Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If its ok to drive at 51k an hour in a 50k zone, is it ok to drive at 151k in a 50k zone.

its not ok to do either, by the law.

if you want to argue that point; if you're caught doing 51km/h in a 50km/h zone, nothing will happen you.
if you're caught doing 70km/h, you'll be done for speeding.
if you're caught doing 151km/h, you'll be done for dangerous driving.

even the law (or its execution) sees various shades of seriousness in violating it.

RayCun

magicbastarder wrote: »

ehh... because the consequences can be far worse if you do get it wrong?

You might kill someone, directly or by causing others to crash, you might get killed.
I don't see much difference in the potential consequences.


(yes, yes, I know - the chances of a cyclist going through a red light resulting in someone's death are vanishingly small. Guess what? The chances of a car going through a pedestrian light and causing someone's death, or going through an it-was-amber-a-minute-ago light and causing someone's death, are also vanishingly small. Thousands of cars do it multiple times a day, and rarely do people die as a result. Does that make it okay?)

Tombo2001

V-man wrote: »

"If a cyclist waits for green, and a bus or HGV or car wants to turn left … that’s how most cyclists in London are being killed"

Link:
Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights?

I think its a very fair point. You are sat at a pedestrian light on O'Connell St with 6 buses, a few vans and taxi drivers you can

(I) wait for the green light and wait for the ten heavy duty vehicles to take off around you, some will be pulling in 50 yards down the road, you'll be overtaking them into busy traffic.

or

(II) break the red light, (at little risk to pedestrians based on historic statistics of accidents reported) and you are in a completely empty road to the next minute or two.

V-man

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think its a very fair point. You are sat at a pedestrian light on O'Connell St with 6 buses, a few vans and taxi drivers you can

(I) wait for the green light and wait for the ten heavy duty vehicles to take off around you, some will be pulling in 50 yards down the road, you'll be overtaking them into busy traffic.

or

(II) break the red light, (at little risk to pedestrians based on historic statistics of accidents reported) and you are in a completely empty road to the next minute or two.

Nail on the head

Lemming

BoardsMember wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I would never break a light in a car, as a cyclist I would break a light in certain circumstances.

RayCun wrote: »

If it is okay to break a red light on a bike when it is safe, why is it not okay to break a red light in a car when it is safe?

I would assume (and hope) that BoardsMember is referring to circumstances that are based on personal safety, not convenience RayCun. Such scenarios would be few and far between. But I shall cite you the Elephant & Castle in London as a glaringly obvious example. Seriously; go look at the cyclist death statistics for that junction over the last three years and why and then climb back into your box.

RayCun

V-man wrote: »

"If a cyclist waits for green, and a bus or HGV or car wants to turn left … that’s how most cyclists in London are being killed"

Evidence for this?

I know large vehicles turning left are a major cause of death, but are they killing cyclists who were sitting in front of them at a light, waiting for green, and were run over by a vehicle which took off quicker from the light?

Tombo2001

RayCun wrote: »

You might kill someone, directly or by causing others to crash, you might get killed.
I don't see much difference in the potential consequences.


(yes, yes, I know - the chances of a cyclist going through a red light resulting in someone's death are vanishingly small. Guess what? The chances of a car going through a pedestrian light and causing someone's death, or going through an it-was-amber-a-minute-ago light and causing someone's death, are also vanishingly small. Thousands of cars do it multiple times a day, and rarely do people die as a result. Does that make it okay?)

I would disagree.

I can think in my own area of numerous examples of people being killed by cars as they walked through pedestrian lights.

Lemming

RayCun wrote: »

Evidence for this?

I know large vehicles turning left are a major cause of death, but are they killing cyclists who were sitting in front of them at a light, waiting for green, and were run over by a vehicle which took off quicker from the light?

Yes.

RayCun

Lemming wrote: »

But I shall cite you the Elephant & Castle in London as a glaringly obvious example. Seriously; go look at the cyclist death statistics for that junction over the last three years and why and then climb back into your box.

That's a roundabout?

magicbastarder

RayCun wrote: »

yes, yes, I know - the chances of a cyclist going through a red light resulting in someone's death are vanishingly small. Guess what? The chances of a car going through a pedestrian light and causing someone's death, or going through an it-was-amber-a-minute-ago light and causing someone's death, are also vanishingly small.

that's a false equivalence.
your two 'vanishingly smalls' are markedly different in scale, despite the way you've phrased it.

RayCun

Lemming wrote: »

Yes.

Serious question - what is your source for this?

RayCun

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a false equivalence.
your two 'vanishingly smalls' are markedly different in scale, despite the way you've phrased it.

That is surely the only way to compare them.
If 100 cyclists do x, and Y happens 3 times, meanwhile 1,000,000 drivers do x and Y happens 100 times that means it is much more likely that a cyclist doing x will have result Y.

magicbastarder

you've plucked those figures out of nowhere to suit your argument though. while asking for a source in your previous post?

i'm not going to argue against hypothetical figures which are designed to suit that argument.

RayCun

magicbastarder wrote: »

you've plucked those figures out of nowhere to suit your argument though. while asking for a source on the previous point?

yes, obviously, those are numbers off the top of my head - nor did I say what x and Y were, or even if Y was a bad thing. x could be "travel a coast road" and Y could be "get a really great view of the sunset"

Roadhawk

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Just an FYI

(My understanding is)
The last recorded pedestrian death due to a collision with a cyclist was in 2002.
The last recorded pedestrian cyclist death due to a collision with a pedestrian was in 2015 (this took place on a cycle lane).

Of course you are right, cyclists break red lights and this is an annoyance and potentially dangerous to pedestrians. However, its not part of the conversation around high level risks on the road, from a statistical perspective (in other words, its not a significant cause of severe accidents).

But its still illegal, and should be summons accordingly !!!

Why does it always boil down to how many deaths are directly caused from an offense. Thats like saying that cars using bus lanes is not really an issue because it doesn't directly cause fatality... only that its annoying for some road users? Yet if a gard sees a car in a bus lane you can guarantee its dealt with.

If there is an offense committed then it should be acted upon.

oxygen

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think its a very fair point. You are sat at a pedestrian light on O'Connell St with 6 buses, a few vans and taxi drivers you can

(I) wait for the green light and wait for the ten heavy duty vehicles to take off around you, some will be pulling in 50 yards down the road, you'll be overtaking them into busy traffic.

or

(II) break the red light, (at little risk to pedestrians based on historic statistics of accidents reported) and you are in a completely empty road to the next minute or two.

They already have multiple traffic lights specifically for cyclist that are still synced exactly to the normal traffic lights!?! How pointless is that. Other countries have these lights and they give cyclist a head start to either get ahead of the traffic a little or get into their required junction before the traffic starts pilling on top of them.

Dublin City Council have stated that these were installed as an awareness measure, but I dont believe that for a second. I think they were installed with the purpose of giving cyclist a head start and its either been objected to or its tied up in bureaucracy. Letting cyclist get a bit ahead improves safety for everyone involved.

http://irishcycle.com/2014/07/03/dublin-city-installs-bicycle-traffic-lights-without-headstart-safety-function/

mr spuckler

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction.

raycun - this might be of some interest to you. focused moreso on the deaths of women cyclists in london but is a starting point. there's another analysis i've read showing that on several occasions cyclists had stopped in front of lorries at traffic lights - but out of visibilty of the driver. when the light goes green the lorry has driven over the cyclist in front of them. i can't find this link but will try to dig it out.

Tombo2001

RayCun wrote: »

That is surely the only way to compare them.
If 100 cyclists do x, and Y happens 3 times, meanwhile 1,000,000 drivers do x and Y happens 100 times that means it is much more likely that a cyclist doing x will have result Y.

I don't have the statistics needed to answer the question above.

However, I have heard it quoted that the last recorded incident of a pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist was in 2002; in the entire country.

Now as we all know, plenty of cyclists break the lights in Dublin, regularly. No-one has been killed as a result in the past 15 years.

I was living in Cabra for much of the 'noughties' - over a 5 year period, on one road alone there were two separate incidents where kids were killed by motorists at pedestrian lights. For sure, one of them was a motorist breaking a red light, I am not sure about the details of the other, but it was while the child was crossing the road at a pedestrian light.

That's just on one road alone, not the entire city or the entire country.

Tombo2001

Roadhawk wrote: »

But its still illegal, and should be summons accordingly !!!

Why does it always boil down to how many deaths are directly caused from an offense. Thats like saying that cars using bus lanes is not really an issue because it doesn't directly cause fatality... only that its annoying for some road users? Yet if a gard sees a car in a bus lane you can guarantee its dealt with.

If there is an offense committed then it should be acted upon.

That's fine.

And in the spirt of equivalence, prosecute every jaywalker and every motorist who drives at 51k an hour in a 50k zone.

its all illegal. And there is not a single motorist in the country who would escape prosecution in this scenario, or a single pedestrian.

Roadhawk

oxygen wrote: »

They already have multiple traffic lights specifically for cyclist that are still synced exactly to the normal traffic lights!?! How pointless is that. Other countries have these lights and they give cyclist a head start to either get ahead of the traffic a little or get into their required junction before the traffic starts pilling on top of them.

Dublin City Council have stated that these were installed as an awareness measure, but I dont believe that for a second. I think they were installed with the purpose of giving cyclist a head start and its either been objected to or its tied up in bureaucracy. Letting cyclist get a bit ahead improves safety for everyone involved.

http://irishcycle.com/2014/07/03/dublin-city-installs-bicycle-traffic-lights-without-headstart-safety-function/

Without even clicking on that article i can already tell you who it was written by ...

You also have to consider if an early green light for cyclists would be beneficial to implement. Most i see dont really stop anyway so it would kind of be a waste of time/money.

mr spuckler

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction.

raycun - this might be of some interest to you. focused moreso on the deaths of women cyclists in london but is a starting point. there's another analysis i've read showing that on several occasions cyclists had stopped in front of lorries at traffic lights - but out of visibilty of the driver. when the light goes green the lorry has driven over the cyclist in front of them. i can't find this link but will try to dig it out.

and here's another example where they were stopped at the lights and it seems one of the conclusions was that the cyclist should have cycled faster to avoid being crushed by the truck. note there's a photo in that article of the moment the truck is about to hit the bike.

RayCun

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction.

raycun - this might be of some interest to you. focused moreso on the deaths of women cyclists in london but is a starting point. there's another analysis i've read showing that on several occasions cyclists had stopped in front of lorries at traffic lights - but out of visibilty of the driver. when the light goes green the lorry has driven over the cyclist in front of them. i can't find this link but will try to dig it out.

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

mr spuckler

RayCun wrote: »

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

i think it's both, but in your post on the previous page you asked about evidence of incidents where they were stopped at lights. in the sun link you'll see the cyclist was ahead of the truck as they were in the other examples i've mentioned.

Alanstrainor

RayCun wrote: »

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

Blind-spot sensors should be made mandatory on all trucks. They are relatively commonplace on new cars these days, no excuses for them not being on trucks.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

However, I have heard it quoted that the last recorded incident of a pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist was in 2002; in the entire country.

Now as we all know, plenty of cyclists break the lights in Dublin, regularly. No-one has been killed as a result in the past 15 years.

i hope you're not conflating the two statements above, one as a logical conclusion of the other?

Roadhawk

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That's fine.

And in the spirt of equivalence, prosecute every jaywalker and every motorist who drives at 51k an hour in a 50k zone.

I dont think the "jaywalking" law exists in Ireland but i do know its illegal to cross a road with a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing(think its 15 meters).

Tombo2001 wrote: »

its all illegal. And there is not a single motorist in the country who would escape prosecution in this scenario, or a single pedestrian.

Yet so many offending cyclists go unpunished when jumping reds, having no lights (at night), cycling up/down Grafton/ Henry street...even in front of gardai...why the double standard?

Tombo2001

RayCun wrote: »

as far as I know - and I am open to correction on this - the problem is more that cyclists are on the left of the HGV as it starts to turn. The combination of lack of visibility on the left and the fact that there appears to be space on the inside but it disappears during the turn.

What that boils down to is that there is no safe place for the cyclist.

There are parallel discussions going on here.

One is, what is the technically correct thing to according to the Rules of the Road or legally speaking.

The other conversation is, what is the safe thing for road users, particularly in this case cyclists. And the safe thing here is a separate off-road cycle lane. Which don't exist in Dublin, to a large degree.

ED E

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Blind-spot sensors should be made mandatory on all trucks. They are relatively commonplace on new cars these days, no excuses for them not being on trucks.

Problem is getting truckers to upgrade.

The US had uproar when cities insisted that older, high emissions, artics be banned from the city core and thus the port. Trying to get logistics companies to upgrade their fleet would meet a lot of lobbying resistance.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why does it always boil down to how many deaths are directly caused from an offense. Thats like saying that cars using bus lanes is not really an issue because it doesn't directly cause fatality... only that its annoying for some road users? Yet if a gard sees a car in a bus lane you can guarantee its dealt with.

some laws are there for safety reasons, some for functional reasons. it's clear the 'private car in bus lane' one is a functional one, whereas the 'not breaking reds' is primarily a safety based one, so it muddies the waters to compare them.

Annie get your Run

mr spuckler wrote: »

and here's another example where they were stopped at the lights and it seems one of the conclusions was that the cyclist should have cycled faster to avoid being crushed by the truck. note there's a photo in that article of the moment the truck is about to hit the bike.

Oh god how awful, I can't even express my anger over the victim blaming in that case.

It seems to me there are definitely lethal junctions that need to be 'fixed'. I don't break red lights either on the bike or in the car but I'm not sure I'd be so law abiding if I had a highly dangerous junction on my commute.