"Dangerization" and cycling

smacl

poochiem wrote: »

You spend any time on the roads here you can see why kids simply don't cycle in Ireland.

Bit of a weak extrapolation from your experiences of the city centre to the whole country there. Cycling down O'Connell street or the quays is not the same as cycling in the suburbs or rural back roads. Most kids who are cycling won't be doing so in Dublin city centre.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Irish Times is a bit weird about everyday cycling too. Cast your mind a few months back to their editorial after the RSA's "Dublin is REALLY dangerous to cycle in" report.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/07/was-it-all-for-this-irish-times-cycling-deaths-coverage-ends-with-ranting-victim-blaming-editorial/

(Does the author of that article actually live in Sandyford/Dublin/Balally area? That's actually a perfectly ok neighbourhood for cycling, including with kids.)

Incredibly safe and the numbers of cyclists at a young age (under 18) appears to be on the increase, from casual observation. The only dangerous place, and only dangerous by potential ill thought through impatience is the narrow road through Dundrum town where occasionally you have someone overtake for no reason to hit traffic less than 10metres down the road, and even then, it's more stupidity than dangerous.

Danjamin1

I think there is a very topical counterargument to be had in favour of the health benefits to people of cycling vs the risk of injury from the activity. Given the recent reports on the scale of obesity in Ireland you would have thought people would be more willing to run the gauntlet so to speak.

tomasrojo

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I think there is a very topical counterargument to be had in favour of the health benefits to people of cycling vs the risk of injury from the activity. Given the recent reports on the scale of obesity in Ireland you would have thought people would be more willing to run the gauntlet so to speak.

That's true. I think fear of a violent death or permanent incapacity trumps the fear of a premature decline into chronic ill health, however more likely the latter is than the former (much more likely, as it turns out).

It certainly explains the solemnity in the media afforded every half-baked pronouncement from the RSA. They are "very serious people".

Kav0777

beauf wrote: »

Flag waving has a chequered past.

Although some see it as a standard

poochiem

smacl wrote: »

Bit of a weak extrapolation from your experiences of the city centre to the whole country there. Cycling down O'Connell street or the quays is not the same as cycling in the suburbs or rural back roads. Most kids who are cycling won't be doing so in Dublin city centre.

Teachers tell us that the bike racks are empty at school, kids don't cycle. The bike-to-work gives us a bit of a false perspective on cycling growth. I cycle 20k every morning from the city out past the M50 and pass lots of schools, can't remember passing a child on a bike in the last few weeks.

ThisRegard

poochiem wrote: »

can't remember passing a child on a bike in the last few weeks.

Because they've been all on holidays.

Carawaystick

A load of school girls crossed the Swords road at Griffith avenue this morning.
At the pedestrian crossing
and carried on east on the footpath.
but I was pleasantly surprised to see people cycling to school.

check_six

poochiem wrote: »

I cycle 20k every morning from the city out past the M50 and pass lots of schools, can't remember passing a child on a bike in the last few weeks.

You need to get the hammer down and start overtaking those pesky kids! #schoolrunraces

poochiem

Anyway, we chatted about this here a few weeks ago. It's a shame but as there's no infrastructure to speak of I can see why you'd be reluctant to let kids out in traffic. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98844996&postcount=1

CramCycle

My daughters old school seems to do alright in comparison to other local schools, I usually pass about 8 students in uniform in my ran past the school, which based on what others say, means it maybe one of the most bike friendly schools in the country. There is always one if not two parents with kids on bikes at the next t junction for another nearby school.

This said in regards to not letting kids out in traffic, a conversation started at lunch about people cycling, very little of it positive alas. The two people from the country said they preferred cycling in the city because traffic is slower and more organised, whereas we both know of the local boyos in the country who "know" the road so are perfectly fine doing 100kmph in a 80kmph zone with a realistic safe driving speed of, maximum, 60kmph, and often lower with poor sight lines. The city folk all said they would prefer to cycle in the country as it was quieter and there was less chance to meet traffic.

It was unusual as one side, anecdoteally, had assigned all cars as possessing equal risk to cyclists, therefore , the less the better, regardless of how dangerous those few who were still in play were. Then the other side who reduced the risk per car to nearly zero, therefore even the hundreds they would encounter posed less risk than the one with a very high risk (in their view).

Just wondering what way did people here assign risk to cars? Is it anecdotal, fact based, experience based, are you safer in the city or the countryside (in your opinion, not statistically)?

I really feel no risk at all when out cycling, the same as when I drive, there are moments where that changes but in general, day to day, I feel no risk is present. But that's just me, what would it take to alter those who feel at risks perception that it tallies up with the figures.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

Just wondering what way did people here assign risk to cars? Is it anecdotal, fact based, experience based, are you safer in the city or the countryside (in your opinion, not statistically)?

Purely opinion, but I tend to think of dangerous drivers as being evenly distributed among the much larger driving population. As such I favour the practically empty rural l-roads as there are so few cars the probability of coming into conflict with a bad driver are is small. I also believe that drivers who are stressed are more likely to be aggressive and make a bad judgement call as a result, where high density slow moving traffic is a cause of stress. While you do come across the odd boy racer in the countryside (Wicklow gap seems to attract them) you can usually hear them from miles away. The only occasional issue I get with drivers is being shouted at for not using the cycle lane, or for taking the lane on a roundabout.

If the boy racers ever take to electric cars my days will likely be numbered.

tomasrojo

I don't know about Ireland, but I think the risk of death on the road is about twenty times higher in the UK on rural roads compared to city roads. But I imagine that that might be down to a minority of rural roads skewing the figure. Also, I've got the strong impression that cycling in the UK is just a good bit worse than here.

I've always felt much safer on city roads, because the speeds are much lower, the roads are wider and people expect cyclists. But I don't cycle on roads outside Dublin that much, so my experience can't really count for much.

tomasrojo

poochiem wrote: »

Teachers tell us that the bike racks are empty at school, kids don't cycle. The bike-to-work gives us a bit of a false perspective on cycling growth. I cycle 20k every morning from the city out past the M50 and pass lots of schools, can't remember passing a child on a bike in the last few weeks.

When I lived in Inchicore and Kilmainham, I saw fairly few kids cycling to school. I live in Balally now, and I see a lot now, relatively speaking. It is a safer place to cycle anyway; some ok-ish facilities and estates that are impervious to cars but permeable to cyclists and pedestrians. There are a lot of arses who think they're already on the Chapelizod bypass or the Naas road while they're driving through Inchicore, and way more HGV traffic.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I really feel no risk at all when out cycling, the same as when I drive, there are moments where that changes but in general, day to day, I feel no risk is present.

I very rarely feel any risk. Then again, I've already got it sorted in my minds where are all the narrow roads with impatient drivers are, and I've figured out how to avoid them.

eeeee

I feel a good bit safer cycling round Dublin than anywhere else. Wicklow, Meath and kildare are ok, we go they're on our group spins. I can count on I've hand the amount of boy ravers I've seen out those parts too. I may have just been lucky though.

Down home is a disaster, scariest place to cycle imo. People are not used to cyclists at all, the roads are tiny, and they drove like they're on fire most of the time. There grass growing in the middle of the single lane road from my home house. It's windy and hilly. It's normal to do between 60-80kph on it depending on the hurry, my family own members included. In a car you can't see over the ditches and hedges, it's mainly single lane did and your only option on the bike is the ditch.

In Dublin there are lanes for almost everyone, and people generally stay in there and largely expect cyclists.

The scariest thing for me on a bike are other cyclists not motorists :eek:

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know about Ireland, but I think the risk of death on the road is about twenty times higher in the UK on rural roads compared to city roads. But I imagine that that might be down to a minority of rural roads skewing the figure. Also, I've got the strong impression that cycling in the UK is just a good bit worse than here.

I think you really need to consider relative population density in this case. Taken as a whole, the UK has almost exactly four times the population density of Ireland, and England has more than six times our population density. So English roads are a lot more crowded than ours, and a lot of smaller rural roads become rat runs as a result. In terms of population density we're actually closer to Scotland (People per KM^2: England: 419, Ireland 67, Scontland 40). It would be interesting to see what cyclist mortality rates are like in Scotland.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

I think you really need to consider relative population density in this case. Taken as a whole, the UK has almost exactly four times the population density of Ireland, and England has more than six times our population density. So English roads are a lot more crowded than ours, and a lot of smaller rural roads become rat runs as a result. In terms of population density we're actually closer to Scotland (People per KM^2: England: 419, Ireland 67, Scontland 40). It would be interesting to see what cyclist mortality rates are like in Scotland.

Yeah, I imagine the Highlands would be pretty safe (except maybe on tourist routes in high season; walking the roads in Skye in August I found a bit intimidating in places). I understand that some rural routes in the lowlands are pretty hairy.

I have figures from an email I got from a cycle campaigner about a year ago, but I don't know where he got them, and they're UK, not Scottish, but anyway:
UK quiet urban back roads fare better than the Dutch national average, 8 vs 12 deaths/billion km, but rural main roads in the UK are up at 170 deaths/billion km.

As you say, that's probably England pulling that number up into the stratosphere, with its high population density.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

I think you really need to consider relative population density in this case. Taken as a whole, the UK has almost exactly four times the population density of Ireland, and England has more than six times our population density. So English roads are a lot more crowded than ours, and a lot of smaller rural roads become rat runs as a result. In terms of population density we're actually closer to Scotland (People per KM^2: England: 419, Ireland 67, Scontland 40). It would be interesting to see what cyclist mortality rates are like in Scotland.

Yes and no. The Germans and the Dutch etc dont allow their country lanes to become rat runs. The Germans have a lot of local roads that legally are open only to local motor traffic or people on foot or bicycle.

Like us the uk has this absurd notion that all roads have to be open to all cars. It doesnt have be that way it is not some immutable law of nature.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Like us the uk has this absurd notion that all roads have to be open to all cars. It doesnt have be that way it is not some immutable law of nature.

True, but our rural roads aren't under anything like the pressure they're under in the south of England. I don't believe that looking at UK cycling accident rates on rural roads bears any relation to the safety of cycling on Irish rural roads and would question the value of such a comparison. If we're talking about cycling risks in this country we need to restrict ourselves to local data. Ireland is not the UK any more than it is Germany or the Netherlands.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

If we're talking about cycling risks in this country we need to restrict ourselves to local data.

Yes, as I was saying upthread, even if you restrict yourself to urban cycling stats, London and Dublin, which make up an awful lot of the cycling data in both countries, seem to have very different risk profiles.

Also, if you're looking at local data, try to avoid the RSA's editorialising. See especially their claim that it's especially dangerous to cycle in Dublin, whereas the data showed that you were more likely to suffer a minor injury cycling in Dublin than using public transport, walking or driving. That may be worth bearing in mind, but it's not what people picked up from the RSA's phrasing. It sounds tautologous anyway; like saying you're more likely to get a minor injury playing a football match than watching one.

tomasrojo

Dangerization's beneficent twin, Safety in Numbers, is the subject of a recent study:

Safety in numbers for cyclists—conclusions from a multidisciplinary study of seasonal change in interplay and conflicts

The results suggest that bicyclists experience a short term Safety in Numbers effect through the season. Each individual cyclist experiences fewer occasions of being overlooked by cars and fewer safety critical situations (near-misses). Video observation data confirm this pattern. However, the SiN effect seems to be countered by another mechanism taking place at the same time: the influx of inexperienced and risk-taking cyclists through the season. Thus car drivers and pedestrians also report to find themselves being surprised by cyclists in traffic late in the season.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457516301555

beauf

Its worth expanding on that....

...If we are to believe these data, interaction between car drivers and cyclists improves though the season. We have taken this as a proof of car drivers becoming more used to cyclists, and hence more expecting of encountering them in traffic. However, it could also be the case that cyclists through interaction with car drivers become better at reading traffic and finding their place, and thereby less often finding themselves in conflict-like situations...

and

...more specifically, we argue that with increasing numbers, different types of bicyclists also enter into the population. Some of these new cyclists can be less experienced and more risk taking, as we have indicated. On the other hand, some of these new cyclists can also be less risk-taking than the “early adopters”. The effects of these population differences might thus both attenuate and accentuate the positive effects of increased attentiveness from motorists. A final verdict on Safety in Numbers can thus not be given just yet.

Which seems to be the same general trend that more cyclists makes drivers more attentive. Though new cyclists still have a learning curve to cycle safely.

They seems to be interested in the seasonal aspect, where people don't cycle all year and when they start back its takes them a while to get back into it. Which is kinda common sense maybe.

tomasrojo

Yeah, I think they went for the seasonal angle so that they could see the effect of increasing numbers of cyclists at the exact same places as cycling numbers increase after winter (I think they said Norway has 2% of cycling trips done by bike in the winter, but 9% in the summer).

beauf

I got the impression they noticed an increase in Sept, I assume due to schools, college and work commuters.

Chiparus

CramCycle wrote: »

Incredibly safe and the numbers of cyclists at a young age (under 18) appears to be on the increase, from casual observation. The only dangerous place, and only dangerous by potential ill thought through impatience is the narrow road through Dundrum town where occasionally you have someone overtake for no reason to hit traffic less than 10metres down the road, and even then, it's more stupidity than dangerous.

I find cycling in the Dublin far safer than cycling in the country.

Here is a close call myself and the wife had a couple of days ago.

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


this is a better video, skip to 5 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyvIsvz0Nns

tomasrojo

Ian Walker study suggests stressing danger doesn't put off cyclists:

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/cycling-is-dangerous-doesnt-repel-wouldbe-cyclists-finds-study

magicbastarder

i wonder how they quantify that though - do they mean that people will still take up cycling, ignoring the dangerisation; or that people will still take up cycling, but heed the dangerisation, and kit themselves out in all the gear which is supposedly essential?

tomasrojo

I assume that a UK audience is sort of already saturated with notions of cycling being dangerous, so a few more messages doesn't really move the needle.

(Incidentally, this is from a few years ago, but I just saw it today. Who knows, maybe it's already posted earlier in the thread.)

I think they're saying that attitude-type campaigns don't seem to persuade people either to take up cycling or resolve to eschew it, and don't really affect people already doing it, except the campaigns emphasising how healthy it is makes both cyclists and non-cyclist better disposed towards cycling in general.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

(Incidentally, this is from a few years ago, but I just saw it today. Who knows, maybe it's already posted earlier in the thread.)

Ha! It's the study I started this thread with!