Cyclist down

TheNap

pclive wrote: »

Any 5+ axle vehicle making a load/unload delivery within the HGV cordon Area between 07:00-19:00hrs Mon-Sun requires a HGV permit.

The HGV involved requires a permit to be within the cordon area.

From a liability aspect it wouldn't matter .

pclive

TheNap wrote: »

From a liability aspect it wouldn't matter .

Indeed, I was correcting some wrong information

smacl

pclive wrote: »

Any 5+ axle vehicle making a load/unload delivery within the HGV cordon Area between 07:00-19:00hrs Mon-Sun requires a HGV permit.

The HGV involved requires a permit to be within the cordon area.

AFIAK, the road following the canal lies outside the cordon area. You have to wonder about the wisdom of having painted on cycle lanes on reasonably narrow roads in this context. It seems like the infrastructure is encouraging the novice cyclist to be inside potentially left turning traffic here, where to my mind common sense suggests that they should take the lane.

Wishbone Ash

pclive wrote: »

TheNap wrote: »

From a liability aspect it wouldn't matter .

Indeed, I was correcting some wrong information

I stand corrected. I thought there was only one type of permit- the transit permit for vehicles or loads unsuitable for the DPT or East Link. I didn't realise there was a second permit for loading/unloading within the cordon.

JC 3.14159

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Agreed.
...
It is a pity though that there is no database, post accidents, be they car, cyclist, farming, industrial etc that one can access to get the facts. Some cases are printed in the media post inquest but there are so many that are not.

Really they should be, just to educate people. I can't help but think there is an unwritten policy in play, in this country, akin to playing down suicide.

Hope the lady get s well soon and sorry to read you had to see that stuff WA

Firstly, I'll echo what others have said here. I hope the lady's recovery goes well.

In relation to the above quote, this is a huge problem. Driving is so ingrained in modern society, and the right to drive is so accepted, that we all turn a blind eye to the risks it poses.

Have a look at some of these (UK stats used as they're easily available):

UK Rail Accident Investigation Reports

UK Marine Accident Investigation Reports

A flick through the associated stats shows something like 20 marine fatalities and 43 Rail fatalities (which excludes 314 suicides. I can't see a clear breakdown of the rail fatalities number - 10 were at level crossings, 4 workplace accidents, 0 passengers actually in transit, 4 fatalities at station/train interfaces. The remainder are presumably on train lines).

Every accident and incident is fully documented, root causes identified, key learnings identified and the findings are made publicly available.

Meanwhile, 1,775 people were killed on the roads in the UK (2014, source).

And what gets done about it?

Well for Ireland the RSA do a statistical summary at the end of the year, showing which times of day, and which days of the week are most dangerous. And a google map showing where to find statistically safe junctions? FFS.

Nothing about the real causes of crashes - distraction/inability to actually operate a car/alcohol or drug use/excessive speed/stupid overtaking/mobile phones/suicides, etc. Nothing that's actually useful to a learner driver, or an education program, etc.

Fine, there may be liability reasons why things need to be kept quiet, and I can understand why people are uncomfortable publishing details of these sort of things, especially in a small country like Ireland where everyone knows everyone else, etc.

But until society faces up to the real causes of road deaths, and treats them as preventable rather than the current "ah shure it could happen to any of us" mentality, nothing will change. This has to start with an honest reporting of facts. The Gardai have all the data - they close the roads and do all the measurements after every serious crash. Who, exactly, are we protecting by hiding the conclusions from these investigations?

If hundreds, or thousands of people were dying from poisoning, or guns, or animals, or whatever there would be outrage. Yet, because it is "cars" that do it, it is accepted as a completely normal part of life.

Mods - maybe this rant belongs somewhere else - if so feel free to move it.

ThisRegard

smacl wrote: »

AFIAK, the road following the canal lies outside the cordon area. You have to wonder about the wisdom of having painted on cycle lanes on reasonably narrow roads in this context. It seems like the infrastructure is encouraging the novice cyclist to be inside potentially left turning traffic here, where to my mind common sense suggests that they should take the lane.

The truck looks like it was coming from within the cordon, it wasn't travelling along the canal, but it's irrelevant I suppose as it happened just outside of it.

Tenzor07

Just to enter into a wider debate......

I would hope that this horrific incident will not deter many people from using the bicycle as a mode of transport. This incident has received a lot of press, with some disgusting comments and awful blame apportioning, mostly to the victim on the comments sections of the Indo and the notorious Journal.ie mostly...

What it may now appear as if cycling in Irish towns and cities is a "Game for the fit&young men" only..as if the roads are not intimidating enough for everyone...

Hrududu

Fian wrote: »

I pass through this junction daily on my commute, to head out through Ranelagh. Going home yesterday and riding over the powders that they have put down at the scene certainly brought home how vulnerable we are on the bikes

Yeah same here. Though at that junction yesterday I saw a few very stupid moves. Maybe I was just on edge after reading about the accident before leaving work and wouldn't have noticed them normally.

It does make you realise how vulnerable you are. The worst is when you do everything right but know that someone else can be not paying attention and you're screwed.

tomasrojo

It's very interesting that the national conversation turns to "how can we make cycling safer" (with predictable hobby horses wheeled out) and not to "how can we make trucks less dangerous".

ted1

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's very interesting that the national conversation turns to "how can we make cycling safer" (with predictable hobby horses wheeled out) and not to "how can we make trucks less dangerous".

Mandatory proximity sensors and cameras with fish eye lenses fir all artic trucks .

Remove the VRT from safety items discounted insurance , and a small grant will cover the costs . ( taking someone off the dole and getting paying PAYE will cover the grant ).
Road tax on Artics has dropped by 5k this year , the savings will more than cover this

doozerie

As horrible to all concerned that an incident like this can be, to view it as some kind of example or reminder of how "dangerous" cycling is seems completely misguided to me. There are many dangerous things in life - cycling, driving, flying, boating, drinking, smoking, poking sleeping bears, walking down stairs, climbing mountains, climbing ladders, poor diet, stress, obesity, etc., etc. - people die from these things fairly often but generally such deaths don't evoke the kind of fear that a cyclist being hurt does about cycling.

This incident does not demonstrate that cycling is dangerous, it demonstrates that bad things can happen to anyone, sometimes it happens to cyclists (not forgetting that the driver on this occasion may well be badly affected too, even if he doesn't have obvious physical injuries to show for it).

ED E

doozerie wrote: »

As horrible to all concerned that an incident like this can be, to view it as some kind of example or reminder of how "dangerous" cycling is seems completely misguided to me. There are many dangerous things in life - cycling, driving, flying, boating, drinking, smoking, poking sleeping bears, walking down stairs, climbing mountains, climbing ladders, poor diet, stress, obesity, etc., etc. - people die from these things fairly often but generally such deaths don't evoke the kind of fear that a cyclist being hurt does about cycling.

This incident does not demonstrate that cycling is dangerous, it demonstrates that bad things can happen to anyone, sometimes it happens to cyclists (not forgetting that the driver on this occasion may well be badly affected too, even if he doesn't have obvious physical injuries to show for it).

FYP, flying is horrendously safe as things go.

doozerie

ED E wrote: »

FYP, flying is horrendously safe as things go.

Yes it is "as things go", that's exactly my point. So is cycling.

Wishbone Ash

ED E wrote: »

FYP, flying is horrendously safe as things go.

doozerie wrote: »

Yes it is "as things go", that's exactly my point. So is cycling.

Any pilot will tell you that the most dangerous part of their job is driving to and from the airport. I think that is the point ED E is making. Up in the air you're with professionals, when cycling/driving/walking etc. you're not.

Chiparus

doozerie wrote: »

As horrible to all concerned that an incident like this can be, to view it as some kind of example or reminder of how "dangerous" cycling is seems completely misguided to me. There are many dangerous things in life - cycling, driving, flying, boating, drinking, smoking, poking sleeping bears, walking down stairs, climbing mountains, climbing ladders, poor diet, stress, obesity, etc., etc. - people die from these things fairly often but generally such deaths don't evoke the kind of fear that a cyclist being hurt does about cycling.

This incident does not demonstrate that cycling is dangerous, it demonstrates that bad things can happen to anyone, sometimes it happens to cyclists (not forgetting that the driver on this occasion may well be badly affected too, even if he doesn't have obvious physical injuries to show for it).

Sorry cycling is dangerous we have to recognize that so that action is taken.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-deaths-you-17-times-6021412

flatty

That mirror article is per billion miles travelled. I knew it would be cr@p before I opened it, but didn't realise just how crap.

desertcircus

Chiparus wrote: »

Sorry cycling is dangerous we have to recognize that so that action is taken.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-deaths-you-17-times-6021412

God, but I hate seeing newspapers produce such garbage. There are two ways of expressing relative likelihood of something happening, and they've gone for the less informative one purely for sensationalism. The real stat is that you're 0.00000017% more likely to die on a bike than in a car per mile travelled, but even that is needlessly manipulative, because the vast majority of cyclists do nowhere near the same distances as drivers.

Chiparus

Chiparus wrote: »

Sorry cycling is dangerous we have to recognize that so that action is taken.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-deaths-you-17-times-6021412

Walking is much more dangerous, action must be taken :pac:

Chiparus

ronoc wrote: »

Walking is much more dangerous, action must be taken :pac:

That is why we are "vulnerable road users". There is a reason why cyclists ( and pedestrians) are at risk of being killed and it is to do generally with interactions with other vehicles.
HGVs are banned from the city for good reason. Engineers have to design roads with cyclists in mind.
There is no logic in pretending that there are no dangers in cycling or indeed walking, we have to accept there are.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's very interesting that the national conversation turns to "how can we make cycling safer" (with predictable hobby horses wheeled out) and not to "how can we make trucks less dangerous".

Interesting point. I wonder what the breakdown of serious road traffic accidents by vehicle type would look like? Are larger trucks the issue, more so say than buses, medium size lorries, vans, cars etc.... I do think that there's also an educational issue for both motorists and cyclist in terms of taking the lane at junctions, and think the painted on cycle lanes can be counter intuitive to both sides in that regard. The recent RSA video for example suggests the cyclist might take the lane if they're turning right, and is directed at motorists. Probably better to direct it at both cyclists and motorists and say they should take the lane if turning right or if they're on the inside of potentially left turning traffic.

tomasrojo

Chiparus wrote: »

Sorry cycling is dangerous we have to recognize that so that action is taken.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-deaths-you-17-times-6021412

The massive gap in the safety of car and bike users are laid bear

I hate to split "hares", but based on fatalities per billion km the Soviet space programme had an exemplary safety record.

Cycling and walking are roughly comparable. You, on average, would need several thousand lifetimes of either activity to suffer a fatal collision or fall. On average: you can "win" this particular lottery, of course.

But you're right in that cyclists and pedestrians are disproportionately killed by trucks in cities. So this needs addressing.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

Interesting point. I wonder what the breakdown of serious road traffic accidents by vehicle type would look like? Are larger trucks the issue, more so say than buses, medium size lorries, vans, cars etc....

I think tipper trucks and concrete lorries kill the most.

tomasrojo

Chiparus wrote: »

That is why we are "vulnerable road users". There is a reason why cyclists ( and pedestrians) are at risk of being killed and it is to do generally with interactions with other vehicles.
HGVs are banned from the city for good reason. Engineers have to design roads with cyclists in mind.
There is no logic in pretending that there are no dangers in cycling or indeed walking, we have to accept there are.

It's a fair point, but public transport by all metrics is much safer than driving. Few people find this a compelling reason to switch.

Similarly, the elevation in risk in going from driving to cycling is similar to that when you leave a motorway and switch to a secondary road. Few people find the latter terrifying. (David Spiegelhalter made this point; I can't remember how he assessed risk.)

Chiparus

tomasrojo wrote: »

I hate to split "hares", but based on fatalities per billion km the Soviet space programme had an exemplary safety record.

Cycling and walking are roughly comparable. You, on average, would need several thousand lifetimes of either activity to suffer a fatal collision or fall. On average: you can "win" this particular lottery, of course.

But you're right in that cyclists and pedestrians are disproportionately killed by trucks in cities. So this needs addressing.

I also think it needs addressing elsewhere, thats why the 1.5 m campaign is so important.
Some councils are now employing cycle safety officers who primarily are concerned with education but also engineering.

http://www.wexford.ie/wex/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/SportsActiveWexford/Biking/

tomasrojo

flatty wrote: »

That mirror article is per billion miles travelled. I knew it would be cr@p before I opened it, but didn't realise just how crap.

It is a standard metric, but per hour of travel gives you a totally different result. For example, cycling is somewhat safer than walking per billion km, but walking safer per hour.

The really misleading metric is per million inhabitants. Has been used to "show" that it is very dangerous to cycle in the Netherlands.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, that Mirror article also neglects a corollary; just as we generally fail to ask "how can we make trucks safer", that article could also have pointed out the "shocking" disparity in the likelihood of you killing someone else in a car and on a bike.

tomasrojo

Chiparus wrote: »

I also think it needs addressing elsewhere, thats why the 1.5 m campaign is so important.
Some councils are now employing cycle safety officers who primarily are concerned with education but also engineering.

http://www.wexford.ie/wex/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/SportsActiveWexford/Biking/

Which reminds me, cycling on smaller rural roads is many times riskier than cycling in the city. I don't know what can be done, except maybe speed limiters on cars.

Chiparus

tomasrojo wrote: »

Which reminds me, cycling on smaller rural roads is many times riskier than cycling in the city. I don't know what can be done, except maybe speed limiters on cars.

Education , engineering and enforcement.

Make it legal for a minimum 1.5 m passing distance.

smacl

Chiparus wrote: »

Some councils are now employing cycle safety officers who primarily are concerned with education but also engineering.

Meanwhile, in Mayo...

Tenzor07

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think tipper trucks and concrete lorries kill the most.

A lot of construction work going on in city centre, this pic was taken by someone during the week at Mount St Upper: