Female Cyclist dies in collision

eviltwin

smash wrote: »

Nobody is arguing and nobody is being disrespectful. Just questioning the reason behind it.

yeah my first reaction when I read about the tragic death of someone is to look at the wording of the article :rolleyes:

keith16

I'm in shock. That stretch of road is a disgrace, the speeds some go through at.

There is little room for cyclists and the pedestrians there are a danger to all road users.

The local councilor quoted in the Indo article is quoted is saying that it is a very quiet road, when in fact, the very opposite is true.

An absolute needless tragedy today. RIP.

Alias G

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Plenty of people die behind the wheel also. Do you propose no one drives as well.

wil

smash wrote: »

I don't think you meant to reply to me... Since your answer is nothing to do with what I said

Apologies, curse of the small screen, meant it in reply to speculation on cause, quoted your post by mistake, and didnt pick up on it till now as in rereading the wording seemed to fit.:o

Rothmans

kylith wrote: »

Coming up Nicholas St toward Christchurch you have to cross the left turning motorist lane to go straight and down onto the quay. Coming up the hill it's very difficult to know if a car's coming up behind you, can be a bit hairy at rush hour.

P_1 wrote: »

Ah I had forgot about the left turning lane there. I can imagine that being fairly dangerous on a bike.

But what is the alternative to cylcing lanes coming across these left-turning lanes. I understand it can be dangerous, but I'm just wandering what is the alternative?
EDIT; Just to confirm, this is the type of lane we're talking about, yeah?
http://goo.gl/maps/jpd5M

Sala

She has been named as Louise butler, aged 28, cycling to work in the avoca food market in monkstown

Poor girl, And her poor family.

Shenshen

Rothmans wrote: »

But what is the alternative to cylcing lanes coming across these left-turning lanes. I understand it can be dangerous, but I'm just wandering what is the alternative?
EDIT; Just to confirm, this is the type of lane we're talking about, yeah?
http://goo.gl/maps/jpd5M

What would be wrong with regulating the cycle lanes alongside the foot paths, rather than treating them as "traffic"? Let the cycle path follow the foot path to the traffic lights, and give them a green light to go left or straight when the motor traffic is standing still?

There's no need for the cycle path to suddenly shoot into the main road.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

keith16 wrote: »

I'm in shock. That stretch of road is a disgrace, the speeds some go through at.

There is little room for cyclists and the pedestrians there are a danger to all road users.

The local councilor quoted in the Indo article is quoted is saying that it is a very quiet road, when in fact, the very opposite is true.

An absolute needless tragedy today. RIP.

The local councilor is an eejit for thinking that. The local councilor is obviously not local or has ever been on that stretch of road. 60Kmph seems to be the min speed on that road. Try cycling on that road with a damned aircoach whizzing by you. Not nice at all.

kylith

Rothmans wrote: »

But what is the alternative to cylcing lanes coming across these left-turning lanes. I understand it can be dangerous, but I'm just wandering what is the alternative?
EDIT; Just to confirm, this is the type of lane we're talking about, yeah?
http://goo.gl/maps/jpd5M

Lights are one option, as Shenshen said, but motorists need to be more aware, and more courteous. I don't know how many times I had to either dismount my bike and use the pedestrian crossing or just say 'fúck it' and veer out with the bike path because motorists simply will not give way to a bike; the 20 seconds it'd take to go across in front of them is too much, is all I can think. You're cycling up the hill, one hand on the bars because you're indicating with the other, you're off balance because you're looking behind you for a gap in the traffic, and very, very few people have the decency to pause and let you get in the right lane.

Honestly, I think anyone going for a driving licence should have to spend a set period of time as a cyclist so that they are aware of just how vulnerable cyclists are, and how much more difficult the things motorists take for granted, like changing lanes, are.

Sala

kylith wrote: »

Lights are one option, as Shenshen said, but motorists need to be more aware, and more courteous. I don't know how many times I had to either dismount my bike and use the pedestrian crossing or just say 'fúck it' and veer out with the bike path because motorists simply will not give way to a bike; the 20 seconds it'd take to go across in front of them is too much, is all I can think. You're cycling up the hill, one hand on the bars because you're indicating with the other, you're off balance because you're looking behind you for a gap in the traffic, and very, very few people have the decency to pause and let you get in the right lane.

Honestly, I think anyone going for a driving licence should have to spend a set period of time as a cyclist so that they are aware of just how vulnerable cyclists are, and how much more difficult the things motorists take for granted, like changing lanes, are.

While there is a lot to be said for motorists needing to be more aware if cyclists in left turn lanes, I really wouldn't rely on some sort of education strategy to solve the problem. It would be much safer at dangerous junctions if cyclists and motorists had different lights as there will always be drivers in the left lanes who just pull out and turn left without checking.

Near where I live there is a left turn accross a bicycle lane, and the bike lane itself has a yield sign on the ground. I always slow and let the cyclists go straight as you can never rely on them to know or see the (very unclear) sign that they are supposed to yield.

johnr1

]

kylith wrote: »

Lights are one option, as Shenshen said, but motorists need to be more aware, and more courteous. I don't know how many times I had to either dismount my bike and use the pedestrian crossing or just say 'fúck it' and veer out with the bike path because motorists simply will not give way to a bike; the 20 seconds it'd take to go across in front of them is too much, is all I can think. You're cycling up the hill, one hand on the bars because you're indicating with the other, you're off balance because you're looking behind you for a gap in the traffic, and very, very few people have the decency to pause and let you get in the right lane.

Honestly, I think anyone going for a driving licence should have to spend a set period of time as a cyclist so that they are aware of just how vulnerable cyclists are, and how much more difficult the things motorists take for granted, like changing lanes, are.

Maybe anyone intending to cycle on our roads should have to take some basic test on the rules more like.

homerjay2005

Shenshen wrote: »

RIP...

I know why I'm not cycling in Ireland, even though I do really miss it.
The infrastructure for cyclists is either non-existent, p*ss-poor and in some cases I know actively contributing to putting cyclists at risk.

And many motorists seem to start foaming at the mouth the moment they spot a cyclist.

It's dangerous and it needn't be.

Poor woman.

and yet, we have legislation coming in to stop cyclists cycling on footpaths next october?

the infrastructure is appaling yet for some reason its a crime to cycle on an empty footpath that can be a safe means for all non drivers to keep off the road.

may the poor girl rest in peace, though drivers, the guards and anybody else who doesn cycle wont give a s*it.

EdenHazard

So sad, genuinely uneasy reading this, just horrible. I've cycled that road before, will prob be the last time after this news

seamus

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and yet, we have legislation coming in to stop cyclists cycling on footpaths next october?

the infrastructure is appaling yet for some reason its a crime to cycle on an empty footpath that can be a safe means for all non drivers to keep off the road.

Uh...

A) It's already illegal to cycle on a footpath
Cycling on an "empty" footpath is in many cases far more dangerous than cycling on a road. Footpaths are not appropriate for cycling speeds.

Sala

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and yet, we have legislation coming in to stop cyclists cycling on footpaths next october?

the infrastructure is appaling yet for some reason its a crime to cycle on an empty footpath that can be a safe means for all non drivers to keep off the road.

may the poor girl rest in peace, though drivers, the guards and anybody else who doesn cycle wont give a s*it.

I have seen plenty of people in particular tourists on the city bikes on the footpaths in town and once people cycle slowly and are courteous there are no problems. In my opinion people only tend to cycle on footpaths when they'd be taking their lives in their hands trying to navigate the lanes and junctions on the road. The infrastructure Is all wrong

wendell borton

Sala wrote: »

While there is a lot to be said for motorists needing to be more aware if cyclists in left turn lanes, I really wouldn't rely on some sort of education strategy to solve the problem. It would be much safer at dangerous junctions if cyclists and motorists had different lights as there will always be drivers in the left lanes who just pull out and turn left without checking.

Near where I live there is a left turn accross a bicycle lane, and the bike lane itself has a yield sign on the ground. I always slow and let the cyclists go straight as you can never rely on them to know or see the (very unclear) sign that they are supposed to yield.

It would be simpler just to get rid of cycle lanes. This way no misunderstandings or confusion that can lead to accidents.

Shenshen

seamus wrote: »

Uh...

A) It's already illegal to cycle on a footpath
Cycling on an "empty" footpath is in many cases far more dangerous than cycling on a road. Footpaths are not appropriate for cycling speeds.

I never knew it was illegal to cycle on footpaths here... that seems a bit over the top to me.
In Germany (again, my only point of reference, sorry if I start sounding like a broken record), cyclists are allowed to cycle on the footpath, provided they do not obstruct or hassle any pedestrians.

That legislation would explain a thing or two, though... There is one road into Cork I would be driving down pretty regularly, it's 2 lanes with a speed limit in places of 100kph merging into one lane as it approaches town.
There is a footpath running alongside it, but there would never be any pedestrians on it - the road runs roughly between the N25 and the port of Cork, so not many people would walk there.
I've often wondered why cyclists on that road took their lives in their hands cycling next to lorries and cars belting down in an effort to break the speed limit and then getting all aggressive at the point where the two lanes merge. Me, if I was on a bike, I would be up on that footpath and well away from the mayhem.

But if that would be illegal, that might explain it.

homerjay2005

Shenshen wrote: »

In Germany (again, my only point of reference, sorry if I start sounding like a broken record), cyclists are allowed to cycle on the footpath, provided they do not obstruct or hassle any pedestrians.

this is the way it should be here.

McTigs

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and i can't understand drivers need to drive in a manner that makes a road dangerous.

Do you think cyclists should just stop cycling or should measures be taken to make the road less dangerous?

togherprince

Some very unpleasant and ill-informed comments here (and in the media), but I guess that is the nature of forums and certain parts of the media in general over the last few years. You can now write articles or post comments without the slightest bit of knowledge or verification of fact; analysis and robust application of intellect/knowledge is regularly replaced with sensationalist headlines and ill-judged/unthinking comments.
I can understand that this is an awful situation but it would have been a great help to all cyclists/pedestrians/motorists in Dublin if there was some analysis and intellect applied to this accident (and others), why it happened, how we can prevent it happening again and so on.
A few facts:
- Large scale study of city cycling commuters in UK proved that female cyclists are more likely to be involved in fatal or serious accidents while cycling because they are less likely to take risks. For example, articulated lorries turning left, female cyclist waits beside truck (and usually metal barrier on footpath), she is intending to go straight, truck turns left and crushes victim. This exact situation has been repeated several times in Dublin in the last few years, this sounds like another sad example. Busy four lane road, main commuter road into Dublin, cuts right through shopping centre and lots of schools/homes nearby but no cycle lane/infrastructure - a risk taker would have seen the truck, sense the danger and used the footpath or weaved through traffic to front of lane. Because we have a harsh environment in Ireland for cyclists and pedestrians (try going for walk on country roads) where the car is put first, we tend to break the law all the time - pedestrians cross roads rather than walk to lights and cyclists put themselves first - and so the 'cycle' continues.
Rather than casually comment about the reference to 'female' in the article, it would have been more helpful if people ask why female cyclists are more susceptible to injury/death and try to learn from the unfortunate event. Newspapers and forums skip this bit of course, too complicated and doesn't help sell anything.

- Cycling (and driving) habits are usually a combination of personality/societal traits and 'environmental adaptation'. So, if your environment is hostile (busy roads) and not designed with you in mind (no cycle lanes, poor layout, etc,) you will adapt to protect yourself. The roads/streets in Ireland are generally designed for motorists - most first world countries have recognised that there are many different types of road users and you design urban areas with the most vunerable of users in mind and try to maximise the benefits to all who inhabit a city. 30 years ago, pedestrianisation of city streets was a rarity in Ireland, but now we can all recognise the huge benefits of this.

Rules - In the Netherlands you do not drive with one headlight working, everyone on the road will 'remind' you that your bulb is not working and police will stop you - not the case in Ireland. In Ireland we are not great at following rules or in enforcement of rules (not just by Gardai, but by all of us) and particularly poor at understanding the consequences of our actions and how they might result in harm to others. For example, we have a 50KM speed limit in most part of Dublin, usually ignored, but few people seem to understand the massive benefits to society in general of restricting speed of motorised vehicles in urban areas - why are glib, anecdotal, ill-informed comments that argue against this still getting so much airtime?

- That particular stretch of the Frascati road, which I cycle on almost every day, is a main thoroughfare/four lane road with no cycle lanes for large stretches. Also, it is not particularly pleasant for pedestrians, the road cuts right through a major shopping area and large amounts of people have to cross that very busy road where motorists regularly break the lights and speed limit. Even if you are not a cyclist and don't care about the quality of life for pedestrians in busy areas such as Blackrock, can you still not see the benefits? Even if they do not apply to you directly?

And relax...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

togherprince wrote: »

Epicness

What a fantastic post.

Penny Dreadful

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I disagree with this somewhat. I recently started to cycle to and from work and there are cycle paths the whole way in. What I have been astonished at is the amount of cyclists who use the road rather than the cycle lanes.
For instance yesterday I was the only one who used the cycle lane for the entire 10km home. Many other cyclists were on the road but none on the paths.
Before I started to cycle I wondered if it was because the paths were in poor conditions, littered with glass, etc etc but this is not the case.

It really depends on where you are. I was a competitive cyclist for most of my teenage years and in general cycle paths are in terrible condition. If you're on a road racer, their tyres can be extremely fragile, so even the smallest thing could cause a puncture. I can't remember the last time I cycled on a pavement.

average_runner

I think everyone needs to be more aware on the road.

How many times i have seen a driver take left turn and not looking.

Also how many times have i seen a cyclist in a lane for turning left only and they go straight on!!!

Same with people just walking out on the road. Runners and cyclist on paths or running lanes in the dark with no lights or reflective gear!!

Alot of the things we do are just stupidity.

wil

Again I offer sympathy to the family/friends of the woman. RIP.

And so debate continues
I see issues on both sides of the cyclist vs driver debate.
I cycle, I drive. I've even been known to walk.
I am not sure why there has to be a "versus" because if those cyclists were in cars, you'd be fighting them in a bigger traffic jam.

I have yet to hear of a bike/motor collision where the driver was injured.

Cyclists are extremely vulnerable on the road and in some places there is reason to consider the footpath a safer option than attempting to interact with motorists on THEIR terms.

I have observed more recently a rising, almost malicious intolerance towards cyclists. It is becoming almost universal to counter every incident with tales of no lights, breaking lights, no hand signals, no hands, footpath, wrong way. So what's new?

But since when did it become almost defacto to overtake any and every cyclist no matter what the situation. Drivers seem to have forgotten 1 they have brakes, 2 they are meant to stay on the correct side of the road, 3 they are not meant to drive/park in cycle lanes. And just because a cycle lane exists, doesnt make it safer. If anything it promotes and reinforces this rising feeling of intolerance.

Drivers are continuously looking for consideration from cyclists, yet so often fail to show it. When I slow to allow a cyclist to turn, or go straight, if I'm turning, the driver on my rear bumper looks aghast. Many trucks seem to consider cyclists as significant as puddles on the road, a nuisance, in the main to be ignored. But ironically a puddle to a cyclist could be a pothole or skid.

Yes I know there are some blithering idiots and life fails on bikes, but physically, will they hurt me in my car?
I still vividly recall, early in my driving, a little girl on her bike, crossing a junction in front of me in the dark. A split second later and both our lives would have been irreparably damaged. Maybe all drivers need some close encounter to remind them, cyclists are people too.

Inconsideration has given way to non-consideration.
I met a car coming around a blind T junction where the driver was meant to stop, but didnt. she was in the middle of the road. Just about avoiding her, shaking, I asked her why she did that.

"Shure your only on a little bicycle, I'm in a big car":eek:

kylith

johnr1 wrote: »

]

Maybe anyone intending to cycle on our roads should have to take some basic test on the rules more like.

Motorists have to, but I still see them breaking the rules of the road on a par with cyclists.

Sala wrote: »

While there is a lot to be said for motorists needing to be more aware if cyclists in left turn lanes, I really wouldn't rely on some sort of education strategy to solve the problem. It would be much safer at dangerous junctions if cyclists and motorists had different lights as there will always be drivers in the left lanes who just pull out and turn left without checking.

Near where I live there is a left turn accross a bicycle lane, and the bike lane itself has a yield sign on the ground. I always slow and let the cyclists go straight as you can never rely on them to know or see the (very unclear) sign that they are supposed to yield.

I'd like to see a European style layout with cycle paths completely removed from the road and the footpath. Amsterdam has a great layout that everyone abides by and it's a great city to get around.

average_runner wrote: »

I think everyone needs to be more aware on the road.

How many times i have seen a driver take left turn and not looking.

Often, I'd guess

Also how many times have i seen a cyclist in a lane for turning left only and they go straight on!!!

In fairness they don't have much of an option. Trying to change lanes to abide by the road layout when you're on a bicycle and you're competing with cars, many of whom won't show the slightest consideration, is incredibly dangerous.

Same with people just walking out on the road. Runners and cyclist on paths or running lanes in the dark with no lights or reflective gear!!

Alot of the things we do are just stupidity.

No argument there.

Ray Palmer

thesimpsons wrote: »

saw a teenager this morning wearing headphones, looked like he was cycling to training (hurley sticking way out of his bag). the headphones were those big ones that completely cover the ears - he hadn't a hope of hearing traffic behind him and the way he was merrily cycling along, head bopping to the music, he looked like he hadn't a care in the world.

As pointed out could he hear any less than a motorcyclist with a helmet on?

Also pointed out that hearing on a bicycle is not necessarily a help. Deaf people aren't stopped from driving or cycling.

Chinasea

What really bothers me though, is this bogus statement issued by the elected local County Councillor in relation to the fatal accident, referring to the road as a 'quiet stretch with a lot of traffic lights on it'.

Sorry, but this is just sooooo outof touch and so dismissive and evasive of how utterly shambolic and treacherous the roads are for cyclists.

kylith

thesimpsons wrote: »

saw a teenager this morning wearing headphones, looked like he was cycling to training (hurley sticking way out of his bag). the headphones were those big ones that completely cover the ears - he hadn't a hope of hearing traffic behind him and the way he was merrily cycling along, head bopping to the music, he looked like he hadn't a care in the world.

I used to wear big headphones on my bike because you can actually hear more of what's going on around you than if you're wearing ear buds. There's less chance of damaging your ear canal if you fall off too.

If you wanted, not saying that you do, to ban cyclists listening to music then you'll have to ban car stereos too, and ban the deaf from driving or cycling. And ban pedestrians from listening to headphones too; after all they could not hear a car and step off the kerb in front of it.

Penny Dreadful

kylith wrote: »

What area do you cycle? I can tell you from experience that bike lanes in the city centre are dangerous particularly along the quays and around Christchurch.


Was it down by the shopping centre? I only cycled that way a couple of times, but the bend at the end struck me as an accident waiting to happen.

Lucan to Tallaght. I'm lucky that there are so many cycle paths on my route I know that.
When I drive I have wondered about the safety of some cyclists from both the "oh my God that driver is NUTS" aspect and the "why on earth are you on the road rather than the cycle path" point of view.
People are strange either way.
In this situation a young woman has died and its dreadfully sad.

average_runner

kylith wrote: »

In fairness they don't have much of an option. Trying to change lanes to abide by the road layout when you're on a bicycle and you're competing with cars, many of whom won't show the slightest consideration, is incredibly dangerous.

If lights are red they can move out of the left lane, its easy i do it.

kylith

average_runner wrote: »

If lights are red they can move out of the left lane, its easy i do it.

If they're red. If they're not?

average_runner

kylith wrote: »

If they're red. If they're not?

Get into the right lane when the traffic breaks, so many lights in dublin there is always a break, even on Westmoreland St.

Shenshen

average_runner wrote: »

If lights are red they can move out of the left lane, its easy i do it.

May or may not be the case.
Rules of the road say (as far as I recall) that you should stop at a distance that will still allow you to see where the tyres of the car in front touch the ground.
And as with most rules of the road, people are more likely to ignore that than actually follow it, they'll stop only when they can clearly see the face of the guy in front in his rear mirror.

It's behaviour that's been annoying me as a pedestrian, as they will stop like this, bumper to bumper, across any pedestrian crossing in heavy traffic, making it near impossible to get across.
I don't think you could do it on a bike, unless you dismount, lift the bike up over your head, and squeeze yourself through....

average_runner

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Lucan to Tallaght. I'm lucky that there are so many cycle paths on my route I know that.
When I drive I have wondered about the safety of some cyclists from both the "oh my God that driver is NUTS" aspect and the "why on earth are you on the road rather than the cycle path" point of view.
People are strange either way.
In this situation a young woman has died and its dreadfully sad.

Cycle lanes in Lucan are very good, but people like cycling 2 a breast to block traffic up instead

RacoonQueen

average_runner wrote: »

I think everyone needs to be more aware on the road.

How many times i have seen a driver take left turn and not looking.

Also how many times have i seen a cyclist in a lane for turning left only and they go straight on!!!

In general a cycle lane will be on the left of the road, next to the lane for turning left and is continued up ahead for the cyclist to go straight on. Poorly laid out. Many cycle lanes are like that on my commute(and on paths) What use is a cycle lane in a left turn motorist lane, especially when there's a filter where the cyclist can get in the motorist's way then if there's a few of them?

Cyclists have to be reponsible for their own safety, you have to hope to god no one else f*cks up. I never, ever go up the side of a large vehicle. If it means waiting behind 4 cars and then a truck at lights and missing a green light, f*ck it. If the lights change while I'm squeezing up between a truck I could be a goner. Not worth it.

average_runner

RacoonQueen wrote: »

In general a cycle lane will be on the left of the road, next to the lane for turning left and is continued up ahead for the cyclist to go straight on. Poorly laid out. Many cycle lanes are like that on my commute(and on paths) What use is a cycle lane in a left turn motorist lane, especially when there's a filter where the cyclist can get in the motorist's way then if there's a few of them?

Cyclists have to be reponsible for their own safety, you have to hope to god no one else f*cks up. I never, ever go up the side of a large vehicle. If it means waiting behind 4 cars and then a truck at lights and missing a green light, f*ck it. If the lights change while I'm squeezing up between a truck I could be a goner. Not worth it.

I am talking about left lanes where there is no cycle lane.

If there is a cycle lane then i understand.

RacoonQueen

average_runner wrote: »

I am talking about left lanes where there is no cycle lane.

If there is a cycle lane then i understand.

To be honest, it's easier(safer) to just stay as far left as possible usually. You can indicate that you are going left, or, indicate that you're going straight. Take into account, cyclists will do what they feel safe doing. I often don't indicate a turn if weather conditions make it unsafe to take one hand off the bike.

It can be risky in some areas taking the right lane as people in left turning lanes often decide they're going straight themselves. Then you're stuck between two metal blocks...