Bicycle deaths double

Tenzor07

LOL!

monument

Steo M wrote: »

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.

The number of near misses you mentioned is very high -- I'd be worried about your driving if you're expecting cyclists to do crazy things but yet get into so many near misses... somebody else pointed this out already and you did not engage with them.... Maybe your idea of a near miss is more liberal than others? Or maybe you drive for a living all day long?

You really have not engaged with the issues. It's just like you beeping your car horn and you can't handle that you're getting back more than just two fingers.

Kurtosis

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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.

While increased seatbelt wearing may well be associated with non motorist road user deaths, I fail to see how this could possibly be a causal relationship.

beauf

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

Why would you not be popular here? That idea is very popular. Of course it will take away road space for cars. As cycling becomes more popular more road space will be given over to it.

beauf

penguin88 wrote: »

While increased seatbelt wearing may well be associated with non motorist road user deaths, I fail to see how this could possibly be a causal relationship.

The safer you feel (perception of safety) the more risks you take.

beauf

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.

I'm not in that group so it makes no difference to me.

I'm just pointing available studies and data. Which you've chosen to ignore completely.

You've actually chosen to ignore your own data. I've never heard someone defending their driving by saying they have a near miss themselves every day.

Qualitymark

beauf wrote: »

Why would you not be popular here? That idea is very popular. Of course it will take away road space for cars. As cycling becomes more popular more road space will be given over to it.

I've had people lep down my throat a bit, saying it's safer to mix cyclists and other traffic. I don't think so, but then I'm a big cowardy custard.

beauf

Usually have to consider the whole environment not just one part of it.

http://www.pps.org/blog/what-can-we-learn-about-road-safety-from-the-dutch/
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/09/shared-spaces/116/

Qualitymark

beauf wrote: »

Usually have to consider the whole environment not just one part of it.

http://www.pps.org/blog/what-can-we-learn-about-road-safety-from-the-dutch/
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/09/shared-spaces/116/

Thanks, very interesting.

tomasrojo

penguin88 wrote: »

While increased seatbelt wearing may well be associated with non motorist road user deaths, I fail to see how this could possibly be a causal relationship.

beauf wrote: »

The safer you feel (perception of safety) the more risks you take.

I saw this last year:

Richard Allsop, Oliver Carsten, Andrew Evans, and Robert Gifford – published an article in Significance, a journal of the Royal Statistical Society, in which they advanced a much more modest claim for the number of lives saved by the seat belt law: not 2400 per year but 164.

Also intriguingly, for the first time of which I am aware, serious, statistically-qualified, advocates of seat-belt legislation acknowledged a risk transfer effect:

“The clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists”.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/08/1061/

I don't quite know what to make of John Adams (I don't find his dismissive attitude to prominent climate scientists all that convincing). It's interesting to see members of PACTS seeming to concede the point on risk transfer though.

monument

beauf wrote: »

Usually have to consider the whole environment not just one part of it.

http://www.pps.org/blog/what-can-we-learn-about-road-safety-from-the-dutch/
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/09/shared-spaces/116/

Let's not get dragged in by the shared space streets hype:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/shared%20space

It works in limited areas with very limited traffic:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/sharing-space-well-in-%CA%BCs-hertogenbosch/

ted1

ROK ON wrote: »

I have not noticed an increase in hostility. But whether I am cycling or driving I have noticed the following;
A definite increase in all traffic. Roads in Dublin have been in my judgement 'very busy' since the early summer. All sorts of traffic including bikes.
A definite increase in HGVs in town - on a daily basis I witness the five and six axel HGVs in breach of the ban. These are not Guinness trucks. The ban no loner matters - it's not enforced and HGVs drivers know this. They would rather gridlock at 8am than the port tunnel.

The tunnel is free..
Those that don't use it, probably have a deliver to make and can apply for a permit https://www.hgv.ie/hgv2/loginhgv

Qualitymark

ROK ON wrote: »

I have not noticed an increase in hostility. But whether I am cycling or driving I have noticed the following;
<snip>
A definite increase in HGVs in town - on a daily basis I witness the five and six axel HGVs in breach of the ban. These are not Guinness trucks. The ban no loner matters - it's not enforced and HGVs drivers know this.
<snip>

Yes, I've noticed this too. This reflects one of Ireland's great faults: short-termism and reactive lawmaking. A tragedy occurs, there's a huge kerfuffle, then, with enormous fanfare a law is made to stop it happening again. There's a law-abiding period, then people start breaking the law, it's not enforced, others follow in increasing numbers. Then a tragedy occurs, there's a huge kerfuffle…

Macy0161

Qualitymark wrote: »

Yes, I've noticed this too. This reflects one of Ireland's great faults: short-termism and reactive lawmaking. A tragedy occurs, there's a huge kerfuffle, then, with enormous fanfare a law is made to stop it happening again. There's a law-abiding period, then people start breaking the law, it's not enforced, others follow in increasing numbers. Then a tragedy occurs, there's a huge kerfuffle…

Morning Ireland were practically looking for an apology off the Minister for implementing Penalty Points for unaccompanied learners - it's already a bloody offence, but it's acceptable in this state for the state broadcaster to plead the case for clear, unambiguous breaches of our road traffic laws!

galwaycyclist

Macy0161 wrote: »

Morning Ireland were practically looking for an apology off the Minister for implementing Penalty Points for unaccompanied learners - it's already a bloody offence, but it's acceptable in this state for the state broadcaster to plead the case for clear, unambiguous breaches of our road traffic laws!

Not a lot of people know this but RTE Radio and Morning Ireland have been in bed with the car lobby for years. They get their traffic information from AA Roadwatch which is arguably free advertising.

The relationship is deeper however. For years RTE did not have any studio space in Dublin city centre apart from their Dail studio - I don't know if this is still the case. Instead they used a studio provided to them by the AA. So when the Morning Ireland presenter referred to a contributor in "our city centre studio" the studio in question was actually in the AA offices and wholly owned by the AA.

Tenzor07

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not a lot of people know this but RTE Radio and Morning Ireland have been in bed with the car lobby for years. They get their traffic information from AA Roadwatch which is arguably free advertising

I believe known cyclist hater George Hook will be on that show this Wednesday morning talking about cyclists...

(well either that show or Ireland Am, can't remember)

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

it's acceptable in this state for the state broadcaster to plead the case for clear, unambiguous breaches of our road traffic laws!

Quite liked this blog post about special pleading for motorists:
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/whose-law-is-it-anyway/

galwaycyclist, that's fascinating. Reminds me of the problems of "regulatory capture" in bodies tasked with regulating financial houses. Not that RTÉ is in the business of regulating the AA, but a certain distance would be appropriate.

tomasrojo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I believe known cyclist hater George Hook will be on that show this Wednesday morning talking about cyclists...

(well either that show or Ireland Am, can't remember)

Should be enlightening and surprising.

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote:

I believe known cyclist hater George Hook will be on that show this Wednesday morning talking about cyclists...

tomasrojo wrote: »

Should be enlightening and surprising.

Your sarcasm knows no bounds, so outside the realms of acceptable sarcasm was this comment that my mind simply imploded, well done sir.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

galwaycyclist, that's fascinating. Reminds me of the problems of "regulatory capture" in bodies tasked with regulating financial houses. Not that RTÉ is in the business of regulating the AA, but a certain distance would be appropriate.

On the issue of regulatory capture, compulsory vehicle testing represents an enormous revenue stream for the motor trade in terms of servicing vehicles, preparing them for test and testing them.

A quick google indicates turnover for the Irish NCT testing service alone in 2009 was €43.5 million. This will not include revenue for servicing, spare parts, etc outside the test centres.

The issue of vehicle roadworthiness on crashes is controversial and historically vehicle problems were well down the list of causes attributed for road crashes. It is argued that vehicle testing is more about support for the motor trade than about road safety - especially in countries with large car industries - UK, Japan, Germany etc.

The Road Safety Authority administers the NCT service on behalf of the state. Arguably this locks the RSA directly into the commercial interests of the motor trade in Ireland. Arguably it also creates an enormous conflict of interest for an agency that should be about providing unbiased advice for all road users on issues of sustainable, appropriate and safe conduct.

Doctor Bob

Steo M wrote: »

Well sonny, respect has to be earned

Why? Shouldn't respect be the default starting position?

superelliptic

galwaycyclist wrote: »

That type of traffic is well identified as a threat to cyclists. Especially if its construction traffic.

Could be related to the Luas upgrade. If so its going to get worse before it gets better over the next 2 years until they finish the thing.

ROK ON

I was driving home this evening - via the Strawberry Beds in Dublin for people who know there area.
Time was 6.45pm. Road has some lighting but large parts of the 6km from the Phoenix Park to outskirts of Lucan are unlit.

Anyway it is a narrow enough road with a 50k and 60k speed limit. In the 50k zone doing about 40k when I literally come upon a cyclists with no lights whatsoever. He was well in toward the bushes but was pootling along.
I slowed dropped the window and shouted out - lights would be nice. The nice man waved at me. I would say he was in his 40s.
No even driving at 40k I would hate to think what would have happened if I had being anyone of closer to the road edge, momentarily dazzled by oncoming motorist. Later on I see a red light in the distance - a simple red light on a dark country road is so effective (and legally obliged).

I really don't get these guys. I mean stupid is as stupid does. In circumstances such as these I could easily have hit him. Logically it would be my fault - but should a person be held to account if they simply cannot see a dark object on a dark road. If I drive into a car and the car had no working lights or reflectors then would that be a mitigant?
I cycle this road regularly and use three rear lights (ott most likely) but I get clear passage from most motorists on dark evening.

Beasty

There seems to be a lot more riding round in the dark with no or completely inadequate (usually due to failing batteries I'm guessing) lights this year than I've seen in the past. A lot seem pretty oblivious to the fact it makes them very difficult to make out even when illuminated by car lights

beauf

Ninja nutters.

And not one pulled over when lights are a legal requirement.

Qualitymark

beauf wrote: »

Ninja nutters.

And not one pulled over when lights are a legal requirement.

Actually, I've been pulled over once in the last year, in Rathmines; hadn't yet got new battery and my backup light had failed. The garda told me to walk the bike home, which I did.

beauf

You could stand on any busy road and pull 50 every evening.

Would it not have been easier just to go into a shop and buy a battery?

Qualitymark

beauf wrote: »

You could stand on any busy road and pull 50 every evening.

Would it not have been easier just to go into a shop and buy a battery?

It would.

Cookie_Monster

beauf wrote: »

You could stand on any busy road and pull 50 every evening.

indeed you could, and at least the same number of cars and probably a dozen trucks and buses too. nobody cares any more because everyone knows there is practically zero enforcement of any rules for anyone apart from speeding.

CramCycle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

indeed you could, and at least the same number of cars and probably a dozen trucks and buses too. nobody cares any more because everyone knows there is practically zero enforcement of any rules for anyone apart from speeding.

The fact that the Garda commissioner claims we are one of the most compliant road users in regards speed, and my contradicting general day to day experience leads me to believe this is also not enforced in any meaningful way either, it just looks like it is.