrote: »

That cyclist's jacket is not high-visibility. Nor is his/her outstretched hand, buttocks or face. Does he/she have a death wish? Does he/she not want to maximise his/her visibility, always? What kind of message is that for the RSA to be sending out?

yeah and sam browne belts are like sooo 1980s

ednwireland

tomasrojo wrote: »

That cyclist's jacket is not high-visibility. Nor is his/her outstretched hand, buttocks or face. Does he/she have a death wish? Does he/she not want to maximise his/her visibility, always? What kind of message is that for the RSA to be sending out?

fixed fnarr fnarr

not showing any responsibility here

jaqian

monument wrote: »

And amazing stuff from the RSA's newly redesigned website.

Nothing about looking over your shoulder / behind you before pulling out, signalling, and then looking again?

Had an eejit on a bike pull out in front of me this morning, didn't even look over his shoulder, nearly hit me on my bike. There should be a basic course that ppl should do before being let out on the road.

doozerie

While I believe that education (for all road users) has to be at the heart of any attempt to make the roads safer, sometimes I just despair. This morning, for example, a cyclist ahead of me on the quays went up the inside of a truck that was already turning left onto Jervis Street (indicators flashing, was far enough ahead of the cyclist not to be posing a threat, etc.) in order to undertake it and go straight on. The truck driver opted to stop in order to allow the moron on the bike to get past him rather than fall under the truck wheels, the cyclist having to put one foot on the kerb to push himself along due to lack of space.

I'm really not sure that someone on a bike who breaks one of the most fundamental rules of the road ("don't pass on the inside of a left turning vehicle"), challenging a truck to a game of chicken/push-and-shove in the process and expecting to win, can actually be educated. The only law for such idiots is natural selection, it seems. For everyone else, some sort of education should hopefully generate some sort of awareness about the dangers, and just as importantly the dangers that they themselves pose to others by their actions.

morninwood

In Germany school kids make a cyclist's license which is no official document at all but fun for the kids and a great motivator as you only get the license document if you pass the course. Each city has mock up street courses with lights and all on which kids learn the rules of the road under the supervision of real police men. A bit like this:


Easy and cheap to set up, hugely beneficial for road safety, allows kids to get a feel for the bike and see that cycling is fun.

mcgratheoin

morninwood wrote: »

Each city has mock up street courses with lights and all on which kids learn the rules of the road under the supervision of real police men.

Is/Was there something like that out by the DART station in Clontarf??

Think I remember something along those lines there - with pedal go-karts instead of cars in it.

Pigeon Reaper

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Is/Was there something like that out by the DART station in Clontarf??

Think I remember something along those lines there - with pedal go-karts instead of cars in it.

There used to be but it was demolished in the past year or two to make some car parking and all weather pitches.

Jip

Had an eejit in a car pull out in front of me this morning, didn't even look over his shoulder, nearly hit me on my bike. There should be a basic course that ppl should do before being let out on the road.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Is/Was there something like that out by the DART station in Clontarf??

Think I remember something along those lines there - with pedal go-karts instead of cars in it.

That had bikes too, however when I was a kid way back then all the kids rushed to get the go karts as for one most of us already had bikes so the carts were a novelty, and we all felt like little grown ups in little cars careering through junctions and not stopping for Stop Signs, traffic lights, etc, was good fun.

tomasrojo

jaqian wrote: »

yeah and sam browne belts are like sooo 1980s

They are a bit old-fashioned all right. I still use one at night though. It's mostly just a handy way to hang a light on my back though, since I use panniers.

jaqian

Jip wrote: »

That had bikes too, however when I was a kid way back then all the kids rushed to get the go karts as for one most of us already had bikes so the carts were a novelty, and we all felt like little grown ups in little cars careering through junctions and not stopping for Stop Signs, traffic lights, etc, was good fun.

I was there as a kid too back in '81/'82 remembered lots of the bikes were banjaxed and barely cycleble.