Cyclist injuries not always own fault, says RSA head

RainyDay

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/cyclists-and-motorists-are-at-war-says-road-safety-head-1.2147448

'not always their own fault' Liz - which presumably means that she concludes that a good bunch of cyclist injuries are their own fault. Is it any wonder that cyclists feel 'at war' when the RSA comes out with this nonsense.

AlmightyCushion

Of course cyclists are sometimes at fault and responsible for their own injuries. Are you trying to say that cyclists are never at fault, because that's just ridiculous.

Victor

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Of course cyclists are sometimes at fault and responsible for their own injuries. Are you trying to say that cyclists are never at fault, because that's just ridiculous.

Motorists are responsible in about 80% of collisions with pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

They demand that cyclists wear high visibility clothing and helmets so motorists can drive faster in unsuitable conditions, while keeping their insurance down by passing blame to their victims.

AlmightyCushion

Victor wrote: »

Motorists are responsible in about 80% of collisions with pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

They demand that cyclists wear high visibility clothing and helmets so motorists can drive faster in unsuitable conditions, while keeping their insurance down by passing blame to their victims.

So, what you're saying is that in some circumstances cyclists are responsible and so she is correct in what she says.

Kevin McCloud

Victor wrote: »

Motorists are responsible in about 80% of collisions with pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

Are the stats really that high?

Limestone1

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Of course cyclists are sometimes at fault and responsible for their own injuries. Are you trying to say that cyclists are never at fault, because that's just ridiculous.

Victor wrote: »

Motorists are responsible in about 80% of collisions with pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

They demand that cyclists wear high visibility clothing and helmets so motorists can drive faster in unsuitable conditions, while keeping their insurance down by passing blame to their victims.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So, what you're saying is that in some circumstances cyclists are responsible and so she is correct in what she says.

Mod Fight Mod Fight Mod Fight ...........................er' who mods a mod fight ?

CramCycle

Talks to the head of the RSA, can barely fill a paragraph, randomly jumps to the 8th amendment with no warning, ends piece.

I am not sure if that is Ms.Ingles fault or if her editor should be slapped in the face with a wet fish.

RainyDay

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Of course cyclists are sometimes at fault and responsible for their own injuries. Are you trying to say that cyclists are never at fault, because that's just ridiculous.

If you say that something is 'not always true', the general implication is that it IS usually true, but perhaps not always in a few exceptional cases. There is a fairly clear implication in her comment that cyclists are usually or typically to blame for accidents where cyclists get injured.

As Victor points out, the reality is the reverse. She should really have said that for incidents involving cycling injuries, car drivers are not always at fault.

CramCycle wrote: »

Talks to the head of the RSA, can barely fill a paragraph, randomly jumps to the 8th amendment with no warning, ends piece.

I am not sure if that is Ms.Ingles fault or if her editor should be slapped in the face with a wet fish.

Yes, a slightly bizarre article. I think it is a report of an interview with O'Donnell that is part of the podcast on that page. I tried playing the podcast, but there was no mention of O'Donnell in the intro, so I gave up.

Jawgap

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So, what you're saying is that in some circumstances cyclists are responsible and so she is correct in what she says.

I don't think the relative proportion is the issue - it's the tone and wording of the statement, and the underlying attitude that it betrays that are the issue.

Also, I thought the idea in road safety was to stop referring to 'cyclists' and start talking about 'people on bikes'?

It's just another example of the latent bias in the RSA against non- motorised road users.

Brian?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Of course cyclists are sometimes at fault and responsible for their own injuries. Are you trying to say that cyclists are never at fault, because that's just ridiculous.

Hold on there a sec. If someone say it's "not always their fault" this implies that the majority of time the fault lies
With the cyclist. That's simply ridiculous.

blobbie

CramCycle wrote: »

Talks to the head of the RSA, can barely fill a paragraph, randomly jumps to the 8th amendment with no warning, ends piece.

I am not sure if that is Ms.Ingles fault or if her editor should be slapped in the face with a wet fish.

The editor. Why they have a non-driver & non-cyclist asking head of RSA about driving & cycling is daft.

I'm glad they have a pay firewall up.

diomed

Liz just needs to focus on the fact that cars kill cyclists.
Infrastructure change is the only thing that will help cyclists. It worked for car drivers when the country built motorways.

Qualitymark

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Of course cyclists are sometimes at fault and responsible for their own injuries. Are you trying to say that cyclists are never at fault, because that's just ridiculous.

Nice straw man!

Lumen

Ingle is a daft bint. The RSA are a bunch of car-centric "speed kills" simpletons. I think there's a job opportunity there.

AlmightyCushion

I think it's just poor phrasing on her part or poor editing either (as mentioned above it's strange how it just jumps from road safety to the 8th amendment). Going by the rest of the article it doesn't seem like she has an anti-cycling bias. She says:

that “there can’t be equality” of responsibility for road safety between cyclist and motorists because “ultimately, if there’s a collision between a car and a cyclist, the cyclist will come out worse.”

and also refers to cars as potential murder vehicle. The RSA are currently running an ad aimed at drivers to get them to be more mindful and careful around cyclists. I think she's been given a hard time because she's head of the RSA and people just assume she has an anti cyclist bias because of it.

Even Victor above is saying that they demand cyclists wear high vis so that drivers can drive faster in poor conditions. The RSA have run ads where they remind drivers to increase the distance between cars in front of them when conditions are poor. They seem to quite consistently call for drivers to lower their speed and get criticised for it on a regular basis (even see lumen's comment above about them being "speed kills" simpletons). I've also never seen them demand cyclists wear high vis. They encourage it and give them away free.

bambergbike

This is the link (for anyone who had trouble accessing it):
https://soundcloud.com/irishtimes-lifestyle/liz-odonnell

8:40 -10:40 is the interesting bit

I also thought she managed to imply that cyclists are responsible for their own injuries far more often than is actually the case, but there were other things that struck me as well:

She talks about cyclists being "militant" and about a war between drivers and cyclists without acklnowleding that angry drivers and angry cyclists are usually angry about different things: where a driver is angry because a cyclist is prevening them from getting to the next tailback 4 seconds faster, an angry cyclist is typically angry because they have just survived - sometimes narrowly - an attempt on their life. That shocked, angry feeling (which sometimes leads to shocked, angry reactions) is not going to go away until we start seeing drivers who overtake cyclists dangerously getting fined and sent on safe driving courses. Or unless we get infrastructure which completely removes cyclist/driver conflicts (not something which I personally think possible, although sensible speed limits to take the worst sting out of some of them would be a very good start.)

She plugged hi-viz and also talks about cyclists making themselves visible rather than drivers looking out for them, keeping their eyes on the road and off their phones etc.

She talks about cyclists breaking rules without mentioning that motorists also break rules left, right and centre, especially in terms of speed.

And she mentioned the increase in recreational cycling and cycling being good for the environment in the same breath - there was no explicit mention of cycling as an easy, simple, practical congestion-busting way to get to school, work, business appointments and so on.

I wrote to her yesterday evening after listening and said that her mental picture of cyclists as fit, aggressive adults didn't seem very inclusive and diverse for somebody who is a massive advocate of more diversity in politics and business, and that if she wanted to come to Northern Bavaria for a few days, I could introduce her to loads of people who are not big recreational cyclists or "Cyclists" with a capital C (or even speedy Commuter Cyclists with two capital Cs) but simply use their bikes because they are two year olds who need to get to daycare in the morning, pastors with congregants to vist, politicians who need to get out and meet citizens, lawyers who need to get to court, pensioners who need to get their shopping... it makes no sense, to my mind, for her to complain that cyclists are "militant" while simultaneously describing cycling as so murderously dangerous that you would need to be a bit militant (and willing to wear dorky hi-viz) to risk it at all. If she wants normal, mainstream cycling and not some sort of speedy, nerdy subculture, she needs to describe cyclists as normal people and not as law-breaking, hi-viz wearing (crazed?) militants.

I'm happy enough with her emphasis on speed, although I think she needs to combine it with more emphasis on drivers looking where they are going as well.

Jawgap

Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea of 'poor phrasing.'

She's a politician and former minister of some experience well used to being interviewed and expressing herself.

HivemindXX

I've been told quite often that even in broad daylight cyclists are hard to see. My reply always is that if you can't see a cyclist in full daylight you aren't looking properly. A tenth of a second eye flicker might be good enough to notice a car in your wing mirror most of the time but it shouldn't be considered sufficient.

The comments about militant cyclists sicken me a little as well. I've seen people on here commenting how they were forced to overtake dangerously or "blow them out of it" because the militant cyclists were taking up too much of the road.

I'm a little reminded of a thing BSNYC wrote about the difference between asshole drivers and asshole cyclists (and pedestrians). At the end of the day non-motorised assholes are just irritating, assholes in cars and trucks are dangerous.

bambergbike

HivemindXX wrote: »

My reply always is that if you can't see a cyclist in full daylight you aren't looking properly.

Or you aren't medically fit to drive (vision problems or concentration problems) but have been allowed to drive anyway because the rules shouldn't be "heavy handed":
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rules-on-medical-fitness-to-drive-should-not-be-heavy-handed-1.2147468

I'm guessing motorist organizations were represented at the meeting where those guidelines were drawn up and pedestrian/cyclist reps weren't...

tomasrojo

I miss Gay Byrne. Never thought I'd say that.

Jawgap

If you're only looking for cars, you're unlikely to see a bicycle, or motorcycle.

You have to look for them.

Or as the old ad used to say "think once! think twice! think bike!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDL7XZQnTxA

bambergbike

tomasrojo wrote: »

I miss Gay Byrne. Never thought I'd say that.

Hey, let's give her a chance. I've criticized her, and I was bothered enough by some of what she said to write to her personally with strongly worded feedback, but she hasn't been in the job all that long and she is probably surrounded by civil servants giving her poor advice that needs to be balanced out by other people offering better advice.

She has a track record on being able to recognize institutional discrimination against women. Discriminatory attitudes towards cyclists are different, but operate in similar ways. With a bit of luck her experience will kick in once she's had a bit longer to get to grips with the brief.

tomasrojo

All the same, throwing around the "militant" term this early on might well reflect her own prejudices. It's a handy way to make people who are seeking a change to the status quo appear unreasonable, and, apart from its use to describe people who seek to kill others for that reason, it's a deeply unhelpful term.