Number of cyclists in ireland

ThisRegard

07Lapierre wrote: »

Actually I thought the OP was trying to suggest that the number of cyclists is so small that the idea of spending 1 billion euro (over 5 years) was a bad investment

Yeah, I figure myself it's along those lines.

coolbeans

Roadhawk has a badly disguised hatred of cyclists. Look to after hours for proof. Don't know why he keeps trying to engage to be honest. He's been at it for a year now and still doesn't seem to have learned anything except how to seem a little less disingenuous, but this is only a veil.

ArmaniJeanss

Roadhawk wrote: »

Im trying to figure out what the ratio of cyclists are killed to how many cyclists there are.

Example:
As in, there are 1,985,130 private motorists with 125 deaths in 2015 so thats 1 in every 15,881 motorists...that kind of thing.

I pointed out to you in one of your other threads that this figure is the number of private cars, not the number of motorists, but here you are using it again.
Presumably for the sake of balance you will count bicycles and not just mere cyclists in your figures.

Pinch Flat

I think the OP needs to take up a hobby. The obsession with cyclists can't be healthy.

Fian

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I pointed out to you in one of your other threads that this figure is the number of private cars, not the number of motorists, but here you are using it again.
Presumably for the sake of balance you will count bicycles and not just mere cyclists in your figures.

Well, in fairness owning multiple bikes as a cyclist is obviously many times more common than a single motorist owning multiple cars. Number of cars probably understates the number of motorists (in my house for example my wife and I run one car), number of bikes would overstate the number of cyclists.

Roadhawk

ford2600 wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/collisions/

You'll notice a downward trend.

The one fundamental driver of increased cyclist safety (from other studies which "tomasrojo will no doubt link to!) is increased cyclists; not helmets, high vis etc etc

That downward trend started from the 1980s when there were a lot more cyclists recorded than there are now (and less cars). So ultimately, more cyclists and more deaths. Realistically the increase in the number of cyclists only started in 2011 but the fatality rate has not jumped up in relation to the number of cyclists.

I do understand the concept of higher numbers of cyclists= higher awareness = fewer accidents. Could the same be said about cars?...the number of private cars (and other vehicles) have increased since the 1980s yet the number of accidents and fatalities have significantly decreased.

Page 9 shows transport model share:
http://www.rte.ie/documents/news/censuscommute.pdf

RTAs and fatalities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_traffic_accidents_deaths_in_Republic_of_Ireland_by_year

Roadhawk

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

How is a 'private' motorist determined? Most adult cyclists are motorists but very few motorists are cyclists. Similarly, almost all commercial drivers such as van, bus and truck drivers are also private motorists as are most drivers of agricultural vehicles and a large portion of motorcyclists.

I had taken the figure from the following:

http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2015/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics

It counts all currently taxed vehicles.

Weepsie

There are infact 2.7 million drivers licenses as of 2015 with 2.2mil of these being 10 year licenses. Now that doesn't break down to vehicle type. But again, as earlier pointed out, it's more than the number of people that's important.

My suggestion to the OP, is go do your own research. There are places where you can get this type of information if you were really inclined.

Could the same be said about cars?...the number of private cars (and other vehicles) have increased since the 1980s yet the number of accidents and fatalities have significantly decreased.

Probably not. Roads have had the significant majority of investment and are probably much safer, cars themselves have had significant safety features built in in the last 20+ years

Passengers in front seats only had to start wearing seatbelts in 1979, and many didn't. Passengers in rear sets only had to start wearing seatbelts in 1992. A slow change in drinking culture and drink driving and some better enforcement and awareness has brought down the number of accidents more so than the increased number of drivers.

mcgratheoin

tomasrojo wrote: »

If you're looking to compare how risky cycling is compared to driving, the usual metric is Killed or Seriously Injured per billion kilometres travelled, or per million hours travelled. Something like that.

It's also important to include in your discussion all relevant metrics and measurements. As tomasrojo mentions, the metric can be per km or per hour or also per journey. It's something that frequently crops up when discussing safety in air travel as the distances are much longer than other modes of transport so you get very different figures if you use km or number of journeys as the denominator.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

I do understand the concept of higher numbers of cyclists= higher awareness = fewer accidents. Could the same be said about cars?...the number of private cars (and other vehicles) have increased since the 1980s yet the number of accidents and fatalities have significantly decreased.

Yes. A decline in mortality as number of motorised vehicles increase has been noted everywhere. As a society begins to adopt mass motorisation, there is a bloodbath; then social adaptation kicks in, and people stop casually crossing roads, letting their children play unattended in the street, and so on (obviously safety interventions come into it as well).

It's (partly) Smeed's Law.

Roadhawk

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why are you interested in the figure? What's the context?

Just for a dissertation.

Lumen

Roadhawk wrote: »

I do understand the concept of higher numbers of cyclists= higher awareness = fewer accidents. Could the same be said about cars?...the number of private cars (and other vehicles) have increased since the 1980s yet the number of accidents and fatalities have significantly decreased.

Motor vehicle fatalities have decreased due to improvements in vehicle engineering, road design (particularly more motorways) and probably healthcare. edit: and probably less drink driving.

Not very useful to cyclists since we can't use motorways and don't sit in crash structures. But despite that, cycling is very safe.

tomasrojo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

It's also important to include in your discussion all relevant metrics and measurements. As tomasrojo mentions, the metric can be per km or per hour or also per journey. It's something that frequently crops up when discussing safety in air travel as the distances are much longer than other modes of transport so you get very different figures if you use km or number of journeys as the denominator.

And the early Soviet space programme looks pretty safe expressed per km, and not at all per journey!

Weepsie

Roadhawk wrote: »

Just for a dissertation.

If coming onto boards to get your sources, and have others do your research (unless it's a questionnaire, or research into online communities, behaviours, forums etc) is how you are doing your dissertation, I'd hate to be your supervisor.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Motor vehicle fatalities have decreased due to improvements in vehicle engineering, road design (particularly more motorways) and probably healthcare. edit: and probably less drink driving.

Not very useful to cyclists since we can't use motorways and don't sit in crash structures. But despite that, cycling is very safe.

I did read somewhere that people bleed to death after collisions a lot less often now. So that would benefit cyclists too.

Chips Lovell

brocbrocach wrote: »

What hate-filled diatribe do you have lined up this time?

Lumen wrote: »

Capacity planning for a pogrom? I know we've a few under-utilised rail lines.

JK.BMC wrote: »

Is this Project Maths for the Leaving Cert? The honours course perhaps...

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well based on the thread starter and their history, his answer will be Too many.

Deedsie wrote: »

I would wager it won't be the last time he gets something wrong when it comes to cyclists.

coolbeans wrote: »

Roadhawk has a badly disguised hatred of cyclists. Look to after hours for proof. Don't know why he keeps trying to engage to be honest. He's been at it for a year now and still doesn't seem to have learned anything except how to seem a little less disingenuous, but this is only a veil.

The next person who posts something bashing the OP will get the moderational equivalent of a boot up the the hole.

If you don't like what someone posts, ignore them or report their posts if you feel they break the forum charter.

Thank you

ford2600

Roadhawk wrote: »

I do understand the concept of higher numbers of cyclists= higher awareness = fewer accidents. Could the same be said about cars?...the number of private cars (and other vehicles) have increased since the 1980s yet the number of accidents and fatalities have significantly decreased.
QUOTE]

I suppose the drop in road deaths could be due to more cars on road and not
* improvement in road quality, from motorway construction to a centralized expert body (NRA) and their standardizing of construction methods, signage, surface materials
* NRA policy of performing scrim testing annually on national roads, primary and secondary
* NRA safety team who assess every fatal accident to establish if road/signage etc had a role in accident and what can be learned
*paradigm shift on attitudes to drink driving/seat belt wearing
* establishment of national testing on cars
* Custodial sentences on some drivers who's action cause deaths
*increased Garda enforcement and penalty point systems
* safety cameras
*richer economy and better quality cars and the almost countless improvements in seat belt design(pretensionsers etc), airbags, etc

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

That downward trend started from the 1980s when there were a lot more cyclists recorded than there are now (and less cars).

Page 9 shows transport model share:
http://www.rte.ie/documents/news/censuscommute.pdf

The document uses the census as a source, but the census only included commuting journeys, not leisure, or non commuting cycling trips, such as to the shops etc.
The census question excluded cycling where it is part of a mixed mode commute, such as a cycle to a station, or a park and ride (literally) commute.

census Q17 wrote:

How do you usually travel to work, school or college?

census commuting guidelines wrote:

http://www.cso.ie/en/census/faq/detailedlookatcensusquestions/question17/

magicbastarder

mcgratheoin wrote: »

It's also important to include in your discussion all relevant metrics and measurements. As tomasrojo mentions, the metric can be per km or per hour or also per journey. It's something that frequently crops up when discussing safety in air travel as the distances are much longer than other modes of transport so you get very different figures if you use km or number of journeys as the denominator.

possibly worth including as a metric the measurement of health benefits of cycling - i've seen figures as diverse as a factor of 10 or factor of 70 mentioned in the benefit-to-risk ratio of cycling.
as in, it's 'safer' health wise to cycle than to not engage in the exercise, and by quite a large margin.

07Lapierre

ford2600 wrote: »

Roadhawk wrote: »

I do understand the concept of higher numbers of cyclists= higher awareness = fewer accidents. Could the same be said about cars?...the number of private cars (and other vehicles) have increased since the 1980s yet the number of accidents and fatalities have significantly decreased.
QUOTE]

I suppose the drop in road deaths could be due to more cars on road and not
* improvement in road quality, from motorway construction to a centralized expert body (NRA) and their standardizing of construction methods, signage, surface materials
* NRA policy of performing scrim testing annually on national roads, primary and secondary
* NRA safety team who assess every fatal accident to establish if road/signage etc had a role in accident and what can be learned
*paradigm shift on attitudes to drink driving/seat belt wearing
* establishment of national testing on cars
* Custodial sentences on some drivers who's action cause deaths
*increased Garda enforcement and penalty point systems
* safety cameras
*richer economy and better quality cars and the almost countless improvements in seat belt design(pretensionsers etc), airbags, etc

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Not sure about that.

Speeding is still a big problem here. IMO Improved car design (airbags, seat belts, crumple zones etc.) have had a huge impact (no pun intended) on reducing fatalities, as opposed to driver behavior.

magicbastarder

off topic, but the new safety systems on cars makes driving an old one more dangerous in some ways than it was when new; as the newer cars are heavier and stiffer than old ones (from the perspective of crashing into them), they do more damage to old cars in a collision.

ford2600

07Lapierre wrote: »

ford2600 wrote: »

Not sure about that.

Speeding is still a big problem here. IMO Improved car design (airbags, seat belts, crumple zones etc.) have had a huge impact (no pun intended) on reducing fatalities, as opposed to driver behavior.

It could be better but it's way better than it used to be.

I'm 41 and can remember
*being one of 9 in a mini
* cars with 8/9 with impunity driving from pub to nighclub and home with no one on water
* it being socially acceptable to say how quick you did a particular journey
* unlit trailers being the norm

again I could go on; but things have changed primarily due to the chance of being caught/jailed

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

ford2600 wrote: »

Speeding is still a big problem here.

I agree...speeding is clearly the highest recorded offense:

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=16418&Lang=1

07Lapierre

ford2600 wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

It could be better but it's way better than it used to be.

I'm 41 and can remember
*being one of 9 in a mini
* cars with 8/9 with impunity driving from pub to nighclub and home with no one on water
* it being socially acceptable to say how quick you did a particular journey
* unlit trailers being the norm

again I could go on; but things have changed primarily due to the chance of being caught/jailed

Yeah the goodoldays!

Its just that cars have improved, cars are faster, roads are better (which encourages higher speed)..Drivers feel safer at speed.

Older cars were slower, but fatalites were much higher because people didn't wear seatbelts, car interiors had sharp metal edges, no ABS Traction control and getting a license was much easier etc.

IMO The reality nowadays is, if you get caught speeding, you were just unlucky!

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

[Its just that cars have improved, cars are faster, roads are better (which encourages higher speed)..Drivers feel safer at speed.

a rather visual demonstration of how much safer modern cars are; and this video is five or ten years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRxLlFm3VUA

07Lapierre

I prefer this one!

https://youtu.be/R7dG9UlzeFM

nomdeboardie

No, no - the metric is yellow cards per first 35 posts :eek::p