Journalism and cycling

mr spuckler

Macy0161 wrote: »

Zebra crossings should be the answer. My experience in my village, and even around town, is that drivers don't know the rules and are just as likely to carry on through whether you've stepped on the crossing or not.

I think that drivers know the rules but just don't give a sh1t about them, with a complete lack of enforcement being at least a partial contributor to why this is the case.

mr spuckler

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is on page 18.

In some instances, no culpability may be determined (e.g. hit and run)

CramCycle

mr spuckler wrote: »

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is

They would have to put in some extra spaces in their next sheet and I suspect the statisticians they use are already on the edge of what their minds can tolerate considering some of the rubbish they have spewed over the years

CramCycle

Another favourite:
• The majority of pedestrian fatalities take place in darkness, with very low levels of highvisibility clothing being worn*.
• The majority of pedestrian fatalities take place on urban roads.

But most Urban areas are well lit, while it would be fair to say reduced visibility, it is unfair to imply that they were essentially swanning about in the pitch black.

They like to state facts that suit a certain headline of the week, and do not seem to want to scratch the surface of anything that would not fit with their predetermined view. It is something they warn all scientists and report writers about at some point. If you have a viewpoint, and you go looking for answers that will back up that viewpoint, you will find them, even if the overall picture is that your view is incorrect. I am guilty of it myself in over the counter discussions but these lot bring it to a new level.

And imply is something they do so well, it is like reading a masterclass in tabloid headlines, not stating anything incorrect but implying something that is untrue or unproven.

JMcL

mr spuckler wrote: »

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is

That's shocking. Put together by the bould Dr Aoife K.so really again it's a case of "Is there anything to be said for a bit more Hi-Vis?"

Seriously though - 70% of cases it's the victims fault - WTF? Of the whopping 24% of drivers deemed culpable (what about the drivers in the 70%), 54% failed to observe, quarter were uninsured, 17% had defects on the vehicle, and the majority of 15% of them (whatever that means) were twice over the limit (lack of proof reading as well - limit is 50mg/100ml - which in fairness has decreased over the past few years, the RSA quote 100mg/ml which I imagine is well beyond a fatal dose!). Yet these trail in at the last point in the key findings. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed with this lot in charge of strategy

RacoonQueen

Jayz

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1046708247896485890

buffalo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Zebra crossings should be the answer. My experience in my village, and even around town, is that drivers don't know the rules and are just as likely to carry on through whether you've stepped on the crossing or not.

I contacted the council about zebra crossings in my area. Their reply was

Dublin City Council does not recommend Zebra Crossings for public roads in their charge in their administrative area as they may provide a false sense of safety for pedestrians. In Ireland, a pedestrian does not have the right-of-way until they have already stepped onto a Zebra Crossing. For this reason, Dublin City Council’s preferred option is for crossings where the onus is unambiguously on the driver to stop.

There's potential for a pedestrian campaign here to get right of way when you are approaching a zebra crossing, and to make their use more commonplace in urban environments where speed should be low anyway.

JMcL

buffalo wrote: »

I contacted the council about zebra crossings in my area. Their reply was



There's potential for a pedestrian campaign here to get right of way when you are approaching a zebra crossing, and to make their use more commonplace in urban environments where speed should be low anyway.

Absolutely, pedestrians should have priority in urban areas. Certainly there's a case for an increased onus of care on drivers if somebody does get knocked on one. Drivers should be aware somebody's potentially about to cross, and be ready to act. Then you have the gob****es who decide to park on or beside crossings blocking visibility completely with no sanctions. I see it every day

Hungrycol

I think, from what I have read above, is that the authorities believed to be easier to change pedestrians (and cyclists) behaviour than it is the drivers behaviour. Which is strange because drivers are also pedestrians sometimes too. 🤔

Macy0161

buffalo wrote: »

There's potential for a pedestrian campaign here to get right of way when you are approaching a zebra crossing, and to make their use more commonplace in urban environments where speed should be low anyway.

I was aware of the no right of way until you step on the crossing. Unfortunately my experience is that many motorists aren't aware that once you step on, they have to stop.

Chips Lovell

mr spuckler wrote: »

I also read a tweet earlier saying that hit &runs were excluded from the RSA analysis in terms of assigning culpability. I need to have a look later to confirm if that is the case...

edit...that didn't take long. here it is on page 18.

It's only 2% though, so even if all were assigned to one category or the other, it wouldn't make a massive difference to the overall breakdown.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

I was aware of the no right of way until you step on the crossing. Unfortunately my experience is that many motorists aren't aware that once you step on, they have to stop.

Me too but I know you would fail your test if you went through as a pedestrian was approaching or about to step onto it as you would not be able to stop in time anyway. Imagine you are doing 50kmph, and there is a zebra crossing ahead and you see a pedestrian approaching it and they will reach it either just before you, at the same time or while you are crossing. The implication here is that they will take the right of way, away from you, so you must drive to the conditions.

It is a similar to the speed limit being a limit not a target, you can legally drive at 80kmph on some country roads but several, where there are blind bends, tight turns etc. you would be breaking the law dud to not driving for the conditions.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

you can legally drive at 80kmph on some country roads but several, where there are blind bends, tight turns etc. you would be breaking the law dud to not driving for the conditions.

Which is where the RSA should be focusing, but really won't grasp the nettle. I've said before, anything that focuses on, never mind enforces, motorists behaviour is politically toxic in this state. It says much about the lack of independence of the RSA that they won't tackle this, call for more camera enforcement, ANPR etc.. Half arsed calls for more in the traffic corp is as far as they'll go.

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's only 2% though, so even if all were assigned to one category or the other, it wouldn't make a massive difference to the overall breakdown.

Hard to tell from their wording, a hit and run should still be able to assign blame in many cases (eg witnesses, forensics etc.). They exclude 15% of fatalities off the bat. There is also the issue that they give the impression that a large amount of accidents are solely attributable to one factor, trying to simplify a huge task. They also give no indication of what they consider culpability. If a pedestrian has no hi vis, does that make them culpable automatically?

It is pretty lazy and you would get far better reports from the Young Scientist competition, than these professional stats. I don't know Dr. Aoife Kervick or her background, but it does seem that there is a heavy bias in the way the PR reports are put together.

what_traffic

Macy0161 wrote: »

Which is where the RSA should be focusing, but really won't grasp the nettle. I've said before, anything that focuses on, never mind enforces, motorists behaviour is politically toxic in this state. It says much about the lack of independence of the RSA that they won't tackle this, call for more camera enforcement, ANPR etc.. Half arsed calls for more in the traffic corp is as far as they'll go.

True - but who is paying them? They are "looking after" there clients. The group who pays for the salary's.
Follow the money, they get all money now independent of central Government.

The remit of the RSA needs to be split in two.Road Licensing and Safe Transport/Road Safety should be brought back under Dept of Transport

Seth Brundle

Macy0161 wrote: »

I was aware of the no right of way until you step on the crossing. Unfortunately my experience is that many motorists aren't aware that once you step on, they have to stop.

Oh I think they're aware. There is just nobody to enforce the rule and it's therefore easier to ignore it.
I say this as someone who consistently exceeds the posted speed that I (and I believe all the others who do so) break the law because the law is so poorly enforced.

CramCycle

Undoubtedly, its the reason why we (as a generalisation of the nation) look like we don't speed much. It is because we know where speed vans are, therefore people tend to drive under the limit in those areas, nothing to do with being safe, 100% to do with being caught.

Macy0161

I'm not claiming to be the perfect driver, but I really don't have a problem with more enforcement. I'm in the village facebook group, the same ones posting about "flash for cash" on the main road, are the same ones giving out about people speeding in the estate. A bit like "someone else" should be paying taxes, "someone else" should modify their behaviour/ feel the force of the law.

magicbastarder

In spain, the speed limit system is very bloody annoying. On roads which usually have a limit of 80, the limit drops to 60 at every junction. And I mean every junction, so the speed limit yoyos like you wouldn't believe. Up to five times a kilometre.

Doc07

Bit late here but just to add my 2cents that the pedestrian road deaths item that on the RTÉ news at 9 last night has to be one of the most piss poor efforts I’ve ever seen. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall any mention of the cars (and drivers) that hit the pedestrians. Even fthe drivers involved were driving legally and sensibly it should have been in the intro.
You could have watched that piece and thought they all fell over and banged their heads.

Corca Baiscinn

Rechuchote wrote: »

The RSA think inside the car, rather than thinking outside the box. Every statement they make is from the point of view of a driver.

They recently had a scold about how old people are slow on the road and should take extra care crossing. Now, the reason that old people get hit by cars is that as you age, your ability to judge distances declines, so it's harder to see how far a car is from you. Same applies to children

The obvious advertising campaign would be "Drivers: be careful when old people are crossing: slow right down." But no, they went for "Old people, be careful crossing."

Yes and delayed reaction times of children and the elderly also an argument for lower speed limits in urban areas in the first place. Helps vulnerable pedestrians/cyclists but leads to quieter, more liveable communities for all

Pinch Flat

We and the uk must surely be the only European countries with the hi vis obsession, especially when it comes to road safety. Although from memory when driving in France a hi vis was needed in case of breakdown. But I’ve driven the length and breath of France and rarely seen hi vis either on cyclists or pedestrians

RacoonQueen

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Although from memory when driving in France a hi vis was needed in case of breakdown

Also required here for PSV drivers
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/spsv-vehicle-licensing/safety-equipment/

P_1

CramCycle wrote: »

Me too but I know you would fail your test if you went through as a pedestrian was approaching or about to step onto it as you would not be able to stop in time anyway. Imagine you are doing 50kmph, and there is a zebra crossing ahead and you see a pedestrian approaching it and they will reach it either just before you, at the same time or while you are crossing. The implication here is that they will take the right of way, away from you, so you must drive to the conditions.

It is a similar to the speed limit being a limit not a target, you can legally drive at 80kmph on some country roads but several, where there are blind bends, tight turns etc. you would be breaking the law dud to not driving for the conditions.

Slight tangent but I got failed on a driving test once for driving too far to the left of the lane. The delightful tester would not hear a word of my explanation that I was leaving space for any cyclists I would encounter

Seth Brundle

P_1 wrote: »

Slight tangent but I got failed on a driving test once for driving too far to the left of the lane. The delightful tester would not hear a word of my explanation that I was leaving space for any cyclists I would encounter

Driving too far to the left helps cyclists?
Do you drive a taxi perhaps?

Rechuchote

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Driving too far to the left helps cyclists?
Do you drive a taxi perhaps?

Or perhaps did the test in a country where people drive on the right?

P_1

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Driving too far to the left helps cyclists?
Do you drive a taxi perhaps?

Derp, this is what happens when you post when tired. Too far to the right, not to the left!

Arcade_Tryer

P_1 wrote: »

Slight tangent but I got failed on a driving test once for driving too far to the left of the lane. The delightful tester would not hear a word of my explanation that I was leaving space for any cyclists I would encounter

Tester was probably right to be fair. It's not your place to correct poor or inadequate infrastructure with your road positioning, even if your intentions are good. If there had been cyclists on your left, then you might have had a case for staying more to the right, or you could have just remained behind them and overtaken when safe to do so. Sorry for being a killjoy.

CramCycle

P_1 wrote: »

Derp, this is what happens when you post when tired. Too far to the right, not to the left!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIMg2Xw4_8s

what_traffic

Pinch Flat wrote: »

We and the uk must surely be the only European countries with the hi vis obsession, especially when it comes to road safety.

Agree.
Who is supplying all the HI-Viz VESTS to the RSA (in Ballina, Mayo)?
What Company?
What Country and County have they there Worldwide Headquarters based in?