rte 1 programme about road rage tonight

Iwannahurl

CramCycle wrote: »

Fair enough on the first two but claiming the last seems preposterous. Stopping at red lights could kill someone, quite the opposite. Maybe the quote should have been "Simplistic assertions such as: always stop in a position that brings you into either conflict or a blind spot of other road users at red lights, usually accomplished by staying left or using cycle lanes may lead to accidents, injuries or worse."

As far as I know the Transport for London report mentioned below, and indirectly referenced in the cyclist.ie submission above, was never released to the public:

In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.

This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.

The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm

Real life is a lot more complex and contradictory than soundbites and 'common sense' might suggest, which is why I am always interested in research findings.

Iwannahurl

CramCycle wrote: »

That they blame everyone except cyclists I presume.

What is there in the (totality of the) cyclist.ie submission to support that assertion?

Chips Lovell

You clearly seem to think there's nothing objectionable in their position, so I don't see much point in spelling it out further to you.

droidus

Exactly. If people think your claims are outlandish and lack credibility, why try and convince them otherwise?

buffalo

In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.

I don't think the red light is the dangerous part, it's the waiting in the blind spot. Allowing cyclists to run red lights would not solve the issue of cyclists being killed by being in HGVs' blind spots, removing the blind spots or educating cyclists that these blind spots exist would.

But DCC instead blame the red lights, and claim that cyclists should be free to flout certain rules of the road. And thus they further the stereotype that cyclists are a bunch of anarchist hippies or TdF-playing lycra louts, instead of ordinary decent citizens.

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Real life is a lot more complex and contradictory than soundbites and 'common sense' might suggest, which is why I am always interested in research findings.

In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.

This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.

The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think the red light is the dangerous part, it's the waiting in the blind spot. Allowing cyclists to run red lights would not solve the issue of cyclists being killed by being in HGVs' blind spots, removing the blind spots or educating cyclists that these blind spots exist would.

But DCC instead blame the red lights, and claim that cyclists should be free to flout certain rules of the road. And thus they further the stereotype that cyclists are a bunch of anarchist hippies or TdF-playing lycra louts, instead of ordinary decent citizens.

As Buffalo said, the blind spot is not the issue, enforcement of fines for people crossing white lines on a red (ie vehicles filling up the ASL area) and educating cyclists that staying to the left despite years of the RSA saying you should, are the issues. If the ladies in the reports had taken the IMO more common sense approach of either holding central position before the lorry got there, or if the lorry was there first, either waiting a few metres behind or come along the outside (right of the stopped vehicle) again giving space as large vehicles often hook tight turns.

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think the red light is the dangerous part, it's the waiting in the blind spot. Allowing cyclists to run red lights would not solve the issue of cyclists being killed by being in HGVs' blind spots, removing the blind spots or educating cyclists that these blind spots exist would.

But DCC instead blame the red lights, and claim that cyclists should be free to flout certain rules of the road. And thus they further the stereotype that cyclists are a bunch of anarchist hippies or TdF-playing lycra louts, instead of ordinary decent citizens.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the cyclist.ie submission. Did you read it in full?

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's a gross misrepresentation of the cyclist.ie submission. Did you read it in full?

That is not their submission though, that is the submission for a consolidation of several cycling campaigners. To be fair the bits I have read are all reasonable and cost effective plans.
Buffalo is referring to statements not policies from people from the DCC, and in that capacity, speaking with their voice as far as anyone else is concerned, for example in the quote previous from Mike McKillen.

Iwannahurl

The DCC is the largest constituent body of cyclist.ie and therefore had a major input to the submission. The DCC, as far as I am aware, also endorses the National Cycle Policy Framework, which inter alia calls for improved enforcement (eg of RLJs) and bypasses of traffic signals for cyclists.

Negotiated, agreed and consistent policy matters more than media soundbites from individuals, imo.

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Negotiated, agreed and consistent policy matters more than media soundbites from individuals, imo.

You are of course right but the media only use policy for the tail ends of the story, the soundbite is the bread and butter of red top reporting. If you are in a position where your views may be interpreted as the views of your group, you should either talk in a view that correlates with theirs or you should make it clear that those views are personnel and not as far as you know, the views of the panel you are on.

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Negotiated, agreed and consistent policy matters more than media soundbites from individuals, imo.

This is true, but I take whatever Enda Kenny's position as the position of the government, unless he states otherwise. The head of every organisation has a responsibility to be careful what soundbites they create.

My impression from a previous interview with McKillen (and no, I cannot quote it in full) was that he thinks it's okay for cyclists to RLJ and go the wrong way up one-way streets. Which may very well be for reasons of safety, but equally might be for convenience. If he were instead to state that all cyclists should obey the law except when their health is endangered, that would be far more acceptable.