Journalism and cycling

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?

meeeeh

Eamonnator wrote: »

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

Nowhere, I meant it's illegal to lie on the road but you knew that you just took a cheap shot at my English not being as good as of a native speaker. Is that how you silence any opinion that isn't differs from yours?

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Well the law disagrees with you. There are plenty of examples where drivers were not prosecuted if someone was hit when trying to commit suicide or lying on the road drunk.

magicbastarder

what isn't successfully prosecuted is not an infallible guide for what is legal.

meeeeh

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Since when are white lines force fields?

That's why people in other countries don't wear hi viz. Pedestrians and drivers understand where each of them is supposed to drive or walk and they have the facility to do so.

Fighting Tao

meeeeh wrote: »

That's why people in other countries don't wear hi viz. Pedestrians and drivers understand where each of them is supposed to drive or walk and they have the facility to do so.

What country are the white lines force fields? I’d like to see it.

Drivers here know what they should be doing on the road but in truth most couldn’t give a crap. Hi vis will not make you any safer. If I driver is not looking, they won’t see you.

meeeeh

Fighting Tao wrote: »

What country are the white lines force fields? I’d like to see it.

Those nasty people in Europe say you should use road verge. (Or you are making a point I don't understand, I'm not sure what force field is).

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/special_regulations_for_pedestrians_and_cyclists/traffic_rules_for_pedestrians_en

Traffic rules for pedestrians
In addition to the rules which normally apply to all public highway users, according to the Vienna Convention, pedestrians are subject to specific rules defined in their national legislation in order to ensure that they can travel safely and easily:

If, at the side of the carriageway, there are pavements (sidewalks) or suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them. Nevertheless, if they take the necessary precautions:
(a) Pedestrians pushing or carrying bulky objects may use the carriageway if they would severely inconvenience other pedestrians by walking on the pavement (sidewalk) or verge;

(b) Groups of pedestrians led by a person in charge or forming a procession may walk on the carriageway.

If it is not possible to use pavements (sidewalks) or verges, or if none is provided, pedestrians may walk on the carriageway; where there is a cycle track and the density of traffic so permits, they may walk on the cycle track, but shall not obstruct cycle and moped traffic in doing so.

Fighting Tao

meeeeh wrote: »

Those nasty people in Europe say you should use road verge. (Or you are making a point I don't understand, I'm not sure what force field is).

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/special_regulations_for_pedestrians_and_cyclists/traffic_rules_for_pedestrians_en

Traffic rules for pedestrians
In addition to the rules which normally apply to all public highway users, according to the Vienna Convention, pedestrians are subject to specific rules defined in their national legislation in order to ensure that they can travel safely and easily:

If, at the side of the carriageway, there are pavements (sidewalks) or suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them. Nevertheless, if they take the necessary precautions:
(a) Pedestrians pushing or carrying bulky objects may use the carriageway if they would severely inconvenience other pedestrians by walking on the pavement (sidewalk) or verge;

(b) Groups of pedestrians led by a person in charge or forming a procession may walk on the carriageway.

If it is not possible to use pavements (sidewalks) or verges, or if none is provided, pedestrians may walk on the carriageway; where there is a cycle track and the density of traffic so permits, they may walk on the cycle track, but shall not obstruct cycle and moped traffic in doing so.

Not a sci-fi fan then? A force field stops objects from passing through it. Therefore, if a painted line was a force field it would stop a car or truck.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

Well the law disagrees with you. There are plenty of examples where drivers were not prosecuted if someone was hit when trying to commit suicide or lying on the road drunk.

I am not wrong, a judge or jury may find a person not guilty or hand down a menial sentence, it does not make the offence less valid.

meeeeh wrote: »

Those nasty people in Europe say you should use road verge. (Or you are making a point I don't understand, I'm not sure what force field is).

The accepted practices are the same here, just that many roads do not have verges, I really don't get what your point is here other than to cloud a pretty clear issue.

Eamonnator

meeeeh wrote: »

Nowhere, I meant it's illegal to lie on the road but you knew that you just took a cheap shot at my English not being as good as of a native speaker. Is that how you silence any opinion that isn't differs from yours?

No, I certainly did not take a cheap shot at you.
You made a statement, with which I disagreed and asked you a question about that statement.
I did not know that you were not a native English speaker.
I honestly cannot remember, ever trying to silence anybody, who disagreed with me.
I'm sorry, if you took offence, none was intended.

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

The accepted practices are the same here, just that many roads do not have verges, I really don't get what your point is here other than to cloud a pretty clear issue.

That Irish roads are more dangerous because there is no part of the road that separates pedestrians from cars and it might be beneficial to use extra visibility aids on dark country roads. It's the point I am making all the way. But apparently it's all victim blaming and it's all just the nasty drivers behaving so much worse in Ireland. Btw Irish road safety stats are actually fairly good. Probably helped by low density traffic outside cities...


And by people wearing hi viz clothing.

tomasrojo

Use a flashlight. It's more effective, and you don't have to look outlandish. I don't know how this basic truth has been forgotten.

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

(vienna covention)If, at the side of the carriageway, there are pavements (sidewalks) or suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them.

i will parse out how this should be read:
If, at the side of the carriageway, there are ... suitable verges for pedestrians, pedestrians shall use them.

i.e. you should only use the verge if it's suitable. and what do they mean by 'suitable verge'?
they quite clearly are distinguishing it from the carriageway.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

Use a flashlight. It's more effective, and you don't have to look outlandish. I don't know how this basic truth has been forgotten.

Agreed...hi-viz is a poor substitute for a bright light(s)! Also..lights can be seen through overgrown hedges. lights can be seen with the naked eye and are not dependent on a cars headlights illuminateing the wearer. In short, anyone who goes out walking or cycling on rural roads,after dark or in low light conditions without lights is a numpty!

tomasrojo

Yeah, I'd bring one if there was no footway.

CramCycle

Lights are always the preferred option, it lights the way, makes you visible around corners, attributes motion to the user which can be a psychological trigger for recognition for someone not paying enough attention, the benefits are obvious. The fact that most phones have torches mean that excuses for not having one are pretty thin as well. I seen a guy on his bike awhile ago using his iphone torch shining from his shirt pocket, which done the job.

The other stuff I referred to earlier are not taking the blame away from pedestrians for being ignorant or stupid, they are simply trying to point out the very simple fact that if motorists drove slower, and paid more attention, alot of collision simply would not happen, regardless of if the pedestrian done all they could do or not. Unfortunately, alot of people are unaware of the danger they can cause when behind the wheel.

When you hear of papers laying the blame at the foot of a pedestrian for walking on the road when the driver was breaking the speed limit on a road that the speed limit was excessive for anyway, then you have to wonder what went wrong with how we view the world. Funny also how when a pedestrian or a cyclist is wearing Hi Vis or using lights, it doesn't seem to get reported much, only if either was missing. It really is the definition of victim blaming.

07Lapierre

Last year one cyclist was killed during the hours of darkness. The other SIXTEEN were killed in daylight hours on urban roads. Speed and lack of observation/awareness are key factors in road deaths. I also think a lot of drivers do see pedestrians/cyclists, but they are simply driving too fast and can't react quick enough to avoid a collision.

tomasrojo

I think a lot of the roads were 80km/h roads though, weren't they? Maybe I've misremembered that.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think a lot of the roads were 80km/h roads though, weren't they? Maybe I've misremembered that.

At least two were killed at junctions in Dublin City (HGV turning left)

The man killed at night was crossing the road near Christchurch Cathedral.

I'd have to look up the details regarding the others.

Moflojo

Some of the info around cyclist fatalities in 2017 are compiled here:

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/948208638191169536