Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

Professor Moriarty

rollingscone wrote: »

I like my medical practitioners to be gutsy newcomers too.

I'm different to you. I don't think that posting on a thread on Boards is the same as attending a doctor.

Chuchote

tayto lover wrote: »

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.

Well, no. The number of cyclists in Dublin has doubled, and the number of injuries hasn't.

Fighting Tao

tayto lover wrote: »

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.

I don't think you read the graph correctly.

PeadarCo

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

There's a difference between informed opinion and people who don't have a clue and have done no research. "Regular" posters and readers of the forum have seen these arguments countless times. The fact there are megathreads for high vis and helmets says how often the topics come up and how divergent opinion can be. They would good threads for people who have a genuine interest in the topics and aren't just interested in a cyclist bashing exercise. There's a huge amount of good information in the megathreads than can make for some good reading.

Beasty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

Absolutely not

Just questioning if your concerns are based on facts or perception. I take it's the latter, and equally would then take the view that your own views could be largely discounted as a result

Of course if you are a real professor who works in this area and has undertaken extensive research my view may differ. As it is though I think I'll stick with the views of posters who I have interacted with over a number of years and built up a trust in their statements on this and similar topics

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.

No, they're head injuries*, and the number of cyclists went down. The black trend is the number of cyclists. Not 100% clear from the graph, to be fair, though the colour-coding is clear enough.

*(Fair enough, it's all injuries, I think!)

TheBlaaMan

I'm not against anyone wearing anything they want: helmets, Hi viz jackets, feck, superman outfits, whatever....if they feel it keeps them safer on the road. I happen to be of the opinion that it won't make much difference. Rider attitude and care is possibly the best you can do. Expecting every other road user to be out to kill you today is what gets me through...

However, I think it is staggering that, of all people, the Gardai are the ones to come up with this suggestion, but a second view of it strongly suggests that this is a calculated push to either deflect from their failings in enforcing the existing rules on lights etc or to create a fuss over a issue that will occupy minds and attention and remove scrutiny from their recent dramas.

Leaving aside the victim-blaming.....difficult to do especially if you have or know a victim of a car v cyclist incident.
Leaving aside the stupidity of advocacy of a measure that has no scientific or researched merit
Leaving aside the facist-like compulsion of rules on a minority that are not needed
Leaving aside the inability of the Gardai to enforce all existing rules of the road, never mind introduce news ones.
Leaving aside lack of enforcement of hi-viz rules on pedestrians
Leaving aside the Gardai ignoring of dangerous behaviours by some drivers using phones, listening to devices on earphones, holding cigarettes while steering around corners, putting on make-up, shaving, while driving.

...Where do they see this stopping?

If your child want to cycle their trike or stabilised bike outside on the road in your cul-de-sac/local road, they will have to wear hi-viz or parents will be liable for prosecution?

Whats next? Be involved in an incident with another road user and despite not causing the incident, will courts now find cyclists partially responsible for their own injuries because the have broken the law on HiViz? By how much...20%...50%....?

Barmy. Utter nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, the AGSI bring the Gardai into disrepute with this sort of nonsense.

FYI, I cycle c150km per week and drive 1,200km per week.

tayto lover

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, no. The number of cyclists in Dublin has doubled, and the number of injuries hasn't.

And helmets are compulsory here too.

Professor Moriarty

PeadarCo wrote: »

There's a difference between informed opinion and people who don't have a clue and have done no research. "Regular" posters and readers of the forum have seen these arguments countless times. The fact there are megathreads for high vis and helmets says how often the topics come up and how divergent opinion can be. They would good threads for people who have a genuine interest in the topics and aren't just interested in a cyclist bashing exercise. There's a huge amount of good information in the megathreads than can make for some good reading.

That's interesting. Are you saying that people can't have an opinion on a thread about drivers and cyclists unless they have done research? So a person who is driving for many years and cycling for many years can't have an opinion on the subject? Seriously?

tayto lover

tomasrojo wrote: »

No, they're head injuries*, and the number of cyclists went down. The black trend is the number of cyclists. Not 100% clear from the graph, to be fair, though the colour-coding is clear enough.

*(Fair enough, it's all injuries, I think!)

I'll have another look at it tomorrow. Tired now and heading for the leaba. Cheers.

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

And helmets are compulsory here too.

They're not, you know. Hence the Gardaí advocating the law.

magicbastarder

tayto lover wrote: »

And helmets are compulsory here too.

where's here?

07Lapierre

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's interesting. Are you saying that people can't have an opinion on a thread about drivers and cyclists unless they have done research? So a person who is driving for many years and cycling for many years can't have an opinion on the subject? Seriously?

Everyone has an opinion.

It's my opinion that a lot of experienced cyclists are also experienced motorists. But unfortunately there are a lot of inexperienced (and experienced) motorists who have never been cyclists and therefore their opinion is worth nothing.

Professor Moriarty

Beasty wrote: »

Absolutely not

Just questioning if your concerns are based on facts or perception. I take it's the latter, and equally would then take the view that your own views could be largely discounted as a result

Of course if you are a real professor who works in this area and has undertaken extensive research my view may differ. As it is though I think I'll stick with the views of posters who I have interacted with over a number of years and built up a trust in their statements on this and similar topics

I see. So a person who has driven cars for many years and has cycled for many years shouldn't post about the subject of driver safety and cyclist safety? Hmmm. So this is a thread for elite posters only whose views you trust?

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

You can get a feel for it from this:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html

Looks great!



Source: http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/developments/headband/

The Specialist

Love the butthurt from some of ye here. It's sound advice but yet some take it as a personal offence that they are being asked to wear hi vis. I've nearly put enough of ye under the wheels in dark clothes on unlit country lanes to say this advice could save lives. You are not exempt from road safety just because you cycle.

Lumen

The Specialist wrote: »

Love the butthurt from some of ye here. It's sound advice but yet some take it as a personal offence that they are being asked to wear hi vis. I've nearly put enough of ye under the wheels in dark clothes on unlit country lanes to say this advice could save lives. You are not exempt from road safety just because you cycle.

Your driving style sounds dangerous. You need to get yourself a safety headband.

magicbastarder

The Specialist wrote: »

Love the butthurt from some of ye here

we're cyclists. our butts don't get hurt anymore.

Chuchote

The Specialist wrote: »

Love the butthurt from some of ye here. It's sound advice but yet some take it as a personal offence that they are being asked to wear hi vis. I've nearly put enough of ye under the wheels on dark clothes on unlit country lanes to say this advice could save lives.

1) There is no "ye"; we are individuals, not a group.
2) People are not objecting to "sound advice", but to an attempt at legal compulsion (from a group of people who can't even stop little boys robbing bikes!)

Professor Moriarty

07Lapierre wrote: »

Everyone has an opinion.

It's my opinion that a lot of experienced cyclists are also experienced motorists. But unfortunately there are a lot of inexperienced (and experienced) motorists who have never been cyclists and therefore their opinion is worth nothing.

Would their opinions on dealing with inconsiderate cyclists that they had encountered while driving not be valid?

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Looks great!



Source: http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/developments/headband/

For card-dealing in the 25th century

PeadarCo

Professor Moriarty wrote:

That's interesting. Are you saying that people can't have an opinion on a thread about drivers and cyclists unless they have done research? So a person who is driving for many years and cycling for many years can't have an opinion on the subject? Seriously?

Well if you want to go about proposing new laws yes I'd expect you to have done research. I'm sure aware that the issue with anecdotes/personal experiences is that they may not be representative of the actual situation.

Yes a person can have an opinion but don't expect people to take them seriously when they don't have a clue. And be prepared for people to take you to task when your lack of knowledge is pointed out. Which is all that is happening here.

I've pointed out two very good threads which will provide a large amount of easily accessible information.

magicbastarder

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

However, I think it is staggering that, of all people, the Gardai are the ones to come up with this suggestion, but a second view of it strongly suggests that this is a calculated push to either deflect from their failings in enforcing the existing rules on lights etc or to create a fuss over a issue that will occupy minds and attention and remove scrutiny from their recent dramas.

i think this is the crux of it for me. to be lectured on road safety by an organisation which has been faking its contribution to road safety for years is beyond farcical, but they've cleverly chosen the one topic which most people won't call their bull**** on.

John_Rambo

Realistically, a lot of drivers need retraining and upskilling to deal with modern driving, particularly driving on Motorways and dealing with cyclists on other roads.

But that's not going to happen.

A strong above the line AND below the line advertising campaign with a tagline like "driveskills" or "roadcraft" or some other line that's trotted out on motoring forums could be used with hard, effective examples of how to behave in particular scenarios like turning left when there's cyclists present, overtaking cyclists that (actually can) cycle two abreast should be rolled out again.

The point needs to be made that cyclists are back on the roads. They were there before, they were there then and there's more now.

But better this time. The message should emphasis that they are in the wrong if they bully, act carelessly, take risks, close pass, or intimidate and the consequences are devastating for the families of the injured, killed and the families of the driver that ends up in court.

The target market should be the troublesome ones. Thirty something to middle aged, large diesel car driving, mass going, self righteous, "been driving for years, never had a tip" merchants that genuinely think they have the law on their side. They're the ones that need reeducation. The ones that think the road is only for the internal combustion engine. Hopefully, the other ones will get the messages too.

Personally, I find Dublin bus drivers and modified car owners the most patient and understanding of the rules.

I know a forty something year old Guard in the midlands that swears it's illegal for cyclists to cycle two abreast. That says it all.

morana

magicbastarder wrote: »

where's here?

tayto park i would say!

from all i have read studies, psychology articles based on studies helmets and hi viz dont make you any safer.

Dublin bikes scheme would die over night. Boardman got it right

The Specialist

Chuchote wrote: »

1) There is no "ye"; we are individuals, not a group.
2) People are not objecting to "sound advice", but to an attempt at legal compulsion (from a group of people who can't even stop little boys robbing bikes!)

Legal compulsion that could save your life. When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same, i don't want a death on my conscience because a cyclist doesnt agree with the fashion of a high vis.

07Lapierre

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would their opinions on dealing with inconsiderate cyclists that they had encountered while driving not be valid?

It would...but most "examples" of inconsiderate cyclists that I've seen are usually a result of the motorists not knowing the law and not understanding why cyclist cycle in a certain manner.

ThisRegard

The Specialist wrote: »

. It's sound advice

But yet it's not actually.

magicbastarder

John_Rambo wrote: »

Personally, I find Dublin bus drivers and modified car owners the most patient and understanding of the rules.

heh, because the latter have the largest insurance premiums and have to assiduously avoid trouble?

dreamerb

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm sure it's more than that.
They are the people who attend at accidents involving cyclists.
They interview both the cyclist and the motorist. They hear the reasons given for the collisions.
It's hardly personal.

*hollow laugh*

The only significant collision I was involved in (left hooked by a van), the gardaí from Store Street didn't even show up despite being called three times. They didn't show any particular interest in interviewing me, I went in to give a statement as soon as I got out of A&E, with packing still in my (bleeding, broken) nose.

It was broad daylight with good visibility, I was in an on-road cycle lane, and I was wearing hi-vis.

I don't wear hi-vis any more, but before re-starting cycling after quite a long phobic gap, I did a lot of reading up about safe cycling and road-positioning. And my changed approach to road positioning (outside the lousy "bike lane") might have avoided that "accident".

Hi-vis / fluorescent clothing is and should remain a matter of personal choice. It's not a substitute for proper lighting, which is what will get you seen in time for any driver to behave appropriately in your vicinity. If they're actually paying any attention and care about not killing other humans.

Reasons given for collisions aren't objective truth. They're a rationalisation for what happened (a driver's "s/he came out of nowhere" could be "was distracted and didn't see her/him / misjudged speed"; a cyclist's "s/he just ran into me" could be "moved out without indicating or doing a shoulder check"). Hi vis and helmets do not magically improve driver or cyclist behaviour; where either party is not complying with their actual legal obligations, there's at best a slight possibility they might mitigate that.

Dangerising cycling with *compulsory* hi vis and helmets is a terrible idea, because it'll almost certainly reduce the numbers of cyclists. And although there is a small spike in recent cyclist deaths, there really is safety in numbers.