In defence of cyclists

Paparazzo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It's time to speak up against 'shoaling' cyclists like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_yLn_Oegg

That's exactly what I was talking about, no idea there was a name for it! Really really really annoying, especially when it's hard to pass them.

mickydcork wrote: »

Bullshíte?

Assume average weight of a motorbike = 200kg
Assume average weight of rider = 70kg
Assume motorbike travelling at speed limit of 50kph

I don't think there is any need to work out the maths on this, but it is safe to say that a motorbike impacting with a cyclist is dangerous. And motorbike using bike lanes is simply dangerous.

Saying that it is not dangerous is bullshíte.

However I do concede that other cyclists can be annoying, but they are not more dangerous than a motorbike and my point was about danger not annoyance.

So the heavier the more dangerous? I hope you stay off roads without cars, they can be up to about 1500kg. Bus lanes must be frightening for you.

mcmoustache

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It's time to speak up against 'shoaling' cyclists like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_yLn_Oegg

Damn right. Most good cyclists get just as annoyed by the bad cyclists as motorists do. Of course, a lot of motorists think that all cyclists are bad cyclists and that does my head in.

I keep a good position on the road, check my shoulder before any maneuver and I obey the rules of the road. Those gobshítes who can't cycle properly should have their bikes confiscated and be forced to take an exam. Unfortunately for motorists, this would probably make the eejit cyclists get back in their cars and increase the amount of cars on the road.

mickydcork

Paparazzo wrote: »

That's exactly what I was talking about, no idea there was a name for it! Really really really annoying, especially when it's hard to pass them.


So the heavier the more dangerous? I hope you stay off roads without cars, they can be up to about 1500kg. Bus lanes must be frightening for you.

Force is calculated by multiplying the mass by the acceleration of an object.

If you have a heavier object moving at a greater speed then it has more force.

If an object with more force hits you then it will cause more damage.

Therefore in this circumstance a motorbike hitting you is more dangerous than another bicycle hitting you.

It's not rocket science lad.

John_Rambo

I have a big problem with motorist driving far to close to me when I'm cycling in the overtaking lane on the motorway.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

I have a big problem with motorist driving far to close to me when I'm cycling in the overtaking lane on the motorway.

Were you keeping well to the left! :pac:

John_Rambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Were you keeping well to the left! :pac:

The slow lane? Don't be silly baker, I was in the fast lane with my special bicycle fog lights on.

locum-motion

mickydcork wrote: »

Force is calculated by multiplying the mass by the acceleration of an object.

If you have a heavier object moving at a greater speed then it has more force.

If an object with more force hits you then it will cause more damage.

Therefore in this circumstance a motorbike hitting you is more dangerous than another bicycle hitting you.

It's not rocket science lad.

Your're talking about the law of conservation of momentum/every force has an equal and opposite force/mass & velocity/etc

So, actually, it IS rocket science, lad. Rocket science is exactly what it is!

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

The slow lane? Don't be silly baker, I was in the fast lane with my special bicycle fog lights on.

re-read the post.

If the barrier is to your left, in which direction are you going! :P

Arktura

Chamone MF wrote: »

Fk them, and the knackers on their horses. if they can afford a bike or horse they can afford to take the bus.
For recreation let them do it outside of Dublin and early in the morning. people have jobs to get to.
they should have manners and get out of the way when theres a car behind them.
and those cnts with their rubbery s+m gear and their rubber-washer asshles pointing directly into my windscreen are disgusting. stop fantasizing, youre not in the tour de france in the 80's, you never will be, nobody cares, your a cnut getting in everyones way.

i cycle, yes i can afford to take the bus but why would i?
an hour to work on the bus, 15 minutes on the bike, by cycling im not sitting in a car creating more traffic.

Yes people have jobs to get to, lots of people cycle to work.

More than likely your the cnut getting in my way sitting in traffic while a breeze to work.

out of interest how long does it take you to get to work? have you figured it out that the main reason for heavy traffic is cars?

intellectual dosser

I mostly walk, but I also drive and I used to cycle to work (Galway - 10km) and back every day. In my opinion its the cyclists that pose the greatest dangers to themselves but moreso to pedestrians.

The City just took out the two on the Tuam Road and over towards Ballybane and put in Traffic Lights while also going to great lengths to put in cycle lanes. Since then I'm continuously seeing cyclists use the footpaths when the cycle lanes are right beside them - colour coded and all! I got hit by a passing cyclist over the summer - the footpath and cycle lane together are probably 4 metres wide but this doosh flying past me managed to smack into my arm - there wasnt another walker, cyclist or even motorist in sight.

Closer to where I work the footpath gets narrower and there is no cycle lane, but the cyclists (every single one of them!) come against the traffic on the footpath and its the pedestrians (me) that has to get out of their way. I get pretty thick some mornings and if I was a bit more awake I'd probably lose it and kick them off their bikes as they pass.

Typing this is getting me thick. From what I see in Galway the majority dont stop for red lights, they use roundabours (which I believe is illegal?) like utter fools. When traffic is heavy they duck in and out between the cars with no regard for pedestrians that could be on their blind-sides.

I say we dont spend another cent on another cycle lane until cyclists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly. We need to introduce rules/laws that they are forced to abide.

hardCopy

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I mostly walk, but I also drive and I used to cycle to work (Galway - 10km) and back every day. In my opinion its the cyclists that pose the greatest dangers to themselves but moreso to pedestrians.

The City just took out the two on the Tuam Road and over towards Ballybane and put in Traffic Lights while also going to great lengths to put in cycle lanes. Since then I'm continuously seeing cyclists use the footpaths when the cycle lanes are right beside them - colour coded and all! I got hit by a passing cyclist over the summer - the footpath and cycle lane together are probably 4 metres wide but this doosh flying past me managed to smack into my arm - there wasnt another walker, cyclist or even motorist in sight.

Closer to where I work the footpath gets narrower and there is no cycle lane, but the cyclists (every single one of them!) come against the traffic on the footpath and its the pedestrians (me) that has to get out of their way. I get pretty thick some mornings and if I was a bit more awake I'd probably lose it and kick them off their bikes as they pass.

Typing this is getting me thick. From what I see in Galway the majority dont stop for red lights, they use roundabours (which I believe is illegal?) like utter fools. When traffic is heavy they duck in and out between the cars with no regard for pedestrians that could be on their blind-sides.

I say we dont spend another cent on another cycle lane until cyclists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly. We need to introduce rules/laws that they are forced to abide.

There's no excuse for cycling on the path, but cycling roundabouts is perfectly legal, why wouldn't it be?

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

they use roundabours (which I believe is illegal?)

Why would it be illegal for cyclists to use roundabouts? I use them all the time, and I use them properly by occupying the lane according to which exit I want to take.

When traffic is heavy they duck in and out between the cars with no regard for pedestrians that could be on their blind-sides.

There's a quid-pro-quo thing going on there. Pedestrians walking between heavy traffic also have a duty to watch out for cyclists and motorcyclists filtering between the traffic. If a cyclist and a pedestrian collide because neither were watching, then they're both idiots.

I say we dont spend another cent on another cycle lane until cyclists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly.

I say we don't spend another red cent on roads until motorists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly. See how ridiculous that sounds?

Cyclists aren't some homogenous group who are all in contact and are capable of controlling their behaviour as a whole. I have nothing in common with that guy breaking the red light any more than you do. Why is the onus on me to control his behaviour just because we use the same mode of transport?

We need to introduce rules/laws that they are forced to abide.

There are plenty of rules and laws there for cyclists. The problem is enforcement. Introduce more rules and that's just more rules that can be ignored if the Gardai don't enforce them.

reprazant

You used to cycle 10k every day and did not know that you could cycle on a roundabout?

So what did you do when he met a roundabout?

ThisRegard

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I say we dont spend another cent on another cycle lane until cyclists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly. We need to introduce rules/laws that they are forced to abide.

I think you'll find a lot of cyclists would be happy that no more money is wasted on them as a lot are just brutal.

And FYI, the mandatory use of cycle lanes, where provided, will, eventually, be repealed, so there'll be no obligation for cyclists to use them.

intellectual dosser

seamus wrote: »

There's a quid-pro-quo thing going on there. Pedestrians walking between heavy traffic also have a duty to watch out for cyclists and motorcyclists filtering between the traffic. If a cyclist and a pedestrian collide because neither were watching, then they're both idiots.

If a pedestrian doesnt check and there is a cyclist coming, there is a good chance the pedestrian could be killed.
If a cyclist doesnt check and there is a pedestrian coming, there is a good chance the pedestrian could be killed.

Any pedestrian with common sense is going to check, but I cant say the same for the cyclists on my own experience.

seamus wrote: »

I say we don't spend another red cent on roads until motorists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly. See how ridiculous that sounds?

You've missed my point here. I'm talking about cyclists not using cycle lanes where they are available, why should we implement them? Unless you did get my point and you're saying motorists are using the footpaths/cycle lanes where you live? You should probably report that.


What I said about the roundabouts was something I was lead to believe, if Im wrong on that then I'll hold my hands up. There was one on my 10km cycle - off the bike and cross the road about 20 yards from the roundabout, a bit of an inconvenience but I made it to work every day.

yop

reprazant wrote: »

So what did you do when he met a roundabout?

"I believe I can fly"

rubadub

intellectual dosser wrote: »

If a pedestrian doesnt check and there is a cyclist coming, there is a good chance the pedestrian could be killed.
If a cyclist doesnt check and there is a pedestrian coming, there is a good chance the pedestrian could be killed.

Good chance being over 50% likely? or what? any stats to back it up?

I can't remember the last time I heard of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist here, but I remember cycling to school and people having crashes all the time, into other bikes and kids walking to school and strangely not one fatality.

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Any pedestrian with common sense is going to check

The pedestrian with common sense will obey the law and not be jaywalking. Most pedestrians walking through heavy traffic are doing so illegally.

Of course because most people happen to be pedestrians they do not like to vent their pent up prejudiced hatred against them, they will not complain about "one of their own".

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

If a pedestrian doesnt check and there is a cyclist coming, there is a good chance the pedestrian could be killed.
If a cyclist doesnt check and there is a pedestrian coming, there is a good chance the pedestrian could be killed.

Any pedestrian with common sense is going to check, but I cant say the same for the cyclists on my own experience.

Pedestrians have the least common sense and cop on of all road users, let's be honest here.

In any collision, a cyclist stands a much greater chance of being killed than a pedestrian because the cyclist is the one travelling at speed. In direct collision, each stands an equal chance of death because they are colliding with eachother, but in the much more common glancing impact, the cyclist will hit the ground at speed where the pedestrian will just fall on their arse.

In any case, the number of pedestrians killed in an impact with a cyclist in this country is virtually nil. So the risk of such a thing occurring is exceptionally small.

You've missed my point here. I'm talking about cyclists not using cycle lanes where they are available, why should we implement them?

Ah I see. That's fine then, I don't really have any interest in cycle lanes. In general most cycle lanes aren't suitable for everyday riding, they're just about suitable for pottering along with your children.

What I said about the roundabouts was something I was lead to believe, if Im wrong on that then I'll hold my hands up.

You're wrong

Colmustard

rubadub wrote: »

Good chance being over 50% likely? or what? any stats to back it up?

I can't remember the last time I heard of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist here, but I remember cycling to school and people having crashes all the time, into other bikes and kids walking to school and strangely not one fatality.

The pedestrian with common sense will obey the law and not be jaywalking. Most pedestrians walking through heavy traffic are doing so illegally.

Of course because most people happen to be pedestrians they do not like to vent their pent up prejudiced hatred against them, they will not complain about "one of their own".

Ahh here,,

That is a moronic post, of course I as a cyclist would not want to kill a pedestrian, BUT I don't want to hurt them either. Get hit by a bicycle with me riding it would very likely break a limb or worse.

As for jaywalkers, I could jay walk all day, that still does not mean I could be hit by a road user with impunity. In Ireland you learn how to live with them. I am a motorist, a cyclist and yes like all us Irish I am a jaywalker,.

steve9859

rubadub wrote: »

The pedestrian with common sense will obey the law and not be jaywalking. Most pedestrians walking through heavy traffic are doing so illegally.

Of course because most people happen to be pedestrians they do not like to vent their pent up prejudiced hatred against them, they will not complain about "one of their own".

I agree. Pedestrians certainly do not have any moral high ground in the cycle debate (neither do cyclists or motorists).

The only two crashes I have had on the bike in the last year (with a 10 mile commute into London every day) are when pedestrians, ipods plugged in and completely oblivious to the world around them, have just stepped into the road without looking. Both times I was travelling at 20-25kph, and the pedestrian come off worse. But was 100% their fault.

And saw a horrific smash in London a couple of weeks ago when a pedestrian jaywalking across stationary traffic stepped out from in front of a bus into the cycle lane without looking and got absolutely smashed. Quite bad head injury, ambulance called, but again, 100% not the cyclists fault.

Plus all the pedestrians that walk in the cycle lanes when it is shared with a pavement (women with buggies are the worst offenders as the cycle lane is generally smoother)

Not saying that cyclists are angels for a second....but just bringing some balance to the recent comments painting pedestrians as the innocent parties in the cyclists / drivers / pedestrians debate.

Skrynesaver

intellectual dosser wrote: »

You've missed my point here. I'm talking about cyclists not using cycle lanes where they are available, why should we implement them? Unless you did get my point and you're saying motorists are using the footpaths/cycle lanes where you live? You should probably report that.

A lot of cycle lanes aren't actually designed for cycling in, rather they exist to get cyclists out of the way, I believe this to be the result of getting car obsessed transport engineers to design them. As a result cyclists who want to move tend not to use a lot of the poorly designed cycle lanes.

As for motorists using the cycle lanes - if I was to report every incident I'd need a dedicated member of staff appointed to me by the corporation

intellectual dosser

rubadub wrote: »

I can't remember the last time I heard of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist here, but I remember cycling to school and people having crashes all the time, into other bikes and kids walking to school and strangely not one fatality.

So, to clarify, crashing into kids is fine as long as theres no fatalities? Of course I dont have any stats, if you're challenging me on that then I take it you do?

I will of course say that pedestrians make some shocking decisions about crossing the road, but they will ultimately suffer the most in any collision with a cyclist or motorist. This cant be said for when its the other way around and a collision with a pedestrian is caused by a cyclist or motorist.

magicbastarder

i can remember one example in the last 10 or 20 years where a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist; it happened on harcourt street, and was a bicycle courier. he hit an elderly bloke.

Colmustard

I never have trouble with pedestrians when I cycle, for the simple reason, I cycle as I drive. I am an experienced driver with over 20 years experience, i use that road sense on a bike. I know pedestrians are unpredictable especially kids.

Its a cliche but true. you really have to be "beware of the unexpected".

Kiith

I've been cycling to work every day for the last year or so, and i've seen some unbelievable behavior from cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. Drivers not indicating and nearly hitting cyclists in the cycle lane, cyclists breaking red lights and cycling abreast of each other, and pedestrians just stepping onto the road without looking. My general rule is to assume anyone near me is a complete moron, and plan accordingly.

To be fair though, i see cyclists breaking the rules far more often then any other road users. So it's no surprise people see them in a bad light.

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

but they will ultimately suffer the most in any collision with a cyclist

Can you back this up?

This cant be said for when its the other way around and a collision with a pedestrian is caused by a cyclist

As I point out above, chances are the cyclist will be more injured because they are ones with the greater kinetic energy. It's not comparable to driving someone down with your car because that's a 2 tonne steel box. A bicycle is a 10kg metal frame with a very small front profile.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can remember one example in the last 10 or 20 years where a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist; it happened on harcourt street, and was a bicycle courier. he hit an elderly bloke.

Actually he didn't hit the guy at all. The courier was cycling the wrong way down Baggot street. The pedestrian stepped off the kerb but when he spotted the cyclist, he went to jump back up on the kerb and slipped, fell and banged his head.
He was uninjured at the scene but went home and died later on in hospital.

This is the only pedestrian fatality I've heard of in recent times which as been attributed to a cyclist, even though the cyclist didn't actually hit him. The courier obviously takes some blame for going the wrong way down the street, but in reality it was just a tragic set of circumstances. The pedestrian would probably have been OK if the courier had hit him.

galwaycyclist

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I mostly walk, but I also drive and I used to cycle to work (Galway - 10km) and back every day. In my opinion its the cyclists that pose the greatest dangers to themselves but moreso to pedestrians.

The City just took out the two on the Tuam Road and over towards Ballybane and put in Traffic Lights while also going to great lengths to put in cycle lanes. Since then I'm continuously seeing cyclists use the footpaths when the cycle lanes are right beside them - colour coded and all! I got hit by a passing cyclist over the summer - the footpath and cycle lane together are probably 4 metres wide but this doosh flying past me managed to smack into my arm - there wasnt another walker, cyclist or even motorist in sight.

Closer to where I work the footpath gets narrower and there is no cycle lane, but the cyclists (every single one of them!) come against the traffic on the footpath and its the pedestrians (me) that has to get out of their way. I get pretty thick some mornings and if I was a bit more awake I'd probably lose it and kick them off their bikes as they pass.

Typing this is getting me thick. From what I see in Galway the majority dont stop for red lights, they use roundabours (which I believe is illegal?) like utter fools. When traffic is heavy they duck in and out between the cars with no regard for pedestrians that could be on their blind-sides.

I say we dont spend another cent on another cycle lane until cyclists as a whole can prove that they will use them properly. We need to introduce rules/laws that they are forced to abide.

Sigh this came in as I was sending an internal Galway Cycling Campaign e mail regarding the current discussions on the Draft Galway Walking and Cycling Strategy. The particular topic was whether footpath cycling came up at last Mondays Council meeting.

Not at the meeting. The transport committee had originally agreed an
amendment acknowledging that cyclists are first and foremost road
users and are best catered for on the road and acknowledging that its
against the law to cycle on roadside footpaths. (Note this was done at the instigation of community reps including me as a member of the Galway Cycling Campaign)

See article 13 of the Traffic and Parking regulations.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a13
(In terms of the law cycling is the same as driving)

The city engineers/officials, particularly Martin McElligott, are
disputing this and are trying to claim that it is not correct to say
that you can't cycle on footpaths beside roads.

In a letter to the City Councillors, Ciaran Hayes has claimed that
this amendment to the strategy threatens the Dangan Greenway
proposals. However no legal basis was given for this claim. At a
meeting with a forum/campaign delegation previously Martin McElligott
was challenged to produce a legal opinion backing his claims.

In any case Greenway type structures are already provided for in law
as a separate concept. Section 68 of the 1993 Roads act describes
cycleways as follows.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0068.html#sec68

"
68.—(1) In this section “cycleway” means a public road or proposed
public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal
cyclists and pedestrians.


(2) (a) A road authority may construct (or otherwise provide) and
maintain a cycleway.


(b) Where a road authority constructs or otherwise provides a cycleway
it shall by order declare either—


(i) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists, or


(ii) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and
pedestrians.
"

So the council already has the power to define designated roads as
being only for the use of cyclists and pedestrians. This is what the
Dangan greenway will be. In any case they could do the same thing
with bollards at the start and finish.

In any case, in Galway it would appear that footpath cycling is something that has the approval of the City officials.

I should also point out that much of the cycling infrastructure or cycle lanes are considered to be unfit for purpose. Indeed the design of the recently reconstructed Seamus Quirke Road makes it quicker faster and more convenient for some cyclists to ignore the cycle lanes and stay on the footpaths.

If this is something that makes you angry then join the club. The best way to deal with it might be to get involved with a structure like the Galway Community Forum. Or alternatively if you want to create conditions that lead to cyclists using the roads as they were intended, then you could consider joining the Galway Cycling Campaign

RacoonQueen

seamus wrote: »

Can you back this up? As I point out above, chances are the cyclist will be more injured because they are ones with the greater kinetic energy. It's not comparable to driving someone down with your car because that's a 2 tonne steel box. A bicycle is a 10kg metal frame with a very small front profile.
.

Someone made a similar point in the r&r forum. In what way is a pedestrian going to come off worse in a collision with a cyclist. 9 times out of 10 if I hit a pedestrian while I'm on the bike it's me that will come of worst.

mach1982

As a drive I had to pass a test and learn the rules on the road.Cyclist seem to think that these rule don't apply to them , ie using hand signals

galwaycyclist

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Someone made a similar point in the r&r forum. In what way is a pedestrian going to come off worse in a collision with a cyclist. 9 times out of 10 if I hit a pedestrian while I'm on the bike it's me that will come of worst.

It depends what kind of pedestrian you hit, how you hit them and at what speed.

On Breaking news as we speak

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-seriously-hurt-in-cork-city-collision-with-cyclist-566526.html

Gardaí in Douglas are appealing for witnesses following a serious collision at the junction of Douglas West and Galway Place in Cork city.

A 67-year-old man was seriously injured in a collision with a cyclist while out walking at around 9am today.

He was taken by ambulance to Cork University Hospital where his condition is described as serious.

The cyclist was uninjured.

intellectual dosser

seamus wrote: »

Can you back this up?As I point out above, chances are the cyclist will be more injured because they are ones with the greater kinetic energy. It's not comparable to driving someone down with your car because that's a 2 tonne steel box. A bicycle is a 10kg metal frame with a very small front profile.

I'm no physicist, I'll need diagrams to understand that one Seamus.

So an 80KG person on a 10KG bike travelling at 10-15kph will suffer more than an 80KG person walking at 5kph if they both collide? The 10KG steel frame alone would be more than enough to do serious damage to the walker. Ask someone you know to hit you with a 10kg piece of steel if you still require 'backup'.

Small front profile - I do believe that means an even greater force ploughing into the pedestrian!

Lets not forget that the typical pedestrian isnt going to be wearing a helmet (or elbow/knee pads if you wish).

rubadub

Colmustard wrote: »

Ahh here,,

That is a moronic post,

my post? or the guy claiming cyclist pedestrian crashes will result in a good chance of death?

Colmustard wrote: »

of course I as a cyclist would not want to kill a pedestrian

ehh, same here. Maybe you picked me up wrong or something.

intellectual dosser wrote: »

So, to clarify, crashing into kids is fine as long as theres no fatalities?

NO. To clarify, I have witnessed many cyclist/cyclist and cyclist/pedestrian collisions in my life and I have never seen a fatality.

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Of course I dont have any stats, if you're challenging me on that then I take it you do?

I thought you may have had stats. I was challenging you, I was not making the claims, you were. If I had the stats I would have posted them. Anecdotally I just would never have guessed the majority of collisions would result in fatalities, and you have yet to confirm if this is what you meant. Because I really doubt anybody would agree with you. Or can you put an estimate % figure on "good chance".

seamus

mach1982 wrote: »

As a drive I had to pass a test and learn the rules on the road.Cyclist seem to think that these rule don't apply to them , ie using hand signals

This argument comes up time and time again, and it's funny how the blinkers go on and people seem to think that motorists are saints who always obey the rules of the road.

Failing to signal, breaking lights, using the footpaths. Yep, all things that you will see motorists doing on a daily basis.

Every motorist breaks at least one rule of the road every time they go out in their vehicle, yet conveniently forget this when comes to ranting about everyone else breaking the rules.

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I'm no physicist, I'll need diagrams to understand that one Seamus.

You have two identical cars. One is parked, the other is travelling at 50km/h. The moving one collides with the parked one. Which driver do you think is going to come off worse?

Under ideal conditions (i.e. head on), a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian will result in both parties suffering identical forces and so suffering comparable levels of injury.

Under typical conditions where one or both parties attempt to avoid the collision, most of the force will stay with the cyclist when he hits the ground and less transferred into the pedestrian who glances off the cyclist.

Small front profile doesn't mean more energy transferred into the pedestrian unless they're tied down and unable to move. It means less energy transferred overall as the bike glances off the pedestrian.

intellectual dosser

seamus wrote: »

You have two identical cars. One is parked, the other is travelling at 50km/h. The moving one collides with the parked one. Which driver do you think is going to come off worse?

Under ideal conditions (i.e. head on), a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian will result in both parties suffering identical forces and so suffering comparable levels of injury.

Under typical conditions where one or both parties attempt to avoid the collision, most of the force will stay with the cyclist when he hits the ground and less transferred into the pedestrian who glances off the cyclist.

Small front profile doesn't mean more energy transferred into the pedestrian unless they're tied down and unable to move. It means less energy transferred overall as the bike glances off the pedestrian.

I can undertand what you're saying to a certain extent but I still dont buy it all. If a motor-bike slams into a pedal bike at 50kph is the motor bike going to come off worse? I know someone said there are many variables in these situations which is true. We are not going to agree/come to a conclusion here.

@Rubadub - I know I said 'killed' but thats the worst case scenario. Theres still the broken limbs and cuts and bruises. I think thats what 'Colmustard' was touching on.

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I can undertand what you're saying to a certain extent but I still dont buy it all. If a motor-bike slams into a pedal bike at 50kph is the motor bike going to come off worse?

No, because a motorbike alone weighs as much as four people and travels at least twice as fast as a bicycle. They're not really comparable.

If someone is sprinting and collides with a pedestrian, who will come off worse? At best, both will be equally injured.
A cyclist is roughly the same - the additional weight of the bike isn't much compared to the weights of the two people.

As you say there are so many variables in any given collision that at best you can say that both parties will be equally injured.

intellectual dosser

seamus wrote: »

No, because a motorbike alone weighs as much as four people and travels at least twice as fast as a bicycle. They're not really comparable.

If someone is sprinting and collides with a pedestrian, who will come off worse? At best, both will be equally injured.
A cyclist is roughly the same - the additional weight of the bike isn't much compared to the weights of the two people.

As you say there are so many variables in any given collision that at best you can say that both parties will be equally injured.

OK, when you put it like that I cant see your argument as clearly.

Think of GAA or Rugby - Steven Ferris has me in his crosshairs....sprints and tackles me....I'm coming off worst! Im coming off on a stretcher!

We can argue all day, prob deviating a little from whether or not cyclists are heroes or demons.

magicbastarder

in a head-on collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, it's reasonable to assume that the bike will hit the pedestrian first, followed by the cyclist. i'd prefer to be the cyclist in this instance, as the pedestrian would have started to move backwards by the time i hit them, lessening the impact.

it all depends on how the collision happens.

Tweej

Pedestrian vs Cyclist

Concerns for pedestrian:
Hit by more weight
Hit by a fast moving object
No safety gear

Concerns for cyclist:
Falls onto road
Falls from a greater height (awkward to land safely unlike pedestrian)
Momentum - When the bike suddenly stops, cyclist will fly forward.

Probably missed more, but to be honest, the fact that a cyclist will fly from their bike at height is probably more dangerous. Being hit by a cyclist, unless they're off olympic standard, will not cause a pedestrian go to flying, they'll fall backwards, and unless very old/young, will stick out a hand/arm to break their fall.

The cyclist don't really have that luxury.

Colmustard

seamus wrote: »

Pedestrians have the least common sense and cop on of all road users, let's be honest here.

In any collision, a cyclist stands a much greater chance of being killed than a pedestrian because the cyclist is the one travelling at speed. In direct collision, each stands an equal chance of death because they are colliding with eachother, but in the much more common glancing impact, the cyclist will hit the ground at speed where the pedestrian will just fall on their arse.

In any case, the number of pedestrians killed in an impact with a cyclist in this country is virtually nil. So the risk of such a thing occurring is exceptionally small.
Ah I see. That's fine then, I don't really have any interest in cycle lanes. In general most cycle lanes aren't suitable for everyday riding, they're just about suitable for pottering along with your children.
You're wrong

rubadub wrote: »

my post? or the guy claiming cyclist pedestrian crashes will result in a good chance of death?
.

Yes your post, you don't want to hit a person with a charging metal weapon, you may or may not kill them, but you will certainly7 injure them. So you as a cyclist will come off better so you have to be more careful and responsible.

The same goes for a motorist and a cyclist.

Flandria

mach1982 wrote: »

As a drive I had to pass a test and learn the rules on the road.Cyclist seem to think that these rule don't apply to them , ie using hand signals

I often give motorists hand signals...;)

seamus

Colmustard wrote: »

So you as a cyclist will come off better

Do you have any proof of this?

Colmustard

seamus wrote: »

Do you have any proof of this?

Mother of gawd,,

Would you rather bump into another person or get hit by a push bike. You know logic mass by velocity=momentum.

And "even" if you came off worse you still don't want to be in an accident.

seamus

Colmustard wrote: »

Would you rather bump into another person or get hit by a push bike.

In a cyclist/pedestrian collision, I would rather be the pedestrian.

Colmustard

seamus wrote: »

In a cyclist/pedestrian collision, I would rather be the pedestrian.

I wouldn't, but really I would rather be neither.

RobbieTheRobber

Kiith wrote: »

I've been cycling to work every day for the last year or so, and i've seen some unbelievable behavior from cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. Drivers not indicating and nearly hitting cyclists in the cycle lane, cyclists breaking red lights and cycling abreast of each other, and pedestrians just stepping onto the road without looking. My general rule is to assume anyone near me is a complete moron, and plan accordingly.

To be fair though, i see cyclists breaking the rules far more often then any other road users. So it's no surprise people see them in a bad light.

How many cyclists abreast are we talking here 3, 4, more?

Cycling 2 abreast is legal and cyclists may cycle 3 abreast to overtake. Legally speaking.
S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

magicbastarder

in arguments like this, it's common to hear that cyclists should be subject to the same penalties as motorists for violations of road law; which is nonsense, as no-one is suggesting that pedestrians should be subject to these penalties too.
it's too often argued (or implied) that cyclists are equivalent to car drivers in these debates; in a continuum from pedestrians to cyclists, to car drivers, to HGVs, cyclists would be much closer to pedestrians than they are to cars.

and this doesn't even begin to touch on laws which cyclists are supposed to follow which would place them (and other road users) in greater danger if they follow them, than if they ignore them.
roads are designed for cars, with allowances for cyclists bolted on generally as an afterthought.

crusher000

In some peoples views roads are just for cars, and bikes should be carried around strapped on back of cars. No issues then.

hardCopy

Kiith wrote: »

To be fair though, i see cyclists breaking the rules far more often then any other road users. So it's no surprise people see them in a bad light.

No offense, but that's compete horse manure.

Most motorists can't make it to work without breaking the law.

Count how many cars drive under the speed limit on the north quays, let me know when you spot one.

Next time you drive on the M50, see how many cars use the left lane.

I'm a sales rep, I drive all the time, there is just no way that cyclists are worse than motorists.

somefeen

Why do people get so worked up about cyclists? Tractors do things that annoy me, so do trucks, motorbikes, pedestrians, roadworks, people herding animals etc of course they do, we all have different needs on the road and they will all inevitably delay other road users.
Its someone on a bicycle, chill out ffs. I reckon most of the people who complain about other road users are actually just ****e drivers who can't overtake properly, can't match their speed to how far they can see, are to busy on the phone to react to slow moving vehicles appearing suddenly and just assume that everyone is going to adhere to the rules of the road.

Chill out, pay attention and you wont get pissed off with anyone, its much nicer.