Cyclist killed in Dublin

magicbastarder

they seemed to be level with each other at the start of the video, but yes, the truck could have overtaken the cyclist.

shootermacg

This week I was almost taken out by a muppet in a BMW 7 series with get this..a paper map spread out over the dashboard, his car drifted over the cycle lane white line and forced me onto the kerb.

This morning, I was behind a fixed truck today and there are various places where the road swerves, the cycle lane with it. This bozo thought nothing of cutting through the cycle lane each time, even with a white line and plenty of room on the right. If I'd had my camera I'd have made a point of reporting it.

I had an asian taxi driver this morning who decided to do a 3 point turn in the middle of town, almost crashing straight into me while not even looking the correct way. He couldn't complete the turn because the traffic behind him, just ignored him and drove on behind him, not letting the cretin reverse, that's almost funny.

I've had to contend with just a few dopes this year, but over the last week I've seem some of the worst driving I've seen this whole year. Just to be clear...I have observed more bad driving in the last four days than I have since since 2016 began.

I don't buy all this blind spot crap that's spouted these days, if you are driving a truck / bus with a blind spot, allow time for someone in your blindspot of exit it and make bloody well sure no one has entered it in the mean time.

Harsher punishment for reckless endangerment, lets make a few examples.

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

hard to tell for certain, but this video (shot very near where the fatality occurred) seems to show the cyclist was undertaking the lorry?

It kind of looks like it. The white car crossing he junction in the other direction gets a green light at the same time as the traffic from Guild St. I'm looking at it on my phone and it's impossible to tell if the truck is indicating or not. That stretch of bike lane should be removed as it gives a false sense of safety. If people want to cycle on a track then there is the off road section beside it. Thankfully the cyclist looks relatively unharmed.

The city council need to bite the bullet and ban all trucks that do not have a low cab and minimised blind spots from the city. They might have to give a couple of years notice but the ban needs to be put into place I'm not attributing blame with this but it would make life better for truck drivers as well.

magicbastarder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If people want to cycle on a track then there is the off road section beside it.

i was looking at that on google maps. i don't recall seeing that arrangement before - on road and two-way off road lanes provided right beside each other?

recedite

jon1981 wrote: »

Not sure how you can tell?! The cyclist and truck were already at the same point when the video started. Perhaps the truck plainly didn't the cyclist and overtook the bicycle?!

I think it was just the fairly common scenario; both starting off on the green light at the same time, but the cyclist wanting to go straight ahead while the lorry was going left.
The cyclist's reaction was a bit strange; deliberately swerving out in front of the lorry;

In my case I noticed that the truck was coming in at me and I managed to get in front of the truck before it hit me,” he says

The obvious thing would be to hop up on the footpath to the left, as there were no railings there.

jon1981

Theres's also a dedicated cycle path right beside the road, raised off the ground...


can of worms has just been opened!!

EDIT: damn too late.

Chuchote

If you're caught in a jacknife of a turning truck, you go under the back wheels. It's kind of impossible to hop up on a pavement when that's happening.

It's why I stay behind trucks at all times.

This video gives an idea of what can happen, though normally the truck is turning left and the cyclist is folded in underneath the back wheels and crushed, as happened to the Chinese student on Emmet Bridge at Harold's Cross, where the council recently took away the ghost bike and failed to return it, despite promising to do so.

cowboyBuilder

numbnutz wrote: »

I feel so sorry for this cyclist and the bad news her loved ones are to receive.

I used to ride a motorbike and am now in a car and the only observation I can make is the level of aggression to pretty much everyone around them usually ties in with, and I know it sounds weird, when the economy picks up and the busier it gets the more aggression and dickish behaviour occurs. Phone usage whilst driving is beyond ridiculous.

About to say that, boom is back so every boyracer little dickhead can afford a car now.

Carawaystick

recedite wrote: »

Simple solutions, such as improved mirrors and/or transparent side doors and/or cameras fitted onto lorries. These are well known, but why aren't they mandatory?

A simpler solution would be to charge drivers who kill other road users with manslaughter, with the possibility of a life sentence.
At present it seems we don't even charge truckers who crash into rail bridges with careless driving, let alone dangerous driving.

Chuchote

A texting motorist got nine years in England for killing a cyclist:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/texting-motorist-given-nine-years-prison-killing-cyclist-282429?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

The cyclist might still be alive if he'd been banned for previous offences.

According to the Basingstoke Gazette, Gard convinced magistrates to let him keep his license just six weeks before the fatal incident and also admitted lying to police about using his phone when questioned about Mr Martin’s death.

Mr Martin was taking part in a time trial event on the road when the collision occurred at around 7.30pm on August 12, 2015. Gard was texting immediately prior to hitting Mr Martin with his Ford Transit van.

PC David Mitchell said: “This was a tragic loss of life that has left Mr Martin’s family devastated. Cyclists are vulnerable road users and extra care must be taken by motorists.

techdiver

There seems to be a lot of anger on here from cyclists towards motorists in general. I have cycled for years and I will tell you that most of the bad behaviour on our roads is from cyclists, plain and simple. It's about time we drop this victim mentality and take responsibility for ourselves. Yes, there are idiot motorists out there, but some cyclists take the biscuit. You have the idiot cyclists with no clue, to the self righteous cyclist who think he owns the road and everyone should make way regardless.

I have the attitude, that if it's dumb to do something, then don't ****ing do it. It's all very well being in the right and also dead on the street at the same time.

And for one poster who commented about blind spots. Yes, they are real and what would the point of a truck waiting at the light to make absolutely sure there are no cyclists there, when all that will happen is other cyclists will whizz up the inside during this time??

techdiver

techdiver wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of anger on here from cyclists towards motorists in general. I have cycled for years and I will tell you that most of the bad behaviour on our roads is from cyclists, plain and simple. It's about time we drop this victim mentality and take responsibility for ourselves. Yes, there are idiot motorists out there, but some cyclists take the biscuit. You have the idiot cyclists with no clue, to the self righteous cyclist who thin

It's amazing how often we get informed opinions from real cyclists™ telling us how it's all cyclists fault:pac:

shootermacg

Chuchote wrote: »

A texting motorist got nine years in England for killing a cyclist:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/texting-motorist-given-nine-years-prison-killing-cyclist-282429?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

The cyclist might still be alive if he'd been banned for previous offences.

The sick thing for me is, he was allowed on the road after being caught 8 times texting and driving. Retroactive is wrong, if you're texting, using your phone, that should be a 4 week ban at the very least, just to hit you where it hurts.

guile4582

and they've decided to put cycle lane projects on hold.

cycling infastructure is a low priority for the government, despite all the benefits it brings to people and the city

sad really

it is going to be very difficult to convince people to start cycling to work with stories like that poor girl and news regarding cycle lanes.

I have been cycling in cities almost 10 years, I am lucky to not have had any major accidents but the amount of close calls is in the 100s

techdiver

ronoc wrote: »

It's amazing how often we get informed opinions from real cyclists™ telling us how it's all cyclists fault:pac:

Ok, I should have qualified it my "in my opinion". These are my observations over the years. Traffic lights are only a suggestion, even on dangerous junctions and especially at pedestrians crossings. Going up the inside of trucks and busses is the norm. Flying up the inside of cars that have indicated to go left well before you have reached them and then banging on the bonnet and scream ing at them. I've seen it all.

Once again though, I do accept that there are also bad motorists, whereby left wing mirrors are ornamental and not really to be used, etc. I've been a recipient of all these behaviours, including the usual taxi passing and then cutting across to collect a fare, or busses passing before cutting me off at a stop.

Pepe LeFrits

Firedance wrote: »

Actually there were far less cyclists on my commute this morning than on Tuesday..... I was expecting it to be chockablock! The quays were an absolute joy from the PP to O'Connell Bridge. That's just my trip of course and maybe there were more out later on. I certainly noticed a lot more pedestrians walking and the traffic through Castleknock and the PP was backed up much farther than usual.

It was chockablock on the quays when I was coming in this morning. I wouldn't get near the lights when stopped because there were so many bikes. My office parking lot is crammed with bikes too - normally there's an overflow (bikes left up against walls) of maybe 10 bikes; today I'd estimate maybe 40.

shootermacg

techdiver wrote: »

And for one poster who commented about blind spots. Yes, they are real and what would the point of a truck waiting at the light to make absolutely sure there are no cyclists there, when all that will happen is other cyclists will whizz up the inside during this time??

This has to be the statement of the month, listen bro, there's not some endless stream of bikes waiting to take advantage of the truck driver's good nature. If you think that the trucker should take the chance on killing someone to save himself ten seconds, you really shouldn't be entering into any discussions on road safety.

techdiver

shootermacg wrote: »

This has to be the statement of the month, listen bro, there's not some endless stream of bikes waiting to take advantage of the truck driver's good nature. If you think that the trucker should take the chance on killing someone to save himself ten seconds, you really shouldn't be entering into any discussions on road safety.

Judging by your tone, I can imagine what type of category of cyclist you fall into so. Let me guess you have many a run in with motorists on your travels that ends in either arguments, or angry exchanges??. I'll refrain from engaging any further so.

shootermacg

techdiver wrote: »

I'll refrain from engaging any further so.

The damage has already been done, but never the less a good outcome for everyone.

guile4582

techdiver wrote: »

Judging by your tone, I can imagine what type of category of cyclist you fall into so. Let me guess you have many a run in with motorists on your travels that ends in either arguments, or angry exchanges??. I'll refrain from engaging any further so.

give over

2RockMountain

techdiver wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of anger on here from cyclists towards motorists in general. I have cycled for years and I will tell you that most of the bad behaviour on our roads is from cyclists, plain and simple.

So, in your years of cycling, how many people have been killed or maimed by cyclists compared to the number killed or maimed by motorists?

guile4582

2RockMountain wrote: »

So, in your years of cycling, how many people have been killed or maimed by cyclists compared to the number killed or maimed by motorists?

I think out of respect for those you have died or had severe injuries as a result of accidents, the only way we will get some sort of progress is to end this "us and them" scenario...in the long run helps no one

I am a cyclist for 10 years plus as mentioned, I have seen some stupid cyclists as well as stupid motorists... we just need people to obey the rules of the road, that means all the rules of the road to begin with. From cyclists breaking lights, to motorists using mobiles to cyclists using mobiles (pet hate)

and lets take it from there....

seamus

techdiver wrote: »

I have cycled for years and I will tell you that most of the bad behaviour on our roads is from cyclists, plain and simple.

The statistics and reality would seem to indicate otherwise. Nobody has been killed by a cyclist in Dublin in at least 30 years.

Would I say that cyclists are impeccably behaved? Of course not. But nobody is. Cyclists are no better or worse than any other road users. The difference is that when a cyclist or a pedestrian makes a mistake, they're not in control of 1000kg+ of steel.

Those with larger vehicles have a greater duty of care. That's plain logic. But there seems to be this constant desire to pretend that it's cyclists who are the problem, they need to be more careful.

It's the same logic as, "that child shouldn't have been out playing, his parents should have been watching him, he wouldn't have been run over".

He who poses the biggest danger, has the biggest responsibility.

It's about time we drop this victim mentality and take responsibility for ourselves.

Who's "we". And how do you propose "we" take responsibility? Cyclists aren't an interconnected group with any kind of collective interaction or responsibility.
If there are changes to behaviour that need to be made, this needs to be done through policy and enforcement. The same way that we try to change the behaviour of any other road users.

If you think something needs to be done, then go talk to the Gardai and Shane Ross and ask them to take action.

And for one poster who commented about blind spots. Yes, they are real and what would the point of a truck waiting at the light to make absolutely sure there are no cyclists there, when all that will happen is other cyclists will whizz up the inside during this time??

So, he should just bull on? No bother waiting to see?

Surely he can see any cyclists approaching on his left and make provision?

Better yet, how about mirrors that give him full visibility around his truck? A novel idea! No, someone shouldn't cycle inside a truck, but that's kind of irrelevant. Road safety is as much about anticpating the mistakes of others as well as your own.

magicbastarder

techdiver wrote: »

Ok, I should have qualified it my "in my opinion". These are my observations over the years. Traffic lights are only a suggestion, even on dangerous junctions and especially at pedestrians crossings. Going up the inside of trucks and busses is the norm. Flying up the inside of cars that have indicated to go left well before you have reached them and then banging on the bonnet and scream ing at them. I've seen it all.

TfL did a study and found that in the majority of cases (i think about 60%) of fatality or serious injury, it was the driver of the motorised vehicle at fault in the incident.
so yes, you can argue that some cyclists are a menace, but claims that it's mainly the cyclist's fault (not saying this is your specific claim) are not borne out by the figures.

i don't think a similar study of the circumstances of such collisions in dublin is available.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

The statistics and reality would seem to indicate otherwise. Nobody has been killed by a cyclist in Dublin in at least 30 years.

14 years, iirc.

techdiver

2RockMountain wrote: »

So, in your years of cycling, how many people have been killed or maimed by cyclists compared to the number killed or maimed by motorists?

Not really comparable. Obviously a car and truck can do more damage when a collision happens, but my point is, many of these incidents can be avoided if you take care and don't put yourself in harm's way. I did point out that I agree that there are bad drivers out there and that I have encountered them, but I protect myself as much as possible by avoiding potential confrontation and being extra vigilant and not attempting stupid maneuvers that will put me at risk.

If we want things to improve, we need to engage on all front and look in house also. Picking fights with other road users only alienates cyclists and does nothing to build empathy between other road users and cyclists. When we dehumanise each other we make it easier not to care.

seamus

magicbastarder wrote: »

14 years, iirc.

I'll always dispute that one on the technicality that no collision took place.

magicbastarder

that's a cheap technicality. wouldn't have happened if the cyclist was not in the wrong, and i've only ever heard the lack of impact as hearsay.

if i am to take the hearsay at face value, the cyclist still caused the fall.

guile4582

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a cheap technicality. wouldn't have happened if the cyclist was not in the wrong, and i've only ever heard the lack of impact as hearsay.

if i am to take the hearsay at face value, the cyclist still caused the fall.

again whats the point of this arguing?

Zillah

seamus wrote: »

Counterintuitively, really, really ****ty driving weather is the safest.

This is a few pages back, but: that doesn't really make sense. It's not "safer", it just means there are less accidents because there are less cyclists. By the same logic you could say Russian roulette is safer than football because so few people play Russian roulette.

It's more or less safe if you count the accidents per cyclist, then you can apply that to how safe it is for any given person.