Cyclist killed in Dublin

Macy0161

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 think he owns the road and everyone should make way regardless.

Well I call bs. Motorist law breaking such as speeding has become so normalised it's not even considered as wrong.

seamus

Zillah wrote: »

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.

It depends on the definition of "safe", doesn't it?

It's statistically safer also for motorists. Even though it might actually result in more vehicle collisions, those collisions are slower and/or single-vehicle, so overall result in less deaths and injuries.

Would you say a given day has been "safer" if there have been less collisions per vehicle or less injuries per vehicle?

Playing with statistics, perhaps, but nevertheless what began the discussion was whether there appeared to be more accidents in recent weeks; and yes there has been, likely down to the good weather.

shootermacg

seamus wrote: »

It depends on the definition of "safe", doesn't it?

It's statistically safer also for motorists. Even though it might actually result in more vehicle collisions, those collisions are slower and/or single-vehicle, so overall result in less deaths and injuries.

Would you say a given day has been "safer" if there have been less collisions per vehicle or less injuries per vehicle?

Playing with statistics, perhaps, but nevertheless what began the discussion was whether there appeared to be more accidents in recent weeks; and yes there has been, likely down to the good weather.

I think the incidents are mostly down to more cars on the road (schools back) and increasing driver frustration at perceived hold-ups. The weather has been good all summer.

Zillah

seamus wrote: »

Would you say a given day has been "safer" if there have been less collisions per vehicle or less injuries per vehicle?

Either is fine as long as you are factoring in "per vehicle". I would not say a given day is more or less safe depending on total collisions or injuries without also taking into account how many cars there were on the road, which is what you originally did by saying "Counterintuitively, really, really ****ty driving weather is the safest." It might seem counterintuitive because it's not true. It's not safer, there are just less cyclists.

guile4582

**time to unfollow"

PaddyWilliams

You know what I'd love to see. The cyclists and the drivers who do actually do the right things, come up with a solution to weed out the messers in their respective modes of transport. The whole 'them against us' argument gets frustrating.
People from both sides do things so wrong at times.

average_runner

Macy0161 wrote: »

Well I call bs. Motorist law breaking such as speeding has become so normalised it's not even considered as wrong.

You can say the same about cyclists, up on footpaths, going thru red lights, on the wrong side of the road and not signalling when moving lane or making a turn.

average_runner

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

You know what I'd love to see. The cyclists and the drivers who do actually do the right things, come up with a solution to weed out the messers in their respective modes of transport. The whole 'them against us' argument gets frustrating.
People from both sides do things so wrong at times.

Agree, as long as we have them against us attitude it will never get sorted.

magicbastarder

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

You know what I'd love to see. The cyclists and the drivers who do actually do the right things, come up with a solution to weed out the messers in their respective modes of transport. The whole 'them against us' argument gets frustrating.
People from both sides do things so wrong at times.

again, most cyclists on this forum are also motorists, so there's not so much an 'us vs. them' mentality; more of an 'i've seen what it's like from both perspectives'.

though getting back to what new things can be done to improve behaviour, i am surprised i haven't heard more about the concept trialled maybe five years ago, possibly in sweden; where a speed camera recorded the reg plates of not just the cars breaking the limit, but of all cars passing it.
the reason being that if you drove past and did not break the limit, your reg plate was entered into a raffle to win the proceeds of the fines levied on the people who *did* break the limit.
so it was using both a carrot and a stick to encourage better behaviour, and not just the stick.
iirc, that section of road saw a marked reduction in speeding.

Fighting Tao

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

You know what I'd love to see. The cyclists and the drivers who do actually do the right things, come up with a solution to weed out the messers in their respective modes of transport. The whole 'them against us' argument gets frustrating.
People from both sides do things so wrong at times.

Is there anything to be said for saying another mass? Or else we could just have a hit squad going around assassinating them.

The only solution is enforcement of the laws that are currently in place and for vehicles with low visibility to be banned from town and city roads.

Chuchote

I cycled into town today. Traffic seemed to be going a lot faster than usual. At a couple of traffic jams I did something I don't normally do: glanced inside the cars to see what drivers who were driving alone were doing. On a rough guess, perhaps one in four was checking the mobile phone or talking on it.

Is life really so lonely?

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

Is life really so lonely?

no; they were just bored sitting in traffic staring at a steering wheel.

Macy0161

average_runner wrote:

You can say the same about cyclists, up on footpaths, going thru red lights, on the wrong side of the road and not signalling when moving lane or making a turn.

Well I don't think it is as normalised, and given the disproportionate amount of coverage cyclist law breaking gets I don't think it is accepted.

I don't recall ever seeing threads on the cycling forum giving out about enforcement on cycling offences (only that it was a disproportionate penalty when it was a court appearance rather than fixed penalty).

On the other hand, there's regularly threads in motors giving out about enforcement of speed limits. Posters were having a fit when they thought there was average speed cameras on the n7.

As for us and them. I mainly commute by car. If I have skin in the game, it's with the car for the foreseeable. I see more offences by motorised vehicles than cyclists on my commute. Speeding, red light jumping, mobile phone use, make up, shaving, blocking advance stop lines, blocking yellow boxes, entering mandatory cycle lanes, no indicators, illegal turns, parking on clearways. Every commute journey I will see several of those, sometimes them all.

It probably is us and them, as the majority of motorists are deluded about both their own personal behaviour, and in their road user class.

2RockMountain

techdiver wrote: »

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.

You started out with the comparisons, so I'm not sure why you're deciding now that they're not really comparable. Yes, obviously a car or truck can do more damage. And they do more damage, killing people each week on the roads. Cyclists don't.

So if we want to reduce road deaths, we need to focus on dangerous behaviours - the drivers that are killing people. If we want to reduce the blood pressure of George Hook listeners, we need to focus on cyclists breaking red lights (an action that is legal in many more enlightened countries). We can't prioritise both, so what's it going to be?

techdiver wrote: »

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.

This equating of risk - suggesting that cyclists are a menace on the road - is exactly what dehumanises cyclists and encourages and enables dangerous and careless driving around cyclists. It needs to be challenged, and we need to bring some evidence and facts to addressing this issue.

guile4582 wrote: »

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....

Yes, we've all seen stupid cyclists and stupid motorists and stupid pedestrians. But it's only the stupid drivers who kill people.

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

You know what I'd love to see. The cyclists and the drivers who do actually do the right things, come up with a solution to weed out the messers in their respective modes of transport. The whole 'them against us' argument gets frustrating.
People from both sides do things so wrong at times.

You've completely fallen into your own 'us against them' trap by referring to cyclists and drivers. Almost every adult cyclist also drives, and understands what is involved with getting behind the wheel. The reverse is not true.

There is no collective responsibility here. I'm no more responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists than I am responsible for the behaviour of the drivers who killed 4 or 5 people on the road this week.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

no; they were just bored sitting in traffic staring at a steering wheel.

Paused at a traffic light for 30 seconds or so.

Fighting Tao

Chuchote wrote: »

Paused at a traffic light for 30 seconds or so.

Sadly the average attention span has dropped dramatically.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

Paused at a traffic light for 30 seconds or so.

you mentioned them being caught in a traffic jam though.
i dunno; i just find a lot of the 'look at these people wedded to their phones' commentary a bit annoying. i use my phone on the bus into town; checking the irish news, the guardian (i'm a typical guardian reader) and facebook. when until a few years ago were you able to tap so easily into the world around you?
it's not all taking photos of your food and posting it to instagram.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mentioned them being caught in a traffic jam though.
i dunno; i just find a lot of the 'look at these people wedded to their phones' commentary a bit annoying. i use my phone on the bus into town; checking the irish news, the guardian (i'm a typical guardian reader) and facebook. when until a few years ago were you able to tap so easily into the world around you?
it's not all taking photos of your food and posting it to instagram.

My mistake; wasn't a traffic jam, was people waiting at a red light.

You shouldn't be using your phone when you're guiding a couple of tonnes of metal, if you'll excuse my saying so.

Limestone1

seamus wrote: »

No, someone shouldn't cycle inside a truck, but that's kind of irrelevant. .

It isn't. Most cyclists killed on the road happen this way. Cyclists should never cycle up the inside of a truck.

Chuchote

Limestone1 wrote: »

It isn't. Most cyclists killed on the road happen this way. Cyclists should never cycle up the inside of a truck.

I keep well back from trucks, buses, coaches and any big vehicle for this very reason.

But big trucks shouldn't be on busy city roads. We think they should because we're used to seeing them there, but they shouldn't. It's bad planning, bad use of space, bad dealing with human lives.

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

I keep well back from trucks, buses, coaches and any big vehicle for this very reason.

But big trucks shouldn't be on busy city roads. We think they should because we're used to seeing them there, but they shouldn't. It's bad planning, bad use of space, bad dealing with human lives.

As an absolute declaration, this is somewhat myopic, IMHO. I won't disagree that we have too many HGVs in Dublin city centre for various reasons, but the realities of life are that for as long as we build and redevelop city centres, there will always be a need for some large trucks within those city centres. Perhaps not articulated lorries such as those on the quays (though some plant machinery may still necessitate them), but any of the trucks delivering to building sites are still more than large enough to do serious harm to any cyclist or pedestrian that gets too close and/or finds themselves in the wrong place, and plenty of their cargoes are too large for any smaller vehicle.

Macy0161

Chuchote wrote: »

My mistake; wasn't a traffic jam, was people waiting at a red light.

You shouldn't be using your phone when you're guiding a couple of tonnes of metal, if you'll excuse my saying so.

The problem with drivers using phones at lights isnt so much when they're stopped imo, its that the light goes green, they fumble around and panic and drive straight away - checking mirrors or blind spots doesn't enter their head.

At lights is one thing, but the numbers driving around one handed is ridiculous. Ignoring the distraction of making or taking calls anyway - they have a €700 phone, and can't even be bothered with a €10 phone holder. Or setting up bluetooth which must be in some of the cars that you see.

Chuchote

cython wrote: »

As an absolute declaration, this is somewhat myopic, IMHO. I won't disagree that we have too many HGVs in Dublin city centre for various reasons, but the realities of life are that for as long as we build and redevelop city centres, there will always be a need for some large trucks within those city centres. Perhaps not articulated lorries such as those on the quays (though some plant machinery may still necessitate them), but any of the trucks delivering to building sites are still more than large enough to do serious harm to any cyclist or pedestrian that gets too close and/or finds themselves in the wrong place, and plenty of their cargoes are too large for any smaller vehicle.

Then let's do what the Romans did and have all deliveries at night.

Macy0161 wrote: »

The problem with drivers using phones at lights isnt so much when they're stopped imo, its that the light goes green, they fumble around and panic and drive straight away - checking mirrors or blind spots doesn't enter their head.

At lights is one thing, but the numbers driving around one handed is ridiculous. Ignoring the distraction of making or taking calls anyway - they have a €700 phone, and can't even be bothered with a €10 phone holder. Or setting up bluetooth which must be in some of the cars that you see.

There's really no place for a phone in the car. Sure, have it in the car, turned off, but don't talk on it, don't text on it, don't check the weather or the traffic on it. You can do all that before you start driving, or in extreme cases you can pull in, turn on the phone, check what you urgently need to know, turn off the phone and, with normal caution, draw out again.

People tend to treat their tonnes-of-metal cars as if they're a kind of carapace, essentially part of their body. If they were handling a similar amount of metal and power in work to produce goods of high monetary value, no way would they use a distracting phone.

Wishbone Ash

Macy0161 wrote: »

... they have a €700 phone, and can't even be bothered with a €10 phone holder. Or setting up bluetooth which must be in some of the cars that you see.

Many of those phones are probably work phones. I'm not sure if you can link up 2 separate phones t0 a vehicle's bluetooth system. I know my wife's doesn't accept 2 phones. My employer provides phones but not any additional accessories for hand's free driving.

shootermacg

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Many of those phones are probably work phones. I'm not sure if you can link up 2 separate phones t0 a vehicle's bluetooth system. I know my wife's doesn't accept 2 phones. My employer provides phones but not any additional accessories for hand's free driving.

Who cares, even if the pope was to call you, its breaking the law to answer.

magicbastarder

it's considered a disciplinary offence where i work to answer the phone while driving. more a statement of intent than something is policed (or policeable) i suspect.

Chuchote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Many of those phones are probably work phones. I'm not sure if you can link up 2 separate phones t0 a vehicle's bluetooth system. I know my wife's doesn't accept 2 phones. My employer provides phones but not any additional accessories for hand's free driving.

Even hands-free driving while talking on the phone isn't really safe. You go into automatic mode, rather than being alert to take life-changing decisions.

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

Then let's do what the Romans did and have all deliveries at night.

Well at least you agree that a blanket ban across the city centre isn't feasible, I guess. To be honest, given the chaos and hassle caused by delivery drivers abandoning their vehicles in bus and cycle lanes on a daily basis, night time deliveries (across the board, not just to building sites) are not necessarily a bad thing. However night-time deliveries probably won't work for restaurants, pubs, night clubs, etc. whose busy period falls in that window. Not really sure how the Romans handled that, but even aside from these particular businesses, a combination of late shopping hours and the lack of 24 hour public transport in Dublin and other Irish cities probably makes this unworkable for many other businesses too, as if deliveries are done late enough, the employees are left with no way home afterwards. This is already an issue for people working in late-opening industries, but would become a much broader issue if everything were shifted to night time, though this might also incentivise the provision of 24 hour PT - something of a chicken and egg situation really though.

In any case, while it may seem like I'm out to find fault with every suggestion, really I'm trying to illustrate the need for a balance in any proposed solution, as well as the importance of considering real world factors and constraints in identifying an incremental approach and solution. Many of the idyllic solutions will take many years before we can ever hope to see them implemented, but (and without precluding those ideal solutions), there are a number of simpler options which could be implemented tomorrow, were there a will, and I'd be of the view we should target these low-hanging fruit first, and work towards the ideal in parallel, rather than simply clamouring for the grandiose.

Wishbone Ash

shootermacg wrote: »

Who cares, even if the pope was to call you, its breaking the law to answer.

I was merely explaining why some people don't have the system Bluetoothed to their vehicle. At no point did I say it was safe. Don't shoot the messenger!

cython

shootermacg wrote: »

Who cares, even if the pope was to call you, its breaking the law to answer.

At the risk of being pedantic, there is an exemption for driving while on the phone to the emergency services, so while i'm sure this is the case for pretty much none of those observed, were you to answer a number you knew to be to Gardai, for example, it might not be illegal (I'm honestly not 100% sure if the exemption is exclusively for making a call, or whether it applies to receiving too)