Bicycle deaths double

EAD

No attack intended; just asking some of the questions that came to mind. Curriculum already pretty tight in terms of fitting in new subjects re timetable constraints. Perhaps this new JC (if it arrives) could be the place for it thereby ensuring access for all, not just Transition Year students.

Qualitymark

CramCycle wrote: »

8 years of Irish and only about 5 of 30 had any level that would be barely respectable and one of them only moved to Ireland in 4th class.

In a school of which I have knowledge, a gifted (Northern, Protestant) teacher took over a series of Irish classes over a few years that had trundled sullenly through the system as far as the age of 16 without learning any notable amount of Irish. The teacher instituted a Friday café during which the kids just drank coffee and chatted to each other in Irish, with the teacher there to give approving help and support with vocabulary. Class after class swiftly developed fluency and a liking for Irish and a leap in improvement of their understanding of and value for the literary side of the course.
</threadcreep>

JuliusCaesar

monument wrote: »

The RSA are to publish a new report on cycling collision stats sometime in the near future.

There's some independent work on building a database on the same.

I wonder if deaths that result from accidents are counted? This recent one was not an immediate fatality but the woman never recovered and died some weeks later. My heartfelt condolences and sympathies to her family; I was quite shaken when I heard as we are of a similar vintage and this is an area that I transverse regularly cycling. I only just heard about it through a connection.


Is the ghostbike campaign still active?

Qualitymark

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I wonder if deaths that result from accidents are counted? This recent one was not an immediate fatality but the woman never recovered and died some weeks later. My heartfelt condolences and sympathies to her family; I was quite shaken when I heard as we are of a similar vintage and this is an area that I transverse regularly cycling. I only just heard about it through a connection.


Is the ghostbike campaign still active?

http://ghostbikes.org/dublin

Doesn't sound as if it is. A ghost bike in Burlington Road would be a very good idea, if the cyclist's family would agree. People drive far too fast and carelessly on this city street.

Tenzor07

Good article in the Sindo today, might give some people here a bit of perspective....

all-motorists-see-is-a-bike-not-the-person-riding-it-

"What's it going to take for us as a society to make the roads safe for all users?" asks Liam. "You know motorists are cowards, they think they own the road and I think truck drivers are getting worse, if anything. All they see is a bike, they don't see the person on the bike. God forbid a group of cyclists will be mowed down one day and everybody will say 'oh we need to treat cyclists with more humanity and respect' but by then, sure it'll be too late. But that's Ireland in a nutshell, a fire brigade nation, we'll only react after the event."

Steo M

Beasty wrote: »

There was certainly no sarcasm intended - I was simply pointing out a basic defect with your proposal. However you were the the one stating that cyclists "should know are the rules of the road" - how can you get their attention in any "training" and confirm they "know" the RoTR if you don't test it

Now if you do want a sarcastic reply, why not extend the principles to pedestrians as more are involved in fatal road accidents than cyclists (a factor of > 3:1 this year)?

This thread is about cyclists & the amount of them getting killed, you could always start a new thread about pedestrians.

I don't know how you manage to read something & interpret it completely differently to what's written, training=test, opinion=proposal in your head.

You have to make a start somewhere if the amount of bicycle deaths/accidents are to be reduced. If you have a better idea how you would go about doing that, then I'd love to hear it.

Beasty

Steo M wrote: »

You have to make a start somewhere if the amount of bicycle deaths/accidents are to be reduced. If you have a better idea how you would go about doing that, then I'd love to hear it.

Cycling in this country is relatively safe. Cycling deaths have dropped significantly in recent years. This year that trend has reversed, which is perhaps unsurprising given the uptake in motorised vehicles on the road. Yes in an ideal world there would be no deaths from any accidents. I personally do not believe we are in a bad position in terms of the overall incidence of cyclist deaths in Ireland

Steo M

Beasty wrote: »

Cycling in this country is relatively safe. Cycling deaths have dropped significantly in recent years. This year that trend has reversed, which is perhaps unsurprising given the uptake in motorised vehicles on the road. Yes in an ideal world there would be no deaths from any accidents. I personally do not believe we are in a bad position in terms of the overall incidence of cyclist deaths in Ireland

So if you're happy enough that we plod along because things are dandy then good for you. Sure what's the problem with a dozen cyclists getting killed every year & many hundreds badly injured, we can just put that down to collateral damage.

Steo M

desertcircus wrote: »

Total cyclist deaths in Ireland average out at less than ten a year. That's compared to a total of almost 200 deaths per year on Irish roads.

We're going to have to disagree on whether compulsory training would reduce overall numbers of cyclists: it's literally unbelievable to me that a country could significantly raise the barrier for cycling and see absolutely no drop in the number of people cycling. With fewer people cycling (which I'm absolutely convinced would happen, just as Australia's compulsory helmet laws mean bikesharing schemes are ten times quieter than other countries') people become less used to driving in the presence of cyclists and more likely to engage in driving behaviour that endangers cyclists.

Lastly: of the eleven deaths of cyclists this year, how many were attributed to unsafe road use by the cyclists themselves? It's impossible to make a recommendation for cyclist safety without knowing the answer to that. If cyclists were entirely at fault in all eleven, then there's a pretty strong case for pushing better cyclist education, but if all eleven were the result of errors by drivers that led to cyclist deaths, then spending money on educating cyclists is a terrible misuse of money that should have been put to use educating drivers.

So educating cyclists is terrible waste of money as you've assumed all accidents are caused by motorists, I take it you're not a motorist so? When you get yourself a motorbike/car & try driving on any public road without nearly colliding with a cyclist at least once during the day then I'd be very interested to see if you've changed your tune.

beauf

Steo M wrote: »

...You have to make a start somewhere if the amount of bicycle deaths/accidents are to be reduced. If you have a better idea how you would go about doing that, then I'd love to hear it.

Look at the stats and tackle the thing that causes most deaths/accidents and tackle that first. Then work your way down the list to the lesser causes.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx
http://www.leighday.co.uk/Illness-and-injury/Road-and-travel-collisions/Cycling-and-sports-injury-claims/Common-causes-of-cycle-accidents

Usually in these threads the people advocating changes are people who have done no research into the subject.

beauf

Steo M wrote: »

So educating cyclists is terrible waste of money as you've assumed all accidents are caused by motorists, I take it you're not a motorist so? When you get yourself a motorbike/car & try driving on any public road without nearly colliding with a cyclist at least once during the day then I'd be very interested to see if you've changed your tune.

The person could be a terrible driver/motorcyclist. That they have near misses quite commonly might be the result of that rather other road users.

beauf

Of course rather than creating new rules and money wasting schemes. Why not actually make the current rules work, through enforcement. New schemes and rules without enforcement are unlikely to make many changes. 30k limit in town, holding a mobile. Dangerous driving, tailgating you see constantly. Ditto Red light breaking, dangerous cycling, no lights, bells etc.

diomed

CramCycle wrote: »

FFS, even the Garda commisioner can't give sound advice. Hi vis in a city for cyclists works best around the ankle/lower leg area. That's where dims are pointing. Regardless of that, a proper set of lights, which are legally a requirement, would do the job nicely.

My ankle reflectors do a nice job. Imo they are more attention grabbing as they move up and down.

Steo M

Obviously there's a few cyclists on here that see themselves as urban warriors & think it's them against everyone else who uses the road. They don't see themselves as part of the problem so you're never gonna get through to them anyway.

Compulsory training & testing is enforced on motorists before you're let on the road but amazingly some posters on here see educating cyclists with no road craft as a complete waste of resources.

I'll bite my tongue & count to ten the next time a cyclist swerves out in front of me to make a right turn without indicating or looking over their shoulders to see if there's any traffic coming. When I beep the horn to let them know I'm behind them & they give me the finger, I'll say to myself, 'sure that near collision was my fault'.

Tenzor07

Steo M wrote: »

you've assumed all accidents are caused by motorists, I take it you're not a motorist so? When you get yourself a motorbike/car & try driving on any public road without nearly colliding with a cyclist at least once during the day then I'd be very interested to see if you've changed your tune.

Well for one thing, Cyclist's don't kill cyclists, and that's without even researching into fatalities on our roads.

If a driver of a motor vehicle is having daily near misses with a bicyclist then it sounds like a good opportunity for the driver to examine how they are driving, and there skills of observation and reaction, and maybe with more experience these sorts of incidents could be avoided?

Steo M

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well for one thing, Cyclist's don't kill cyclists, and that's without even researching into fatalities on our roads.

If a driver of a motor vehicle is having daily near misses with a bicyclist then it sounds like a good opportunity for the driver to examine how they are driving, and there skills of observation and reaction, and maybe with more experience these sorts of incidents could be avoided?

Yep, always somebody else's fault, never the cyclist. Pedestrians don't kill pedestrians either, that's the fault of motorists as well.

beauf

Steo M wrote: »

Obviously there's a few cyclists on here that see themselves as urban warriors & think it's them against everyone else who uses the road. They don't see themselves as part of the problem so you're never gonna get through to them anyway.

Compulsory training & testing is enforced on motorists before you're let on the road but amazingly some posters on here see educating cyclists with no road craft as a complete waste of resources.

I'll bite my tongue & count to ten the next time a cyclist swerves out in front of me to make a right turn without indicating or looking over their shoulders to see if there's any traffic coming. When I beep the horn to let them know I'm behind them & they give me the finger, I'll say to myself, 'sure that near collision was my fault'.

Nothing wrong with training cyclists. But do you think someone who deliberately cycles dangerously, and doesn't give a toss, is going to do a course. Even if they did it. Why would they obey the rules then?

Do you read the statistics and study and think cycle training is the answer?

Steo M

beauf wrote: »

Look at the stats and tackle the thing that causes most deaths/accidents and tackle that first. Then work your way down the list to the lesser causes.

Usually in these threads the people advocating changes are people who have done no research into the subject.

You can cut & paste all you like to give some sort of credit to what you're saying but those three links you copied & pasted are compiled by (surprise surprise) a cycling lobby group, a solicitors firm who make money off P.I. claims & the other is road accident stats. Now put some links up attributing to cyclist to the cause of accidents.

beauf

Steo M wrote: »

Yep, always somebody else's fault, never the cyclist. Pedestrians don't kill pedestrians either, that's the fault of motorists as well.

ahem...

Steo M wrote: »

This thread is about cyclists & the amount of them getting killed, you could always start a new thread about pedestrians.....

Do you read the stats and see cyclists causing death as the primary issue then???

beauf

Steo M wrote: »

You can cut & paste all you like to give some sort of credit to what you're saying but those three links you copied & pasted are compiled by (surprise surprise) a cycling lobby group, a solicitors firm who make money off P.I. claims & the other is road accident stats. Now put some links up attributing to cyclist to the cause of accidents.

a government-commissioned study has discovered...

...The study, carried out for the Department for Transpor

...analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)...

Its not normal to have constant near misses on a daily basis.

Steo M

beauf wrote: »

ahem...



Do you read the stats and see cyclists causing death as the primary issue then???

Of course not but when you start accepting some portion of blame when you do cause an accident then hopefully the mind set of that small proportion of cyclists can be changed for the better but I won't be holding my breath anytime soon.

tomasrojo

Steo M wrote: »

Of course not but when you start accepting some portion of blame when you do cause an accident then hopefully the mind set of that small proportion of cyclists can be changed for the better but I won't be holding my breath anytime soon.

Some portion of blame is fine. The traditional approach of the road safety lobby has been that cyclists and pedestrians share equal responsibility with motorists, which is, at first sight sesnsible, but once you look into what causes death on the road in any detail ultimately bizarre.

There's a lot written at rdrf.org.uk about this.

monument

beauf wrote: »

Of course rather than creating new rules and money wasting schemes. Why not actually make the current rules work, through enforcement. New schemes and rules without enforcement are unlikely to make many changes. 30k limit in town, holding a mobile. Dangerous driving, tailgating you see constantly. Ditto Red light breaking, dangerous cycling, no lights, bells etc.

If you want better enforcement you should campain for such -- lower than desirable levels of enforcement is not and never will be a good reason to not have newer, improved and clearer laws. Somebody mentioned case law where under 1.5 meters is seen as too close for passing -- codifying such case law is a good idea.

By the way, what money wasting scheme are you referring to?

Steo M wrote: »

So educating cyclists is terrible waste of money as you've assumed all accidents are caused by motorists, I take it you're not a motorist so?

Even if all collisions were caused by motorists (they are not), educating would still be a good idea.

Compulsory training, however, is reserved for things which are great danger and risk to life in untrained hands (ie driving cars or trucks, flying aircraft, operating a crane, handling explosives etc).

Steo M wrote: »

When you get yourself a motorbike/car & try driving on any public road without nearly colliding with a cyclist at least once during the day then I'd be very interested to see if you've changed your tune.

Steo M wrote: »

When I beep the horn to let them know I'm behind them & they give me the finger, I'll say to myself, 'sure that near collision was my fault'.

Steo M wrote: »

Of course not but when you start accepting some portion of blame when you do cause an accident then hopefully the mind set of that small proportion of cyclists can be changed for the better but I won't be holding my breath anytime soon.

These three are linked.

You're saying others can't accept their portion of blame but you seem to be the one who gets involved with a high number of near misses and people are regularly getting annoyed with your use of your car horn.

Note: I'm not saying and I can't see any body else saying people on bikes are never to blaim but one near miss a day is high.

Macy0161

I drive more than I cycle, even on my commute in recent weeks. Can't remember the last near miss with a cyclist. Had a few with cars though, not checking blind spots and pulling out on top of me.

On the bike, in recent weeks i have had a few - taxis doing practical emergency stops into bus stops and lanes in front of me to get fares, a car who was illegally in the bus lane mounting a grade seperated cycle lane to get around another car illegally in the bus lane. That's not including too close for comfort passes, or being legally on the carriageway and being beeped out of it because there was a (closed) cycle lane.

Training hasn't worked for motorised vehicles, it won't for cyclists. What will is enforcement of the current rules for all road users.

beauf

Steo M wrote: »

Of course not but when you start accepting some portion of blame when you do cause an accident then hopefully the mind set of that small proportion of cyclists can be changed for the better but I won't be holding my breath anytime soon.

Maybe you'll explain why you think a small group who cause a tiny % of accidents that won't have any significant effect on the stats, should be targeted as a priority?

Steo M

beauf wrote: »

Maybe you'll explain why you think a small group who cause a tiny % of accidents that won't have any significant effect on the stats, should be targeted as a priority?

I'm talking about changing the mind-set of the small percentage of cyclists with a chip on their shoulder towards other road users.
You make it out as if you're the beleaguered minority who should have preferential treatment from motorists.
Well sonny, respect has to be earned & until the cyclists who constantly break the law just to gain a couple of seconds on traffic start obeying the rules of the road like the majority of society, I'm afraid you won't be getting any sympathy anytime soon.

Qualitymark

Steo M, I won't be popular for saying this here, but the best way to solve the problem you're talking about is a network of completely separated bicycle lanes. That works in other countries.

Hmmzis

Steo M wrote: »

I'm talking about changing the mind-set of the small percentage of cyclists with a chip on their shoulder towards other road users.
You make it out as if you're the beleaguered minority who should have preferential treatment from motorists.
Well sonny, respect has to be earned & until the cyclists who constantly break the law just to gain a couple of seconds on traffic start obeying the rules of the road like the majority of society, I'm afraid you won't be getting any sympathy anytime soon.

So what's your point/motivation with this? Are you saying that if someone on a bike breaks a red light then that absolves other road users from duty of care? Or if a motorist doesn't exercise the appropriate duty of care would that absolve other road users from going through red lights? Are you saying it's fine to put a stereotype to a particular road user group based on a "small percentage" of that group? If you stick to the rules of the road then it doesn't matter if you like/respect some other road user group, you should never even come close to a near miss or collision.

Steo M

monument wrote: »

If you want better enforcement you should campain for such -- lower than desirable levels of enforcement is not and never will be a good reason to not have newer, improved and clearer laws. Somebody mentioned case law where under 1.5 meters is seen as too close for passing -- codifying such case law is a good idea.

By the way, what money wasting scheme are you referring to?



Even if all collisions were caused by motorists (they are not), educating would still be a good idea.

Compulsory training, however, is reserved for things which are great danger and risk to life in untrained hands (ie driving cars or trucks, flying aircraft, operating a crane, handling explosives etc).







These three are linked.

You're saying others can't accept their portion of blame but you seem to be the one who gets involved with a high number of near misses and people are regularly getting annoyed with your use of your car horn.

Note: I'm not saying and I can't see any body else saying people on bikes are never to blaim but one near miss a day is high.

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about or which case you're trying to make either for cyclists or motorists.

You just cut & paste snippets of my paragraphs to make me out to be an aggressive motorist who constantly has near misses. I suggest you read my posts again, don't be judging me & stop jumping to conclusions.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason I've never had a collision with a cyclist is because of my experience & good driving record.
Over the years I've learned to anticipate cyclists doing something stupid if they're in front of me. Gawd, the ones wearing the earphones are probably the worst with absolutely no clue what's going on around them.

There's a couple of knuckleheads on here who only want to listen to their own opinion. The only way they'll change their bigoted attitude towards motorists is when they become one themselves so I'm done with this topic.

galwaycyclist

So anyway.

To ask (and answer) a rhetorical queastion.

Q: Is it being suggested that there is some specific effect that is acting to increase deaths among cyclists at a rate over and above the background increase?

If the answer is "yes" then I would point out that a good candidate cause for such an effect would be increased wearing of seatbelts by drivers whether through enforcement or education.

There is widespread evidence suggesting that seatbelt wearing by motorists transfers deaths to other road user groups such as cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. The question of whether seatbelt wearing reduces the actual numbers of road deaths among motorists is also a topic of dispute (athough the car lobby don't like to acknowledge that it exists).

Of course in a population as small as Ireland's, I am not sure if we could isolate such an effect from the available numbers. That said I seem to recall a focus on seatbelts in recent official comment from "road safety" sources.