Journalism and cycling

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

If you don't mind I will take care to be visible and my kids to be visible on the part of the road I deem dangerous. I prefer not to be statistic someone like you will be able to use to bang on about how drivers don't know how to drive. But if you want to volunteer yourself and walk down the road where we live dressed in black waiting to be moved down be my guest. Maybe something good will come out of your sacrifice but I would rather not do it myself, thank you very much.

Edit: and just to add, I explained why I consider Irish country roads much more dangerous. it's fine if you don't believe me but I can only compare my experiences. I'm not a hi wiz enthusiast but I feel it is necessary where I live now, I didn't feel that where I used to live despite much worse driver behaviour.

Do you wear a high-vis to be seen in general or specifically because traffic frequently moves at inappropriate speeds such that without it you won't be seen?
If traffic drove at a speed that suited the conditions and drivers were anticipating pedestrians (so drove giving space and appropriate braking distances, etc), would you continue to wear high-vis?
Even wearing high-vis, have you experienced close shaves? Were these close shaves your fault?

meeeeh wrote: »

No I didn't. I just have experience of dark roads, overgrown hedges that can't be cut half of the year and blind corners. I use that road as cyclist, driver, pedestrian, runner and adapt to situation but that doesn't mean I consider it safe.

Why is it not safe? Who should the RSA be targetting to make it safe? Pedestrians?

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't get you here at all, it is for the most part driver behaviour that drives the need for Hi Vis (pointless in lit up areas at night BTW) and torches.

All I can say is that visibility on Irish roads is much worse and there is no path after the white line or edge of the road where you can walk on. If you think that's not a design flaw fine but I can go only on what I experienced and what I deem safe.

Hurrache

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Who should the RSA be targetting to make it safe? Pedestrians?

Seems so, you're not even safe walking on pavements with all the cars and trucks randomly mounting footpads.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1046776760849829888

Rechuchote

meeeeh wrote: »

You would want to negotiate with local farmers and more importantly environmentalists to cut down the ditches significantly. Outside of the towns it would be incredibly expensive in Ireland. We actually live in village but there are parts of the road when you walk the dog that are designed completely unsuitably for pedestrians. Yes ideal it would be to redevelop the roads but I can understand why high viz is encouraged where we live. You also need a torch, that is non negotiable.

It's ok to use compulsory purchase in Dublin, but not in rural Ireland, eh?

meeeeh

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Do you wear a high-vis to be seen in general or specifically because traffic frequently moves at inappropriate speeds such that without it you won't be seen?
If traffic drove at a speed that suited the conditions and drivers were anticipating pedestrians (so drove giving space and appropriate braking distances, etc), would you continue to wear high-vis?
Even wearing high-vis, have you experienced close shaves? Were these close shaves your fault?
Why is it not safe? Who should the RSA be targetting to make it safe? Pedestrians?

1. I wear high viz on a country road with high hedges in the dark.
2. I'm making sure that even if traffic doesn't drive at speed suitable to the conditions I have a chance to be seen.
3. I didn't experience any close shaves and I don't want to. The aim is too avoid them.
4. Pedestrians should adopt to road conditions too.

And now a question for you, on what side of the white line on the road in the link would you walk? And do you notice the distinct lack of greenery by the side of the road?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-austria-tyrol-close-innsbruck-country-road-view-karwendel-europe-nordtirol-140551608.html

meeeeh

Rechuchote wrote: »

It's ok to use compulsory purchase in Dublin, but not in rural Ireland, eh?

Will you pay for it?

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

All I can say is that visibility on Irish roads is much worse and there is no path after the white line or edge of the road where you can walk on. If you think that's not a design flaw fine but I can go only on what I experienced and what I deem safe.

It is a design flaw if you were building it now, but these were built initially when there were no cars on the road, fastest vehicles probably not faster than 30kmph (and that is at a stretch), people walked home without lights and Hi Vis. To retroactively fit such infrastructure in Ireland is ridiculous for several reasons, cost aside though, the environmental damage would be catastrophic.

The truth is though, with what we have, those roads could be made far safer for pedestrians and cyclists, by simply altering one thing. Typical drivers behaviour. It would cost little if people went along with it. As smart cars come more into use, it may be alot easier to do in a few years.

I understand why you use Hi Vis and Lights and think Irish roads are unsafe but just to be clear, you not wearing Hi Vis does not make them more dangerous, it just means in a set of very narrow circumstances, the cause of the danger may move that danger slightly away from you (although in my experience, not by much).

Would country roads be safer if every car was fitted with a speed limiter that topped out at 30kmph on anything other than motorways and national roads? Would roads be safer if sensors detected a driver falling asleep or drunk, and gave a timeout to engine cut off (or warned them that if they did not pull over and turn off the engine in 2 minutes, the Insurance company would be notified (far more terrifying than calling the Gardai)).

Duckjob

Hurrache wrote: »

Seems so, you're not even safe walking on pavements with all the cars and trucks randomly mounting footpads.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1046776760849829888

Jesus, that's depressing.

We have a transport infrastructure that makes it acceptable to tell people they need to "armour up" before they go out for a walk.

Rechuchote

meeeeh wrote: »

Will you pay for it?

Cycling and walking are incredibly cheaper for society than driving.

An initial compulsory purchase of strips alongside roads will be paid back by years of cheaper healthcare (cyclists and walkers are less likely to become or stay obese or to contract type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer and a host of associated illnesses, and more likely to survive them; fewer road "accidents" means less hospital treatment and less treatment for depression and other mental illness for survivors and relatives); cheaper road costs (cyclists and walkers cause virtually no road wear); more productivity (cyclists and walkers get ill less often and recover better); better localism (cyclists and walkers will attract shops, restaurants and cafes to local areas rather than sending people to some bleak shopping estate)…

Duckjob wrote: »

Jesus, that's depressing.

We have a transport infrastructure that makes it acceptable to tell people they need to "armour up" before they go out for a walk.

At least it's not America. There, we'd be told to arm, arm, he cried, for they've come to kill you, for walkers' freedom, we'll fight or die.

Hurrache

Rechuchote wrote: »

It's ok to use compulsory purchase in Dublin, but not in rural Ireland, eh?

In fairness I'd have an issue myself with the removal of many ditches.

Rechuchote

Hurrache wrote: »

In fairness I'd have an issue myself with the removal of many ditches.

Wouldn't have to be removal of ditches - it would be possible and socially good to buy a strip along the inside of ditches and hedges to make a walking/cycling lane.

meeeeh

Rechuchote wrote: »

Wouldn't have to be removal of ditches - it would be possible and socially good to buy a strip along the inside of ditches and hedges to make a walking/cycling lane.

Tell them to put down decent fiber and underground electricity cables too while they are at it.

Hurrache

Rechuchote wrote: »

Wouldn't have to be removal of ditches - it would be possible and socially good to buy a strip along the inside of ditches and hedges to make a walking/cycling lane.

I wouldn't agree that it's socially good, hedgerows and ditches are massively important to our eco system, you can't just cut a strip away from one.

Anyway, it shows you how bad it is that we're even discussing the destruction of them in order to facility the importance of the car over everyone else.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that it's socially good, hedgerows and ditches are massively important to our eco system, you can't just cut a strip away from one.

Anyway, it shows you how bad it is that we're even discussing the destruction of them in order to facility the importance of the car over everyone else.

So you don't want roads to be made safer and you get outraged when pedestrians are asked to adapt to the conditions on the roads to make themselves safer? OK.

Rechuchote

Hurrache wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that it's socially good, hedgerows and ditches are massively important to our eco system, you can't just cut a strip away from one.

Anyway, it shows you how bad it is that we're even discussing the destruction of them in order to facility the importance of the car over everyone else.

Absolutely agree with you - and I wasn't suggesting destroying them, of course not. I was suggesting that they should stay in place, and a strip behind them, parallel with the road, should be made into cycling and walking infrastructure.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

So you don't want roads to be made safer and you get outraged when pedestrians are asked to adapt to the conditions on the roads to make themselves safer? OK.

I don't recall saying any of that?

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't recall saying any of that?

What are you saying then? That we should just rely on drivers always being 100% attentive, never loose moment of concentration, have excellent eyesight and never make a mistake. You can do that, I won't.

As for separate cycling and walking paths, I would be delighted. Realistically though Ireland is low population density country with people spread out. I don't think it will happen any time soon judging by the rural wifi project. Similarly overhead electricity lines aren't that common on continent either for decades. I can only assume that there is either no political will or too expensive to do it in Ireland.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

What are you saying then? That we should just rely on drivers always being 100% attentive, never loose moment of concentration, have excellent eyesight and never make a mistake. You can do that, I won't.

As for separate cycling and walking paths, I would be delighted. Realistically though Ireland is low population density country with people spread out. I don't think it will happen any time soon judging by the rural wifi project. Similarly overhead electricity lines aren't that common on continent either for decades. I can only assume that there is either no political will or too expensive to do it in Ireland.

How about we just speed limit cars and actually start enforcing the RTA for poor driving. A car doing 80 on a windy country road isn't going to miss you because of Hi Vis, they are going to hit you because they are not driving for the conditions. I agree with you about helping yourself but implying that is that is ridiculous. That should be an interim measure (that can continue after its needed if you want), until drivers are brought to account for poor behaviour. All of which is easily done only there is no political will for it

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

How about we just speed limit cars and actually start enforcing the RTA for poor driving. A car doing 80 on a windy country road isn't going to miss you because of Hi Vis, they are going to hit you because they are not driving for the conditions. I agree with you about helping yourself but implying that is that is ridiculous. That should be an interim measure (that can continue after its needed if you want), until drivers are brought to account for poor behaviour. All of which is easily done only there is no political will for it

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

xckjoo

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

Speed limits aren't a target. If visibility is poor we're supposed to slow our speed to account for it. That's the theory anyway. Doesn't seem to happen much in real life.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

They are breakign the law though, and people, including the gardai forget this. They still must drive with due care and attention, as well as a host of other laws.

Long story short, if driving , you must be driving at a speed, that if you dropped anchor, you would stop in the space you can observe to be clear, simples.

cdaly_

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

This speed limit sign says "drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions". If they've killed you, they weren't. Simple as...

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

Long story short, if driving , you must be driving at a speed, that if you dropped anchor, you would stop in the space you can observe to be clear, simples.

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

xckjoo

meeeeh wrote: »

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

No because you're supposed to drive with "due care" or whatever the wording is. There's no condition where you would reasonably expect to come across someone lying in the middle of the road in the dark so you wouldn't expect people to drive with that expectation.

Eamonnator

meeeeh wrote: »

How will you bring driver to account if speed limit is 80. Personally I think it's too high and should be lowered but they are not breaking the law. But it still doesn't change the facts roads in Ireland have very poor visibility. I posted a photo earlier and that would be fairly representative photo of how little hedging etc is actually around the road. That type of roads are much safer.

A driver can be held to account for his driving in other ways apart from his speed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/53/enacted/en/html

Dangerous driving covers other aspects of driving, eg. road conditions, weather conditions, condition of the vehicle, other traffic, use of the vehicle etc. etc.
In some cases driving at 60kph in an 80kph zone could be proved to be dangerous or careless driving.

Eamonnator

meeeeh wrote: »

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

Can you show me, where it says, that it is illegal to dress in dark clothes?

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

So if someone is lying on the the road in the dark, dressed in dark clothing which is illegal it is drivers fault if they hit them because they didn't see them. It's an extreme example but the attitude here seems to be very extreme. Personally I believe in adapting to the conditions for everyone not just drivers.

What your stating is the wild assumption that people cannot see someone with their full beams on unless they have Hi Vis, I challenge you that such a person should not be driving as they have poor eyesight.

Your example is extreme, but lets say it is a blind bend and the pedestrian collapses and is wearing Hi Vis but because the driver came round the corner at 80 rather than 40, they were not able to stop in time when they did see them.

I am not against Hi Vis, certainly pro lights for the benefits it brings on top of making you visible (being able to see rather than just be seen) but letting some people off the hook because a driver was driving to fast, all because someone forgot a Hi Vis, even though it was a clear night and if they were paying attention, they would have seen them.

It is not like these cars are driving off road, through forests. They are on surfaced roads, with a clear and predictable pattern as to what is next if they are driving with due care and attention.

AndrewJRenko

xckjoo wrote: »

No because you're supposed to drive with "due care" or whatever the wording is. There's no condition where you would reasonably expect to come across someone lying in the middle of the road in the dark so you wouldn't expect people to drive with that expectation.

Though you should be driving with the expectation that there could well be a slow tractor round the next bend, or a crashed car, or a bunch of hillwalkers or whatever.

magicbastarder

xckjoo wrote: »

There's no condition where you would reasonably expect to come across someone lying in the middle of the road in the dark so you wouldn't expect people to drive with that expectation.

you don't drive 'expecting' that situation, you drive such as you can deal with that situation.
if your headlights are insufficient to pick out a human sized lump in the road ahead, less than braking distance based on the speed you are doing, you are either driving too fast for the conditions, or your lights are illegally defective.

Fighting Tao

meeeeh wrote: »

1. I wear high viz on a country road with high hedges in the dark.
2. I'm making sure that even if traffic doesn't drive at speed suitable to the conditions I have a chance to be seen.
3. I didn't experience any close shaves and I don't want to. The aim is too avoid them.
4. Pedestrians should adopt to road conditions too.

And now a question for you, on what side of the white line on the road in the link would you walk? And do you notice the distinct lack of greenery by the side of the road?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-austria-tyrol-close-innsbruck-country-road-view-karwendel-europe-nordtirol-140551608.html

Since when are white lines force fields?