Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

Or no helmet. Leave it up to the cyclist. You "reckoning" it's a worthwhile safety measure without being able to back that up is not a good enough reason to stick your nose in (or the State's nose in).

Pedestrians get hit by cars all the time. Therefore by your logic they should wear luminous helmets, as any marginal safety increase is worthwhile. I reject both your car and pedestrian argument as they both rely on your judgement of the degree of added safety involved, even though you've expressly rejected the notion that the degree of safety matters, and if there does exist a level under which a measure isn't worth it then luminous helmets are also going to be under it.

I assumed you were talking about Table 2, and I don't read that as giving the sizes of the various populations.

In is my opinion that luminous objects are more visible in the dark than non visible objects.

I mentioned pedestrians getting hit by cars in a previous post, this is more down to education than anything else, and in the case of such an accident a helmet will be of little use.

Ok, you reject my arguments in relation to pedestrians and cars, so do you disagree that on the whole cars and bicycles share a common area and that a fall from optimum speed from a bicycle would cause more harm that a pedestrian at optimum speed.

What does do the figures in Table 2 mean?

Augmerson

As a Cyclist, I think Cyclists should at least learn the rules of the road that apply to them and make sure they wear the proper safety equipment at all times.

The amount of times I see fellow Cyclists do dodgy actions, possibly getting themselves killed in the process, is scary. It's like Traffic lights are a suggestion to some people.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

People who wear helmets and no lights have been suckered into the wrong safety information. By people shouting flawed information about Hi Viz when its the least important information. The media keep pushing this message because its popular with the ill informed.

Those people are idiots, am i dreaming things or was there a campaign years ago along the lines of "Be wise, be seen/visible""

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

How many times have you seen a campaign telling people walking at night, to walk in the direction facing oncoming traffic and to have a a light.

If you are in the Phoenix Park at night, who will you see first. Someone in a Hi Viz vest and no light. Or someone with no high viz and a light.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

In is my opinion that luminous objects are more visible in the dark than non visible objects.

I mentioned pedestrians getting hit by cars in a previous post, this is more down to education than anything else, and in the case of such an accident a helmet will be of little use.

Ok, you reject my arguments in relation to pedestrians and cars, so do you disagree that on the whole cars and bicycles share a common area and that a fall from optimum speed from a bicycle would cause more harm that a pedestrian at optimum speed.

This is an inadequate answer to my post, and I won't go in circles with you as we've been over this ground before.

What does do the figures in Table 2 mean?

It's about the correlation between groupings of people and their perception of bike safety.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

How many times have you seen a campaign telling people walking at night, to walk in the direction facing oncoming traffic and to have a a light.

If you are in the Phoenix Park at night, who will you see first. Someone in a Hi Viz vest and no light. Or someone with no high viz and a light.

.. Or someone with neither...

I'd go-

Light
Vest
Neither

ElvisChrist6

Should pay some form of road tax

They should receive fines, but otherwise no. There should be more incentive to cycle rather than drive when it's not necessary to, they should be given a reason to cycle.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

.. Or someone with neither...

I'd go-

Light
Vest
Neither

Going through the park this evening you could only see lights and reflectors and reflective strips. Hi Viz (which is for day time) is almost impossible to see at night.

Incidentally you can buy helmets with reflective strips, but most people wouldn't know to look for them over something thats light/bright coloured. As the sheer volume of "wear hi viz" has drowned out most of the useful information about visibility at night. Most cycling gear has reflective strips in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae7NwjP8PhI

Note in the video how his body position shields a lot of strips on his arms, back and if he had it on his helmet that, too. Which is why lights on the bike are better. But certainly reflective strips are better than yellow hats.

Heres one though. But to note at night you won't see the yellow. You'll only see the white stripes.
http://allseasonscyclist.com/2011/10/05/hardnutz-hi-vis-yellow-bicycle-helmet/

Some helmets have lights too.
http://www.all-about-the-bike.co.uk/proviz-mars-hi-viz-led-bike-helmet---free-delivery-4493-p.asp

But in the down position your body usually hides them. Some people put them on their bags, but they can get hidden as the bag folds/moves.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

Going through the park this evening you could only see lights and reflectors and reflective strips. Hi Viz (which is for day time) is almost impossible to see at night.

Incidentally you can buy helmets with reflective strips, but most people wouldn't know to look for them over something thats light/bright coloured. As the sheer volume of "wear hi viz" has drowned out most of the useful information about visibility at night. Most cycling gear has reflective strips in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae7NwjP8PhI

Note in the video how his body position shields a lot of strips on his arms, back and if he had it on his helmet that, too. Which is why lights on the bike are better. But certainly reflective strips are better than yellow hats.

Heres one though. But to note at night you won't see the yellow. You'll only see the white stripes.
http://allseasonscyclist.com/2011/10/05/hardnutz-hi-vis-yellow-bicycle-helmet/

Some helmets have lights too.
http://www.all-about-the-bike.co.uk/proviz-mars-hi-viz-led-bike-helmet---free-delivery-4493-p.asp

But in the down position your body usually hides them. Some people put them on their bags, but they can get hidden as the bag folds/moves.

Had not actually thought about he position of the head, this may lesson the impact of the luminous helmet from behind, but from the front it should have no impact.

I note the text from the all about the bike article "Manufactured only in PROVIZ yellow for added safety visibility".

Once again, this would not to be replace the current aids, but as an additional safety feature.

The luminous jackets can also be hidden by people with backpacks.

Some good points though, fair play.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

If you cycle yourself, especially on unlit streets, country roads, you start to notice what works on other cyclists. You quickly realise that cheap lights and yellow vest, are almost useless there. You notice what works and learn from it.

Especially in the phoenix park with Ninjas of all kinds cyclists, walkers, runners and dog walkers on the cycle path or other unlit roads, who just appear from nowhere. Usually with a useless vest and light they got in a cracker.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Any item that gives marginal protection is welcome.

Not really. Bulletproof vests and knee pads would provide marginal protection for doing the shopping but they're not worth the effort.

We would need to establish that this proposal:

Would increase visibility of cyclists
Would not discourage cycling
Would not discourage helmet use

So far we haven't proved any of these points.

Mr.Crinklewood

hardCopy wrote: »

Not really. Bulletproof vests and knee pads would provide marginal protection for doing the shopping but they're not worth the effort.

We would need to establish that this proposal:

Would increase visibility of cyclists
Would not discourage cycling
Would not discourage helmet use

So far we haven't proved any of these points.

No additional effort is required as people already wear helmets. If relation to the visibility do you believe that a non-luminous item is more visible than a luminous item?


I cannot see how it would discourage cycling as those people who currently wear helmets are mature enough to wear them. If they had the silly clown hat view, they would probably not currently wear the helmets. The same could be applied for other protective items.

See above.

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No additional effort is required as people already wear helmets. If relation to the visibility do you believe that a non-luminous item is more visible than a luminous item?

They're both equally ineffective if a driver has inadequate lighting, is driving too fast or is distracted by cellphone use. Useless, when a driver turns or changes lane without indicating. Pointless, when a driver fails to stop on amber.

I lose count of the number of drivers I see driving using only parking lights, or with just one headlamp or the opposite...drivers blinding others with fog lamps and headlamps, when it's not foggy, rendering cyclists and pedestrians invisible to others.

It's drivers who cause all the death snd injury, and it's drivers who break the most road traffic laws, and it's drivers who want other people to change.

Mr.Crinklewood

opti0nal wrote: »

They're both equally ineffective if a driver has inadequate lighting, is driving too fast or is distracted by cellphone use. Useless, when a driver turns or changes lane without indicating. Pointless, when a driver fails to stop on amber.

I lose count of the number of drivers I see driving using only parking lights, or with just one headlamp or the opposite...drivers blinding others with fog lamps and headlamps, when it's not foggy, rendering cyclists and pedestrians invisible to others.

It's drivers who cause all the death snd injury, and it's drivers who break the most road traffic laws, and it's drivers who want other people to change.

Totally agree with you on a lot of this, thankfully the points system can be used against idiots like that.

biko

opti0nal wrote: »

It's drivers who cause all the death snd injury, and it's drivers who break the most road traffic laws, and it's drivers who want other people to change.

No, OP said it was the bikers fault so it must be...

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light

This is not a trolling thread

Right

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No additional effort is required as people already wear helmets. If relation to the visibility do you believe that a non-luminous item is more visible than a luminous item?

No I don't. Luminous items are for increasing daytime visibility, they're useless in the dark.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I cannot see how it would discourage cycling as those people who currently wear helmets are mature enough to wear them. If they had the silly clown hat view, they would probably not currently wear the helmets. The same could be applied for other protective items.

See above.

I wear a white and grey helmet, I wouldn't wear a lime green one.

Cyclists can be quite fickle, just look at the increase in motor traffic on a rainy day, the hardcore cyclists will cycle no matter what you make them wear but many more will not bother, we need all the cyclists we can get.

Is there even any evidence to show that poor visibility is a leading cause of accidents? I know that 30% of fatalities occur during the evening rush hour but for most of the year it's still bright in the evenings. The main cause of fatalities is people cycling in the blind-spots of left-turning HGV's. This is caused by a combination of inadequate mirrors, poor cyclist education and dangerous cycle lanes that lead people into death-traps.

doozerie

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

I cannot see how it would discourage cycling as those people who currently wear helmets are mature enough to wear them. If they had the silly clown hat view, they would probably not currently wear the helmets.

You've made several remarks that suggest you believe cyclists who don't wear helmets to be some form of idiots. Your apparent view of helmets as being some sort of magical wand that fends off harm is simplistic to say the least. Before you build a (very poor) argument around the assumption that all cyclists wear helmets because it's somehow stupid not to, you should educate yourself on the debate about the benefits, or not, of bicycle helmets in the first place. There are plenty of threads in the cycling forum where this topic has been discussed, and some of those threads contain extensive and very thought-provoking information.

In short though, the suggestion that cyclists should be obliged to wear luminous helmets is ridiculous on a number of levels, not least because not all cyclists wear a helmet (and the "I'll look like a clown" argument that you are keen to portray as the only case people put for not wearing a helmet is just ill-informed rubbish). If a cyclist doesn't use lights at night time then they are subject to be fined, and this should be properly enforced rather than the current situation of it being only occasionally enforced. If a driver can't see a cyclist with lights at night time then the driver should look at their own standard of driving not blame the cyclist and call for all cyclists to go to stupid lengths to make up for the failings of the driver concerned.

Mr.Crinklewood

hardCopy wrote: »

No I don't. Luminous items are for increasing daytime visibility, they're useless in the dark.



I wear a white and grey helmet, I wouldn't wear a lime green one.

Cyclists can be quite fickle, just look at the increase in motor traffic on a rainy day, the hardcore cyclists will cycle no matter what you make them wear but many more will not bother, we need all the cyclists we can get.

Is there even any evidence to show that poor visibility is a leading cause of accidents? I know that 30% of fatalities occur during the evening rush hour but for most of the year it's still bright in the evenings. The main cause of fatalities is people cycling in the blind-spots of left-turning HGV's. This is caused by a combination of inadequate mirrors, poor cyclist education and dangerous cycle lanes that lead people into death-traps.

Always an increase in traffic on a rainy day, pedestrians would be included here as well as cyclists. The main reason for both would be the discomfort and safety.

In relation to the visibility, ran a quick search and found the "Cochrane review".

Part of this says:- "In the UK, one in three road traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or cyclist. Usually, in these crashes drivers fail to see the pedestrian or cyclist until it is too late. In recent years reflective garments, flashing lights, and other visibility aids have been used to try to prevent crashes".

Research was also carried out to see if florescent items increased visibility:-

The breakdown is as follows:-

Daytime ( 9 tests )
8 increased visibility.
1 no difference.

Nighttime ( 15 test )
14 increased visibility.
1 no difference.


In relation to the causes of fatalities ( bare in mind i was talking about accidents in general ), well i agree on your points and have already mentioned education.

The summary of the report was:- "The effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety is unknown.Fluorescent, retroreflective materials and flashing lights have the potential to improve detection and recognition."

Mr.Crinklewood

doozerie wrote: »

You've made several remarks that suggest you believe cyclists who don't wear helmets to be some form of idiots. Your apparent view of helmets as being some sort of magical wand that fends off harm is simplistic to say the least. Before you build a (very poor) argument around the assumption that all cyclists wear helmets because it's somehow stupid not to, you should educate yourself on the debate about the benefits, or not, of bicycle helmets in the first place. There are plenty of threads in the cycling forum where this topic has been discussed, and some of those threads contain extensive and very thought-provoking information.

In short though, the suggestion that cyclists should be obliged to wear luminous helmets is ridiculous on a number of levels, not least because not all cyclists wear a helmet (and the "I'll look like a clown" argument that you are keen to portray as the only case people put for not wearing a helmet is just ill-informed rubbish). If a cyclist doesn't use lights at night time then they are subject to be fined, and this should be properly enforced rather than the current situation of it being only occasionally enforced. If a driver can't see a cyclist with lights at night time then the driver should look at their own standard of driving not blame the cyclist and call for all cyclists to go to stupid lengths to make up for the failings of the driver concerned.

I may be setting myself for a fall here, but could you please show me the idiots remarks?.

Could you also show me where i indicated that helmets were a magic wand?

I have already said that helmets should not be compulsary ( in answer to another poster ). In fact i pointed out that it was common in countries with a better infrastructure not to wear helmets.

I never said that cyclists should be obliged to wear luminous helmets, it was the companies that make them.

We are in agreement with the current enforcement, a fact that i have already mentioned.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Always an increase in traffic on a rainy day, pedestrians would be included here as well as cyclists. The main reason for both would be the discomfort and safety.

In relation to the visibility, ran a quick search and found the "Cochrane review".

Part of this says:- "In the UK, one in three road traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or cyclist. Usually, in these crashes drivers fail to see the pedestrian or cyclist until it is too late. In recent years reflective garments, flashing lights, and other visibility aids have been used to try to prevent crashes".

Research was also carried out to see if florescent items increased visibility:-

The breakdown is as follows:-

Daytime ( 9 tests )
8 increased visibility.
1 no difference.

Nighttime ( 15 test )
14 increased visibility.
1 no difference.


In relation to the causes of fatalities ( bare in mind i was talking about accidents in general ), well i agree on your points and have already mentioned education.

The summary of the report was:- "The effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety is unknown.Fluorescent, retroreflective materials and flashing lights have the potential to improve detection and recognition."

Good find.

However, the 15 night time tests were not of fluorescent items, they were of "visibility aids", generally lights (which appear to have had the biggest impacts) and reflectors.

Amusingly, the one night time test that failed to show any improvement was CPSC 1997, which tested the effectiveness of reflective helmets!

I haven't read the whole thing, but the basis for its inconclusiveness appears to be the link between the visibility and safety due to a lack of data on the subject.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Always an increase in traffic on a rainy day, pedestrians would be included here as well as cyclists. The main reason for both would be the discomfort and safety.

In relation to the visibility, ran a quick search and found the "Cochrane review".

Part of this says:- "In the UK, one in three road traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or cyclist. Usually, in these crashes drivers fail to see the pedestrian or cyclist until it is too late. In recent years reflective garments, flashing lights, and other visibility aids have been used to try to prevent crashes".

Research was also carried out to see if florescent items increased visibility:-

The breakdown is as follows:-

Daytime ( 9 tests )
8 increased visibility.
1 no difference.

Nighttime ( 15 test )
14 increased visibility.
1 no difference.


In relation to the causes of fatalities ( bare in mind i was talking about accidents in general ), well i agree on your points and have already mentioned education.

The summary of the report was:- "The effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety is unknown.Fluorescent, retroreflective materials and flashing lights have the potential to improve detection and recognition."

Do drivers fail to see cyclists because they're not visible, or because the driver isn't looking? Motorcyclists are regularly hit in SMIDSY accidents, even with full headlights.

As you quote the effectiveness of florescent clothing on safety is unknown. These things are rarely a no-brainer.

A cost-benefit analysis involves more than just the direct cost of the new helmets.

It would need to be proven effective, more effective than alternatives and not be canceled out by any negative side effects.

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

Good find.

However, the 15 night time tests were not of fluorescent items, they were of "visibility aids", generally lights (which appear to have had the biggest impacts) and reflectors.

Amusingly, the one night time test that failed to show any improvement was CPSC 1997, which tested the effectiveness of reflective helmets!

I haven't read the whole thing, but the basis for its inconclusiveness appears to be the link between the visibility and safety due to a lack of data on the subject.

:-)

Well spotted as well, thankfully someone read it.

To summarize:-

"reflectivity requirements.
Response: ESHFresponds at Tab G that the Commission conducted field testing on bicycle reflectors and examined the issue of reflectivityon bicycle helmets. In the field testing, half (24/48) of the subjects saw bicycle riders with reflective helmets and the other half saw non-reflective helmets. The reflective tape used on the helmets met a proposed Standard on use of Retroreflective Materials on Bicycle Helmets that was balloted by Subcommittee.the ASTM Headgear Study results failed to show that the particular helmet reflective strip used in the study would increase the distance at which a b.icycle can be detected or recognized(Schroeder, 1997)(Tab I) q For that reason, Human Factors still believes more research is needed to determine appropriate minimum retroreflective requirements for bicycle helmets. The staff lacks the data at this time to support a requirement for bicycle helmet reflective performance.. "

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Someone lumping cyclists with pedestrians for the same statistics sets alarms ringing for me.


Looking up Cochrane research/reviews returns some interesting stories...

The series of unfortunate events culminated when the scientific eHealth community debunked the Cochrane review as a "methodological disaster" [9]. Among several other flaws (outlined below), the review included severe extraction (or coding and data interpretation) errors leading to a complete reversal of the outcomes. Positive outcomes in the primary studies (such as reduction in encopresis [10]) were misinterpreted as negative (harmful) effects. As Per Egil Kummervold and colleagues listed in the feedback section of the Cochrane Library on October 28, 2004, at least 8 of 11 outcomes were reversed—letting the effect estimator appear on the left side ("favours control") instead on the right side ("favours intervention"). See Figure 2, which shows the flawed figure from the Cochrane review, and Multimedia Appendix 2, which shows corrections made by Kummervold et al.

These were stunning errors because anyone who read these primary reports could not possibly have come to the conclusion that any of these studies reported less favourable health outcomes in the IHCA groups. To date, it remains a mystery how respected and experienced investigators could arrive at these conclusions (unless investigators relied on research assistants or students to extract the data and did not bother to read the studies themselves, which is an unimaginable scenario for a Cochrane review). These errors were obviously magnified by aggressive marketing efforts of the investigators and publisher, who sent out three press releases that did not in any way caution readers about the results.

http://www.jmir.org/2005/2/e21/


If we ignore that and take it at face value, its seems to infer pedestrians should also wear yellow helmets. That driver observation skills are the one known failure here.

doozerie

@Mr.Crinklewood, Asking me to read back through the thread to tell you what you wrote is not unlike asking that all cyclists wear luminous helmets so that you need to apply less effort to see them. A discussion, like using the roads, involves effort on the part of everyone involved, it's a bit much to expect others to do the equivalent of cutting the crusts off for you.

But I'm easily led, so here you are, what I believe to be your derogatory references to people who choose not to wear a helmet while cycling, crusts removed:

This one was in reference to people who might choose not to wear a luminous helmet, people who you seem to be lumping in with a group that you refer to as "silly people":

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

I remember people having the same complaints about seatbelts. They could not give a proper reason, apart from "i don`t want to wear a seatbelt". Silly people.

You've already decided in your own mind that helmets are great yokes altogether, conveniently reducing the many reasonable and rational counter arguments down to "I don't want to wear one". Dismissing the valid and educated opinions of many people in such a way suggests that you believe their views to be worthless and certainly not worth your while giving any consideration to:

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

I was not comparing seat belts to helmets, i was comparing the ignorant views of some people saying that the only negative impact they could think of was:- "I don`t want to wear one"

Apparently those that wear helmets are "wise", suggesting that those that don't are something else:

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

If people had no alternative then, those that are wise enough to know the the helmets could protect them would continue to do so. The "clown" argument is akin to someone working with chemicals or a welder saying i will not wear goggles as i look like a "clown". Some may believe that they way they look is worth taking a risk in order to look better. For people like this, well there is no helping them.

Apparently, helmet wearing (or perhaps more specifically, luminous helmet wearing) is for the "educated":

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

I`m still waiting on a reasonable negative reason. ( bar the "clown" suggestion ).

It would all be about education, the way we were educated to wear seat-belts, we were educated to have smoke alarms in our homes, the way we are educated not to talk to strangers.

And, the post of yours that I quoted above, which equates wearing a helmet to maturity, which I read as suggesting that not wearing a helmet is somehow immature:

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

I cannot see how it would discourage cycling as those people who currently wear helmets are mature enough to wear them.

stephendevlin

pickarooney wrote: »

Fines should certainly be imposable although there is often a disparity between the correct legal procedure and the safe procedure (taking the third exit on a roundabout for example).
My house/third-party insurance applies to my cycling and a motorist who drove into me last year successfully claimed off it for repairs to her car.

The filthy, evil hoor.

Tax for cyclists is a stupid notion; if anything there should be tax exemptions for environmentally friendly road users.

Why oh why did you give her your details?

doozerie

Mr.Crinklewood wrote:

Part of this says:- "In the UK, one in three road traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or cyclist. Usually, in these crashes drivers fail to see the pedestrian or cyclist until it is too late. In recent years reflective garments, flashing lights, and other visibility aids have been used to try to prevent crashes".

Specifically in relation to road fatalities in the UK the Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results 2011 report gives detailed figures per road user group for 2011, as follows:

1. Results by road user type
* The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police has increased, by 3 per cent, from 1,850 in 2010 to 1,901 in 2011. Just under half (46 per cent) of all fatalities were car occupants, nearly a quarter (24 per cent) were pedestrians, while motorcyclists accounted for just under a fifth (19 per cent) of all fatalities.
* The number of car occupant fatalities in 2011 increased to 883, up 6 per cent compared to 2010, following a general downward trend in deaths since 2003. However, the number seriously injured in accidents reported to the police continued to fall, by 6 per cent to 8,342. Total reported casualties among car users were 124,924, 7 per cent less than 2010. Car and taxi traffic slightly increased by 0.2 per cent over the same period.
* There were 453 pedestrian deaths, 12 per cent more than in 2010. Seriously injured pedestrian casualties in accidents reported to the police also increased, by 5 per cent, to 5,454. These increases are set against a generally downward trend in the number of pedestrian casualties and fatalities since the 1970s.
* The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 4 per cent from 111 in 2010 to 107 in 2011. However, the number of casualties reported to the police as seriously injured in a road accident increased by 16 per cent to 3,085. Total reported casualties among pedal cyclists also rose, by 12 per cent, compared to 2010. Pedal cyclist traffic levels are estimated to have risen by 2.2 percent over the same period.
* There were 362 motorcycle users killed in 2011 a 10 per cent decrease compared to 2010 and in line with the trend for motorcycle fatalities. However the number of users reported as seriously injured increased by 10 per cent to 5,247. Total reported motorcycle user casualties increased by 8 per cent to 20,150 in 2011. Motorcycle traffic increased by 0.9 per cent over the same period.
* Casualties on motorways decreased for all severities (killed, serious, slight down 1, 7 and 6 per cent respectively) against an increase of 1 per cent in traffic. The number of casualties on non built-up roads also fell but to a lesser extent (down 1, 3 and 5 per cent). Slight casualties on built-up roads also fell (by 2 per cent) but fatalities and serious casualties increased (by 10 and
5 per cent respectively)
* Adverse weather (heavy snow falls) experienced in the first and last quarters of 2010 but not in 2011 are likely to be a factor in the increase in serious road casualties and fatalities recorded in 2011.

As always tends to be the case, cyclists account for the lowest number of fatalities of all road user groups in that report. That obviously doesn't mean that cyclists should be complacent and ignore the existing rules of the road in the expectation of not being hurt or killed, but it does highlight the flawed thinking of those that argue that cyclists are in severe danger on the roads and are desperately in need of additional personal safety equipment to survive.

If someone wants to truly be a road safety evangelist then the stats suggest they should focus on initiatives to further protect motorists, pedestrians, motorbikers, and cyclists, in that order. In the meantime, enforcing the existing rules of the road for all road users would go a long way towards improving road safety for everyone.

stephendevlin

Shenshen wrote: »

Some countries have a system in place that allow police to actually place points on the driver's licence of a cyclist they found breaking the rules (drunk cycling, mostly, if I recall)
So yes, definitely.

What happens if you dont have a drivers licence?

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

stephendevlin wrote: »

What happens if you dont have a drivers licence?

They can keep the points on hold until you get one.

Same dilemma if there were penalty points for pedestrians.

The main benefit of points, if there was sufficient enforcement, would be to repeatedly catch and then ban the 78% of drivers who break speed limits with impunity.

More space for the rest of us....

stephendevlin

opti0nal wrote: »

They can keep the points on hold until you get one.

Same dilemma if there were penalty points for pedestrians.

The main benefit of points, if there was sufficient enforcement, would be to repeatedly catch and then ban the 78% of drivers who break speed limits with impunity.

More space for the rest of us....

wh wh wh what?? Penalty points for pedestrians? So they would be banned from walking or cycling and get points on a licence that they dont have

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

stephendevlin wrote: »

wh wh wh what?? Penalty points for pedestrians? So they would be banned from walking or cycling and get points on a licence that they dont have

Obviously, this would be absurd and impractical.

It would also be a diversion of scarce resources away from the real problem: motorist behaviour. Let's pick one problem: speeding, which almost all motorists do. Eliminate that behaviour and you probably also solve the widespread problems of motorists failing to stop on amber, motorists going the wrong way around roundabouts and motorists overtaking unlawfully.

stephendevlin

opti0nal wrote: »

Obviously, this would be absurd and impractical.

Exactly ... The point I was trying to make...

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

stephendevlin wrote: »

Exactly ... The point I was trying to make...

...Although it might be technically possible to implement bans on incorrigible 'Dublin Bike' users by cancelling their accounts.

rubadub

Augmerson wrote: »

As a Cyclist, I think Cyclists should at least learn the rules of the road that apply to them and make sure they wear the proper safety equipment at all times.

As a person, I think people should at least learn the rules of the road that apply them and stop looking like ignorant hypocrites. Most hypocritical whiners are most likely pedestrians at some stage, and probably do not know the advice of the rules of the road for themselves, let alone follow it.

I love this passage

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.