"High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners"

Subpopulus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO RESTRICTING OR REDUCING MOTOR TRAFFIC OR TO CONTROLLING IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS.

I apologise for shouting. If you start segregating cyclists (or pedestrians) as an "alternative" to controlling motor traffic then, as night follows day, what happens is you start seeing cyclists and pedestrians being managed for the benefit of cars.

What characterises cities with high levels of cycling is not segregated infrastructure it is an acceptance that motor traffic must be managed for the benefit of others rather than promoted at all costs.

This is not to dismiss segregation as being part of the solution but if it is applied in the wrong context, if segregation is applied as an end in itself then it is more likely to become part of the problem

Sorry if I was unclear - I wasn't trying to suggest that segregation is the only way to do things (I'm aware of filtered permeability, traffic calming, hierarchy of measures and all that), but I'm more trying the counter the idea that dedicated cycle infrastructure causes more harm than good.

galwaycyclist

Subpopulus wrote: »

There hasn't really been much of an upsurge though. In the UK cycling as a mode of transport is flatlining at about 1.5% of all journeys made, with London pretty much the only outlier of growth. It's been at the same level for about a decade.

Cycling makes up about 1.3% of all trips in Ireland, which is growing by about 0.1 percentage points PA at the moment. There's certainly growth in some of the cities, but when looked at nationwide, it's pretty minimal. Cycling is still an extremely marginal mode of transport. At least 9 out of 10 people aren't cycling on a regular basis.

Sure but in the UK, as in Ireland, cycling is hanging on by its fingernails in the face of official hostility. Arguably what pushed cycling in London were the terrorist attacks that shut down the tube and buses. People walked into any bike shop they could find, bought a bike and cycled home, and the next day some of them used the bike again. Arguably cycling in London hung on despite, rather than because of, official interventions. It hung on because there was still a "folk memory" within which cycling was still "available" as a form of transport.

Measures like the census of population are very crude and only capture the main form of transport. Data from the slan health behaviour studies indicates that 28% of Irish adults used a bike in the previous year.

Beasty

Subpopulus wrote: »

At least 9 out of 10 people aren't cycling on a regular basis.

I would be surprised if 1 in 10 were - that would be an exceptional take-up in my view. I also don't accept your point about the number of journeys being made. Your own "stats" imply an annual increase of approaching 8% in journeys made (although it's possible that the average length of journey is also increasing)

There have been a number of factors at play both in Ireland and the UK. Some have taken it up for health reasons, others due to cycling being a cheap form of transport in a recessionary period. The respective BTW schemes have also encouraged quite a few to take up cycling.

tomasrojo

Editorial
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/sharing-the-road-1.2307915

Red-light jumping, Even Stevens, shared responsibility, wear hi-viz.

Took the RSA's stats at face value.

Do newspapers ever look closely at RSA stats, or is it just cut-and-paste?

(Mind you, I remember an editorial they did after the crash about property prices where they seemed to think that a 10% rise in property prices followed by a 10% fall would leave you where you started. So maybe they're not well placed to look at numbers closely.)

lismuse

Maybe this is the solution to the great helmet debate ?
//www.bbc.com/autos/story/20140626-no-helmet-no-problem

Buchaill_Mor

I am coming around to the idea of a TFL type solution for Dublin. Congestion charge, but no profits allowed. Any monies made after administration to go into infrastructural improvement. Promotion of multi-modal transport, with Fingal, DunLaoighre Rathdown and Dublin Co Co working in conjunction with Dublin City Council to provide patroled out of town park & ride facilities, with joined up thinking on LUAS, bus services (private & public), and cycling facilities. It should be not just about bikes, but buses, taxi's, LUAS.

Eventually, I would like to see a ban on non Public Service Vehicles from an area broadly covering from Huston Station and between the Canals. (Guinness will have to start using their gates at Hueston), with an exemption for disabled drivers. (More regulation of the Blue stickers would be needed.) Further out, I do believe that the reason that a lot of people don't cycle is that they are scared of cars, so while I like the ideal of Vehicular cycling, we are far from there, and I think a much better infrastructure is required, encompassing segregation, for commuters, school kids, and leisure cyclists. In the city, instead of kerbs etc, planters and just the basic repainting of the road layouts I feel would be a massive help. Janette Sadik-Khan, I think did a great job for New York.

And finally, enforced legislation. For car drivers, cyclists, and the 1.5 mtr passing distance. Helmets and Hi-Viz. Down with that sort of legislation. Should be optional.

I know this is not going to be popular, amongst lots of people for lots of reasons, but I firmly believe the car is not the answer. My 2 cents. And now, let rip.

JBokeh

I agree that cycle lanes are a bad idea, especially in places where they're retrofit onto a road, in Cork city a lot of them were just tacked onto the sides of the road, making the road lanes so narrow that anything wider and longer than a hatchback will end up driving in them at some point because the road tapers suddenly, and the cycle lane stays the same width, making it dangerous for a cyclist that doesn't see it coming. To build proper cycle lanes in a city you would want to bulldoze the whole street and start again, making the road wide enough, the cycle lanes properly thought out and nowhere that the cycle lane will suddenly dump you onto the road.
Or even better than painting red streaks up the side of roads is to spend that money on actually maintaining the roads and not segregating anyone making it a shared space and better for everyone

Anybody actually seen how they use the roads in The Netherlands? You wouldn't see many people cycling like they're in a mad hurry to get somewhere, it's like they're all out sight seeing, meanwhile the drivers are mainly mental for taking risks but you don't see much possessiveness about the road, yet when the two meet there is extreme courtesy shown. In Ireland everyone leaves the house pissed off and 5 minutes later than they should have, and where leaving someone make a mistake, or merge in front of you without honking is seen as a sign of weakness

Flatzie_poo

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

I am coming around to the idea of a TFL type solution for Dublin. Congestion charge, but no profits allowed.

Dublin city centre traffic is a pussycat compared to London pre-congestion charge traffic.

Charges aren't needed to reduce traffic to make it easier for cyclists.

Education for both sides into shared safety responsibility, defensive instead of aggressive commuting, and common sense is what's needed here.

tomasrojo

I've come to distrust the "shared responsibility" philosophy. It usually ends up with emphasising all the things cyclists and pedestrians have to do to show how grateful they are for motorists looking where they're going, or how they should carry around extra equipment as analogues to devices that are built into cars by the manufacturers anyway.

Flatzie_poo

tomasrojo wrote: »

or how they should carry around extra equipment as analogues to devices that are built into cars by the manufacturers anyway.

What?

tomasrojo

By analogues, I mean this sort of thing:

Motorists have to wear seatbelts, you should have helmets, hi-viz, whatever.

Daytime running lights would be good for cyclists as well as motorists.

Motorists have airbags, so you need helmets.

Motorists were kind enough to consent to this restriction, now it's your turn.

That sort of logic, which doesn't acknowledge that the devices in one case are part of the vehicle and therefore not an encumbrance or likely to put people off taking a journey.

The more important bit is that we end up treating the responsibility to avoid being hurt by fast heavy vehicles as the same thing as the responsibility not to hurt others in your fast heavy vehicle.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

Motorists have to wear seatbelts, you should have helmets, hiviz, whatever.

Daytime running lights would be good for cyclists as well as motorists.

Motorists have airbags, so you need helmets.

That sort of logic, which doesn't acknowledge that the devices in one case are part of the vehicle and therefore not an encumbrance or likely to put people off taking a journey.

Also known as the "arms race" model of "road safety"

Buchaill_Mor

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Charges aren't needed to reduce traffic to make it easier for cyclists.

I personally am no longer of the position that Dublin City Centre should necessarily be made easier for cyclists.

I think I want to see it made easier, and a more welcoming place for pedestrians and cyclists, and more difficult for private, non PSV cars. I am coming around to the position of it being a quality of life thing.

I also think I would like to see more people moving into the city as a viable proposition as opposed to the burbs. In the long run, I think it is more economically beneficial, as it is easier to provide services such as power, sewage, water, health services, etc. Not knocking peoples right to live in the countryside, and I see advantages to that also, but at least make the proposition of city living more palatable?? I know this is not going to happen in my life time, even if some politician were brave enough to start taking the steps now.

Flatzie_poo

Agreed that it's another debate, but seatbelts weren't always part of a car, that was a retrospective safety feature.

Other cyclists are welcome to do whatever they want, but I wear my helmet in case I have an accident that I cause. I don't view it as something I need to do in case a motorist hits me...

tomasrojo

This kind of thing:
http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/11/12/road-safety-week-whats-wrong-with-it/

tomasrojo

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Agreed that it's another debate, but seatbelts weren't always part of a car, that was a retrospective safety feature.

The manufacturers were forced (against their will) to include them in all new cars. Then laws were passed gradually to make people wear them at all times.

The provenance doesn't make much difference to the way the argument ends up running though: motorists generously consented to this restriction, now it's your turn.

tomasrojo

What did people make of the Irish Times editorial, by the way? (To steer the thread back around to its subject.)

tomasrojo

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

I personally am no longer of the position that Dublin City Centre should necessarily be made easier for cyclists.

I think I want to see it made easier, and a more welcoming place for pedestrians and cyclists, and more difficult for private, non PSV cars. I am coming around to the position of it being a quality of life thing.

It would probably be a good strategy to emphasise the benefits for people on foot above all others, as everyone travels by foot at times, and pedstrians are the single largest transport mode in the city centre. To be fair, I think the emphasis on the new street designs being for cyclists has been placed mostly by the media, who see that as a more effective means of opposing changes, because "everybody hates cyclists", and "they don't deserve" the changes, because they're lawless, annoying, don't pay fictional taxes, whatever.

tomasrojo

Irish Times gets it wrong on cycling road safety stats two days in a row

http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/06/irish-times-gets-it-wrong-on-cycling-road-safety-stats-two-days-in-a-row/

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

What did people make of the Irish Times editorial, by the way? (To steer the thread back around to its subject.)

I think the IT is the only decent national paper in the country, but their track record on cycling rivals the Indo's coverage at times. Call me a cynic, but this is how the editorial sounded to me...

Something had to be done to change behavioural patterns and raise public awareness about the rising number of cyclists being killed and injured

Read as: "we need to make people scared of cycling, and tell them to wear helmets and high-viz, rather than reminding drivers to check their mirrors and blind spots".

motorists... must learn to share available road space with this slower, more vulnerable, means of transport.

"Cycling is slower than driving, and you're more likely to be killed. Sure why would you bother?"

But while overtaking manoeuvres can be dangerous, most fatal collisions happen at road junctions.

"Shut up moaning about close overtaking".

Visual black spots on trucks and driver inattention are major contributing factors. But cyclists can do more to protect themselves by wearing high visibility clothing and anticipating the prospect of not being seen. Obeying the rules of the road is a priority.

"Drivers can be crap, but it's your own fault if you get hit by a car. Probably because you jumped a red light at some point earlier in your life".

Motorists must have regard for the growing number of these road users and anticipate their needs, just as cyclists should obey the rules of the road.

"If you see any cyclists breaking red lights, disregard all cyclists' safety".

tomasrojo

"Fault lies with both sides, but red-light jumping. Wear hi-viz. We didn't read the report after the introduction."

Jawgap

rp wrote: »

Nice of the RSA to admit that people are driving around in "potential murder vehicles". Hi-viz won't mitigate for that.

Read that phrase and thought of this......

Jawgap

From their 'data journalism' feed....

Buchaill_Mor

So, being male between 35 and 49, I should not cycle any Wednesday in September, in a built up area in Daylight. At least in 2012. How did I and a lot of my colleagues who cycle survive the massacre??

Jawgap

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

So, being male between 35 and 49, I should not cycle any Wednesday in September, in a built up area in Daylight. At least in 2012. How did I and a lot of my colleagues who cycle survive the massacre??

Hi viz and helmets

mirrorwall14

Landed on this page accidentally. However this articles gonna make some great misleading/manipulating statistics lessons for school next year. Thanks guys!

Moflojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

What did people make of the Irish Times editorial, by the way? (To steer the thread back around to its subject.)

I thought the editorial attempted to be balanced but, because this is such a polarising debate, either of the opposing sides could read it as not giving enough acknowledgement to, or misrepresenting, their side of the argument.

I find the anti-infrastructure arguments on this thread to be a bit extremist; there's no empathy for beginner or inexperienced cyclists and what their attitudes towards cycling might be.

magicbastarder

i keep reading the thread title as "High death and injury rates among cyclists and road safety campaigners"; which would give it a sinister edge.

LaGlisse

I live in a rural area and the amount of goons out cycling at dusk/on overcast days with no lights and reflective gear on narrow roads id just astounding.
Used to cycle to work myself on a national road but a few close calls just put paid to that, too much distracted/ignorant driving

rollingscone

magicbastarder wrote: »

i keep reading the thread title as "High death and injury rates among cyclists and road safety campaigners"; which would give it a sinister edge.

me too!

Flatzie_poo

LaGlisse wrote: »

I live in a rural area and the amount of goons out cycling at dusk/on overcast days with no lights and reflective gear on narrow roads id just astounding.
Used to cycle to work myself on a national road but a few close calls just put paid to that, too much distracted/ignorant driving

Any distracted/ignorant driving is just as much matched by distracted/ignorant cycling on a daily basis...

buffalo

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Any distracted/ignorant driving is just as much matched by distracted/ignorant cycling on a daily basis...

FITE FITE FITE!

HivemindXX

Flatzie_poo wrote: »

Any distracted/ignorant driving is just as much matched by distracted/ignorant cycling on a daily basis...

Citation needed.

Even if that was true, which to be blunt, I consider a load of week old tripe, the fact is that careless distracted twats in cars kill other people the worst thing a crappy cyclist will do is get themselves killed.

Moflojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

...the worst thing a crappy cyclist will do is get themselves killed.

But it's only a matter of time until a cyclist kills someone...

It's a war out there, don't you know.

hardCopy

Absolutely awful journalism. Why have the RSA put out a press release about 2012 figures?
Why are deaths and injuries constantly mentioned as one figure?
Why is the number of "vulnerable road users" mentioned in an article about cyclists?

It's all aimed at making the number of cycling deaths sound bigger than it is so that the RSA can advocate for mandatory helmets and hi viz. Which I have no doubt they are building up to.

I can't understand why Death and Injury are even mentioned in the same sentence. The number of deaths is tiny in proportion to the number of injuries and far too small to have any value in tracking a 'trend'.

galwaycyclist

hardCopy wrote: »

It's all aimed at making the number of cycling deaths sound bigger than it is so that the RSA can advocate for mandatory helmets and hi viz. Which I have no doubt they are building up to.

There are several threads this could go into but I'll put it here. At the moment the RSA are advertising a bursary - effectively a grant - for a post graduate student to do a PhD project on the safety of vulnerable road users. The grant is worth EU35,000 a year.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Bursary-Awards/

This is taken straight from the explanatory document.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Bursary/RSA_PhD_Bursary_Award_2015_Background_Information_for_Applicants.doc

In my view this passage speaks eloquently for the attitude of the RSA to vulnerable road users. In this document the word "car" appears once and there is no mention of the words "driver" or "motorist".

A number of specific topics have been put forward as being of particular interest to the RSA, and these may be considered by candidates as potential topics; these would require expansion and testing for suitability for a PhD:

• An evaluation of the impact of primary school education measures on children’s road safety knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, potentially involving a longitudinal study of children exposed to RSA formal education interventions and those not exposed to these. Recommendations for the enhancement of the RSA suite of education initiatives to be included.

• A study of the barriers and facilitators to the wearing of high-visibility clothing by vulnerable road users, including a review of the optimum design of clothing and accessories to afford maximum protection; this could potentially also encompass a cost benefit analysis of the RSA’s investment in high visibility clothing and recommendations to enhance the programme to save lives and reduce casualties.

• The protective effects of helmets, with a specific focus on new technology and design to increase the protective effects of helmets for cyclists and/or motorcyclists in primary and secondary impacts, set in the context of collisions occurring at different speed limits.

• The protective effects of car seats for babies and young children including engineering/design enhancements, crash-testing, vehicle compatibility and barriers/facilitators to usage among parents/guardians.

• A review of human factors associated with older pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries and recommendations for initiatives to reduce the number and severity of these casualties.

Flatzie_poo

HivemindXX wrote: »

Citation needed.

Since when do you need a citation for an opinion? :rolleyes:

HivemindXX wrote: »

Even if that was true, which to be blunt, I consider a load of week old tripe,

Can you please provide a citation for this?

HivemindXX wrote: »

the fact is that careless distracted twats in cars kill other people the worst thing a crappy cyclist will do is get themselves killed.

If you think no pedestrian has ever been killed by a poor cyclist through collision you need your head examined.

I'm surprised your 'tripe-meter' didn't go off while writing that post...

The fact is both sides need to be thought defensive commuting. too many egos and supposed road owners about.

hardCopy

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are several threads this could go into but I'll put it here. At the moment the RSA are advertising a bursary - effectively a grant - for a post graduate student to do a PhD project on the safety of vulnerable road users. The grant is worth EU35,000 a year.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Bursary-Awards/

This is taken straight from the explanatory document.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Bursary/RSA_PhD_Bursary_Award_2015_Background_Information_for_Applicants.doc

In my view this passage speaks eloquently for the attitude of the RSA to vulnerable road users. In this document the word "car" appears once and there is no mention of the words "driver" or "motorist".

So a 35K bounty to anyone who can "prove" the need for helmet laws. The RSA is a joke shop.

Skrynesaver

hardCopy wrote: »

So a 35K bounty to anyone who can "prove" the need for helmet laws. The RSA is a joke shop.

In fairness you have to justify an enhanced hi-viz campaign too.

galwaycyclist

hardCopy wrote: »

So a 35K bounty to anyone who can "prove" the need for helmet laws. The RSA is a joke shop.

Actually its an annual bursary so we are looking at EU105,000 to EU140,000 if its a 3 or 4 year PhD.

hardCopy

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Actually its an annual bursary so we are looking at EU105,000 to EU140,000 if its a 3 or 4 year PhD.

I hadn't heard about that job ad before I posted my rant and worried I might come across like some weird anti-RSA conspiracy nut.

Thank you for making me feel less paranoid.

Carawaystick

I like the way the rsa are looking to do a cost benefit analysis on giving out free stuff after they have given out free stuff...

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are several threads this could go into but I'll put it here. At the moment the RSA are advertising a bursary - effectively a grant - for a post graduate student to do a PhD project on the safety of vulnerable road users. The grant is worth EU35,000 a year.

That post... wow, it's terrifying really. I don't want to be a part of the RSA's future.

Granolite

As someone previously mentioned in this thread bringing in periodic and mandatory car driver retraining and driver tests - so as to retain one's license to drive - would probably serve us much better in protecting the so-called `vulnerable' roads user's on our roads than all the other RSA initiatives out there at present and those pending further Doctoral studies (Can already see some nice cailin or fella with a useful degree with a helpful Mayo background slotting in there). However, that would be unpopular and difficult to sell to our driver-centric notions, socially and politically. None of our current breed of senators or TD's who subscribe to the old Civil War ethos parties could consider that.

To read Ivan Yates last week pontificate on the matter of the new fixed fine penalties as being a `comeuppance' for these cycling `pests' just shows the sort of attitude people of his vintage and position - the type who see themselves as the apex of Irish political and media discourse mixing it with the maker's and shaker's and lobbyist cronies - have for anyone who doesn't fit in with their narrow car-centric, property acquisition fixated point of view. This is the thinking of the people who brought you `Leeman's brothers' as being the quick look over there' bogie man for our economic crash ad nauseam in the late noughties and now in the Dublin-centric post economic revival summer silly season it seems cyclists are the latest bogie man flavor of the day.

It was ok for a bit there when we were all broke and sure it was cool to be getting back to our roots and finding ways to save money and sure we all got a bike on the bike to work scheme (wink wink,nudge,nudge) but now that we are on the make once more the cycle `pests' are getting a bit uppity, they need to be taken down a notch or two and shown who's running the place.. great men and thinkers like Ivan Yates and George Hook, Alan Kelly, Senator Tom Sheehan et al, and not forgetting our men of honor in the judiciary, who made this country and themselves and know what's best for us all..

Rebellion

i for one have never felt as vunerable as i do on a bicycle, srivers just dont seem to care

hardCopy

Granolite wrote: »

As someone previously mentioned in this thread bringing in periodic and mandatory car driver retraining and driver tests - so as to retain one's license to drive - would probably serve us much better in protecting the so-called `vulnerable' roads user's on our roads than all the other RSA initiatives out there at present and those pending further Doctoral studies (Can already see some nice cailin or fella with a useful degree with a helpful Mayo background slotting in there). However, that would be unpopular and difficult to sell to our driver-centric notions, socially and politically. None of our current breed of senators or TD's who subscribe to the old Civil War ethos parties could consider that.

To read Ivan Yates last week pontificate on the matter of the new fixed fine penalties as being a `comeuppance' for these cycling `pests' just shows the sort of attitude people of his vintage and position - the type who see themselves as the apex of Irish political and media discourse mixing it with the maker's and shaker's and lobbyist cronies - have for anyone who doesn't fit in with their narrow car-centric, property acquisition fixated point of view. This is the thinking of the people who brought you `Leeman's brothers' as being the quick look over there' bogie man for our economic crash ad nauseam in the late noughties and now in the Dublin-centric post economic revival summer silly season it seems cyclists are the latest bogie man flavor of the day.

It was ok for a bit there when we were all broke and sure it was cool to be getting back to our roots and finding ways to save money and sure we all got a bike on the bike to work scheme (wink wink,nudge,nudge) but now that we are on the make once more the cycle `pests' are getting a bit uppity, they need to be taken down a notch or two and shown who's running the place.. great men and thinkers like Ivan Yates and George Hook, Alan Kelly, Senator Tom Sheehan et al, and not forgetting our men of honor in the judiciary, who made this country and themselves and know what's best for us all..

This bursary is a complete waste of taxpayers money. We already know what works and has worked for decades in Denmark, Belgium and The Netherlands. It's stupid and arrogant to think we can do it better. Spend the next ten years copying our continental cousins and when we've caught up we can look at ways to innovate.

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

That post... wow, it's terrifying really. I don't want to be a part of the RSA's future.

And I don't want them "educating" my children either.

Granolite

hardCopy wrote: »

This bursary is a complete waste of taxpayers money. We already know what works and has worked for decades in Denmark, Belgium and The Netherlands. It's stupid and arrogant to think we can do it better. Spend the next ten years copying our continental cousins and when we've caught up we can look at ways to innovate.

This isn't about reinventing the wheel, or achieving something better, its about keeping the existing wheel(s) in motion.

tomasrojo

At this stage, the RSA have given up all pretence of objectivity. They're actively counteracting active travel initiatives with FUD. They contradict the Department of Transport and pretend that they have been given top-secret legal advice when challenged. And their answer to absolutely everything is high-visibility clothing.

Is there anything that can be done?

Carawaystick

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is there anything that can be done?

Wear a High Viz Vest and a full face downhill helmet when you get your photo taken for a car driving license.

Keep repeating that you are a vunerable road user as a cyclist and you've taken the rsa's advice of being afraid to heart.

Follow the whole thing through to the "court in Strasbourg" and let us know how its going. On a Friday too, if thats not too much to ask.