Is it worth it anymore..... ?

rollingscone

Speaking off "Is it worth it" I was in the park this morning fake mountain biking on the trails and gullies and then spun down the keys to be in work for 08:15.

On the way I was passed by about a dozen cyclists, always while I was stopped waiting in traffic and they were willing to squeeze around buses or filter through lanes of traffic.

It occurred to me that it's a lot of risk to take just to get to work, and the most egregious example and IMHO the thing that best displays the utter failure of the RSA in their Helmets and Hivis fixation was a guy wearing a €200 mountain biking helmet on a Dublin Bike weaving through the rapidly narrowing gap between a right turning Dublin bus and the line of slow moving cars to our right.

He literally had to do a two point turn to get around the bus without hitting the cars to our right, I can spin along at 30kph on the flat on Wolfgang, so I may or may not have caught and passed him after the traffic opened up a bit, as I often do with RLJs, footpath mounters and kerb squeezers, but either way, it was decidedly not worth it.

So where's the race at all costs mentality coming from? As much as I bitterly jibe at "Elite commuter athletes" I don't actually want to see them getting mangled.

smacl

No

greenspurs wrote: »

In the centre of town at the Junction of The Mall and Parnell street.

Thanks. I take the bike down on the train every now and then and would take that road going up to Passage east and South Wexford. Never had an issue there, though nearly got side swiped on the roundabout by the station on a couple of occasions.

HivemindXX

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

However if a cyclist takes the approach "I've as much right to be here as anyone" then I think that's about as clever as me driving a saloon car into a bog road designed for 4x4's and complaining I got stuck. Yes technically I'm legally allowed to do it, but if I had any sense I wouldn't and it's my own fault if I do.

But how are cyclists supposed to know that these roads are actually no go areas for them? A lot of the time you are cycling along a perfectly reasonable road when suddenly up ahead you see a junction with slip roads going every which way, no idea what lane you are supposed to be in and the cars around you are speeding up to 120kph. Do you keep going on the assumption that it should be safe, and it's "your own fault" if anything happens with motorists passing you with the attitude that you are an obstruction that shouldn't be there. Do you stop and try to find another route there and then with no idea what that might be or even if one exists? Even if you do decide to stop by the time you have realised the planners have designed a motorway junction that is not safe for cyclists it is too late to turn back, doing so would be more dangerous that just keeping going in the same direction as the high speed traffic even if you are much slower. Do we just accept the fact that the most direct route is effectively barred to cyclists and go the long way around after the initial shocking experience?

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I spend a while looking at maps trying to figure out routes that don't involved quasi-motorway roads. Works for me, but, as I said in a recent thread already, I should really just be able to use the main road and trust the engineers to have created something low-stress and navigable.

I could not agree with this more. All roads which cyclists are allowed use (which is everything but motorways) should be safe for cyclists, and pedestrians for that matter. I remember working for a few weeks in Little Island in Cork and I talked to my friend from Cork about my plans. I told him I was thinking of staying in the city centre and cycling out to Little Island along whatever N road only to be told that road was unsuitable and there was basically no safe way to cycle to Little Island really.

mcgratheoin

No

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So the speed limit along that section has nothing to do with the appropriate speed limit for the safety of the road, and everything to do with the ease of ticketing.

Speed limits in urban areas like the Con Colbert road or the M50 are also dictated by traffic volumes. You can fit more cars through a road at lower speeds.

Turn off the N4 onto a side road and you can do 100, legally, no problem, despite being in a built up area with foot and cycle traffic.

Where do you think you can legally do 100 in a built up area off the N4? :eek:

Slutmonkey57b

HivemindXX wrote: »

But how are cyclists supposed to know that these roads are actually no go areas for them? A lot of the time you are cycling along a perfectly reasonable road when suddenly up ahead you see a junction with slip roads going every which way, no idea what lane you are supposed to be in and the cars around you are speeding up to 120kph. Do you keep going on the assumption that it should be safe, and it's "your own fault" if anything happens with motorists passing you with the attitude that you are an obstruction that shouldn't be there. Do you stop and try to find another route there and then with no idea what that might be or even if one exists? Even if you do decide to stop by the time you have realised the planners have designed a motorway junction that is not safe for cyclists it is too late to turn back, doing so would be more dangerous that just keeping going in the same direction as the high speed traffic even if you are much slower. Do we just accept the fact that the most direct route is effectively barred to cyclists and go the long way around after the initial shocking experience?

Where does it happen that a faux-motorway "suddenly" appears with no warning? For the junction we are talking about, the "feeder" road is 3 lanes wide, has massive signs warning about the upcoming motorway interchange and is a huge, well known arterial road. Random tourists on Dublin bikes are not finding themselves "suddenly" on a motorway junction. There is no way someone biking that route doesn't know that's a huge junction.

Returning to the "cyclists deserve to use that road coz laws" argument won't help. The stretch of road already needs to be rebuilt to accommodate vehicular traffic volumes, and to make that safe they will have to remove push bikes and mopeds from it. Being concerned about what's "fair" just isn't realistic.

Should cyclists have access to a direct safe route along that corridor? Yes. Is that particular part of the route safe? No. Can it be made safe? No. That was my original answer to the person who raised the question, and even if it's unfair or annoying, that's the way it is.

mr spuckler

continuing the style of answering ones own questions;

should alternatives to building even bigger roads that encourage even more people to drive be prioritised? yes.

mcgratheoin

No

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

In the actual accident black spots and danger points where deaths happen, they are set randomly with no enforcement.

That's just completely and blatantly untrue. Even the AA have said that there's a very transparent and predictable system for placing speed cameras in Ireland. They are specifically placed in danger spots and places where deaths have occurred. In fact the only complaint that Conor Faughnan of the AA had during the last discussion on the topic was that speed cameras were frequently at the UCD flyover even though the deaths there had been related to a fall from the bridge and a high speed car chase rather than it being a generally dangerous road.

Additionally the go safe system costs the State money - it is not a revenue generator.

http://garda.ie/Documents/User/Garda%20Mobile%20Safety%20Cameras%20FAQ's%202016.pdf

smacl

No

mr spuckler wrote: »

continuing the style of answering ones own questions;

should alternatives to building even bigger roads that encourage even more people to drive be prioritised? yes.

That pretty much sums up the problem with budgeting for transport infrastructure in the country. Cycling is always an afterthought, cars come first.

greenspurs

This post by HivemindXX in another thread, sums it up perfectly. The most reasonable , and rational post i have read.
WELL DONE !

"I agree that cycling is not inherently dangerous. I do think there are certain roads, and road designs, that are more dangerous than they should be and these should be improved as a priority. I do think that there are certain drivers who are dangerous, either due to their lack of emotional stability or their lack of skills and these should be taken off the road, not excused.

I don't see how comparisons to the 80s are relevant. I don't expect to see the AA coming out and telling people that want the M20, or any other road improvement, how much better the road network is than it was in the 80s and implying they should be happy with what they've got.

I think Conor Faughnan is very deceptive. He talks a good game of supporting cyclists but when it comes down to it this is just lip service, the AA will be against anything that hampers motorists ability to drive anywhere they like, at any time they like, and park their car when they get there. This rules out virtually every bit of decent cycle infrastructure, leaving us with the usual solution of sticking us up on the footpath out of the way of the real road users.

I think the perception of the danger of cycling is very important. Whenever I suggest cycling to people they tend to go through a series of excuses until they hit on one that sticks. Very often the first excuse, or the one that cannot be worked around, is that it is "just too dangerous". They live on a busy road or they work in the city centre and they just can't see cycling in that environment as anything other than extremely dangerous. No amount of statistics will convince them otherwise.

Also, for anyone that hasn't already read it, have a look at the post by kerplun_k over in the "Is it worth it anymore" thread, which details their reasons for quitting cycling after only a month. That makes pretty grim reading.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=216

Have a look in the near misses thread and see a litany of dangerous actions by drivers that either don't know what they are doing is dangerous or simply don't care.

Cycling may not be objectively dangerous but it feels far more dangerous than it should. Motorists should be careful around cyclists and for some of them the only way to do this is to make them afraid of being punished and punished severely. There is a shockingly relaxed attitude to driving. Some people seem to feel this is an activity they can devote 70 or maybe 80% of their attention to and still be fine. Some people have the massively mistaken idea that they own the road and cyclists shouldn't be on it and the, frankly psychotic, attitude that they should do something about it but using their vehicle as a weapon to threaten the vulnerable cyclist. Some guards seem to think that this sort of behaviour is just "a bit cheeky" and no big deal.

When they do kill or maim someone due to their carelessness then the general attitude is that people make mistakes, there might be massive amounts of harm, but still no foul. The assumption is that this was just an incident of bad luck where "a moment's inattention" had terrible consequences and nobody every seems to think that it is far more likely that this driver habitually drives carelessly and someone finally suffered the consequences. "

Chuchote

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

That's just completely and blatantly untrue. Even the AA have said that there's a very transparent and predictable system for placing speed cameras in Ireland. They are specifically placed in danger spots and places where deaths have occurred.

Are they placed immediately? (I ask because of local people saying the place where a woman died riding her bike in Kerry was dangerous, and because of the two cyclist deaths at Emmet Bridge in Harold's Cross, and the very dangerous railing where Donna Fox was killed by a turning lorry.)

I don't notice speed camera signs, as I amble along creakily on my bike, but can't remember seeing one at Harold's Cross, for instance, and drivers often drive quite dangerously at that hump-back bridge with no view ahead, swerving around the corner quick so oncoming traffic won't get them. (In my view, this 1832 bridge should be replaced by a Dutch-style opening bridge, which can be lifted in the rare event that a barge needs to pass under it, like the one shown here.)

The Bishop Basher

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

That's just completely and blatantly untrue. Even the AA have said that there's a very transparent and predictable system for placing speed cameras in Ireland. They are specifically placed in danger spots and places where deaths have occurred. In fact the only complaint that Conor Faughnan of the AA had during the last discussion on the topic was that speed cameras were frequently at the UCD flyover even though the deaths there had been related to a fall from the bridge and a high speed car chase rather than it being a generally dangerous road.

It's absolutely true.

For my own area, I compared all the usual spots where the cash vans choose to operate from and and compared them with the RSA database of traffic collisions resulting in serious injury or deaths.

Unsurprisingly the 2 bore absolutely no resemblance whatsoever.

Even more unsurprising given that the cash vans favoured locations tend to be long straight roads with wide hard shoulders and unrealistically low speed limits.

Don't kid yourself.. It is about revenue generation and nothing more..

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

Are they placed immediately? (I ask because of local people saying the place where a woman died riding her bike in Kerry was dangerous, and because of the two cyclist deaths at Emmet Bridge in Harold's Cross, and the very dangerous railing where Donna Fox was killed by a turning lorry.)

but are those deaths caused by excessive speed?

the woman in kerry died after being struck by the equipment being towed by a tractor at a pinch point / 'traffic calming', the cyclists at harolds cross by turning trucks. better infrastructure design and enforcement of a proposed MPDL yes but i don't think those spots are candidates for speed cameras based on what i know of those collisions.

Slutmonkey57b

mcgratheoin wrote: »

That's just completely and blatantly untrue. Even the AA have said that there's a very transparent and predictable system for placing speed cameras in Ireland. They are specifically placed in danger spots and places where deaths have occurred. In fact the only complaint that Conor Faughnan of the AA had during the last discussion on the topic was that speed cameras were frequently at the UCD flyover even though the deaths there had been related to a fall from the bridge and a high speed car chase rather than it being a generally dangerous road.

Additionally the go safe system costs the State money - it is not a revenue generator.

http://garda.ie/Documents/User/Garda%20Mobile%20Safety%20Cameras%20FAQ's%202016.pdf

Your quoted document provides no information about costs OR revenue generation, it only makes the blanket statement "The hourly rates to be paid are not linked in any way to the number of detections made." which only describes what GoSafe are *paid*, not the profit/loss calculation for *all* enforcement measures (including sites operated by the Gardai themselves), or what the uptick in revenue from speeding fines is/was.

Furthermore when discussing road deaths it discusses collision rates, NOT deaths; "Between 2004 -2008 the ratio of collisions occurring in speed enforcement zones was approximately 30%. In 2015 the ratio of collisions occurring in speed enforcement zones had reduced to 14%."

Bear in mind a "collision" can mean a bumper tap or a multi-car pile up. The fact that they don't link death rates to these detection zones surely means they can't - if there was anything positive to report they'd have reported it.

Chuchote

No

mr spuckler wrote: »

but are those deaths caused by excessive speed?

the woman in kerry died after being struck by the equipment being towed by a tractor at a pinch point / 'traffic calming', the cyclists at harolds cross by turning trucks. better infrastructure design and enforcement of a proposed MPDL yes but i don't think those spots are candidates for speed cameras based on what i know of those collisions.

This is true. But perhaps cameras - not "speed cameras" but "safety cameras" should be installed at all points where people have been killed or seriously injured. It's not just speed that kills, it's also generally unsafe driving.

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

This is true. But perhaps cameras - not "speed cameras" but "safety cameras" should be installed at all points where people have been killed or seriously injured. It's not just speed that kills, it's also generally unsafe driving.

yes fully agree with that, i was zoning in on the speed cameras part of your comment.
at the moment though we only have speed cameras and perhaps traffic light cameras in our legislation wrt punishing poor driver behaviour as far as i'm aware.

i still think that a visible presence on the ground consistently enforcing road traffic legislation could be the most effective step in making an immediate impact. then look at whether other countries use such safety cameras and how effective they've been.

CramCycle

Is there any reason motor vehicles cannot be retrofitted with GPS trackers or tacos, with automatic reporting of excessive speeding and driving that is out of the ordinary behaviour of other road users.

The GPS for highlighting, the taco for confirming.

srsly78

No need for it, in our modern society it's the norm for everyone to carry a gps tracker in their pocket already. It's a legal issue not a technical one, people don't like being spied on.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

Is there any reason motor vehicles cannot be retrofitted with GPS trackers or tacos, with automatic reporting of excessive speeding and driving that is out of the ordinary behaviour of other road users.

The GPS for highlighting, the taco for confirming.

this is one thing which i am always bemused by. with all the calls for limitations on bikes, there's an open goal in terms of achieving the above. some insurance companies already use similar technologies for younger drivers, don't they?

Tenzor07

CramCycle wrote: »

Is there any reason motor vehicles cannot be retrofitted with GPS trackers or tacos, with automatic reporting of excessive speeding and driving that is out of the ordinary behaviour of other road users.
The GPS for highlighting, the taco for confirming.

Only vehicles that will have this are commercial vehicles.

It would be considered an infringement of privacy to have these devices installed in private vehicles, unless there's something like a 30% discount or cash back incentive on Insurance premium costs..

The Bishop Basher

No

CramCycle wrote: »

Is there any reason motor vehicles cannot be retrofitted with GPS trackers or tacos, with automatic reporting of excessive speeding and driving that is out of the ordinary behaviour of other road users.

I would imagine cost is the primary factor..

Who's going to pay for the equipment and fitting ?

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is one thing which i am always bemused by. with all the calls for limitations on bikes, there's an open goal in terms of achieving the above. some insurance companies already use similar technologies for younger drivers, don't they?

A colleague who is a terrible driver had this. He opened an app on his phone and had to have 500km under the speed limit. Done it all in 2 days on repeated motorway trips. As soon as the app was closed though, back to speedy gonzalas.

Swanner wrote: »

I would imagine cost is the primary factor..

Who's going to pay for the equipment and fitting ?

Same people who pay for their NCT. Or have it as a requirement on all cars registered after a certain date so it phases on over time but the cost is already built in.

The Bishop Basher

No

CramCycle wrote: »

Same people who pay for their NCT.

Ah ok. You want motorists to pay. Not going to happen.

CramCycle wrote: »

Or have it as a requirement on all cars registered after a certain date so it phases on over time but the cost is already built in.

This would be more realistic but manufacturers aren't going drive up costs unless legally mandated and even if they did you still have to get around privacy laws / concerns.

In short, not going to happen.

magicbastarder

one might expect that by the time all the regulatory, research and manufacturing ducks were in a row, self-driving cars might have rendered the benefits redundant.

mcgratheoin

No

Swanner wrote: »

It's absolutely true....

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Your quoted document...

OK, firstly, this is exactly what was mentioned earlier in the thread - the outrage regarding speeding in this country is focused on its enforcement, not the fact that people break the law. The facts are easily identifiable via a quick search but it suits many people to regurgitate what they believe themselves through anecdotes or some guy in a pub or a taxi driver or "sure everyone knows..."

The facts are:
Revenue from the speed camera system equals approximately 45% of its cost. €6,905,600 versus a cost of €16million. It is most emphatically not a cash cow or revenue generator yet those who believe this will keep spouting the same tripe even when presented with the evidence.

The identification of a new zone for enforcement is an established and published procedure. It works like this:

• Collision data is analysed including type of collision (fatal, and serious as before, but now including minor) and the coordinates of where each of these took place.
• The data looks at the previous five years (from April 2009 – April 2014 it consisted of approximately 25,000 data points).
• Each type of collision (fatal, serious, and minor) was assigned a weighted value. A fatal collision was given a value of 10, a serious collision a value of 5 and a minor collision a value of 1.
• A new zone must have a minimum weighted value of 10 (i.e. minimum of one fatal, two serious or 10 minor collisons.
• A new zone has an approximate maximum length of 10 Kilometres.
• Existing zones with no collisons in a 5 year period are removed from the list.

You can nitpick over the weighting or the definition of minor/serious etc but the facts are that there is a process for identifying zones and it is not an arbitrary "let's catch drivers where the speed limit decreases to make money" decision.

In terms of reducing road deaths, prior to the introduction of safety cameras, approximately 31% of fatal collisions occurred in the enforcement zones. In 2015 this figure was 14%. Argue all you like about the figures and pixelisation of single year data, but the onus is on those giving out about speed cameras to produce data and facts to back up their arguments, not just fall back on the old reliable "Don't kid yourself.."

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Safety%20Cameras%20in%20Ireland.pdf

HivemindXX

People don't want GPS trackers in their cars and the reason has absolutely nothing to do with cost. It is entirely because people don't want any evidence of what they did to contribute to a collision. Some people delude themselves that this would be awful because they'd be "hung out to dry" for some minor thing they did like just going a little bit over the limit or passing on a corner then they "know the road really well".

So the causes of many collisions, probably the vast majority, are just left as a mystery. One driver says one thing, another says something else and everyone throws their hand in the air and says "what can you do, it's he says/she says". Or maybe a driver says one thing like "they swerved out in front of me" and the other party says nothing because they are dead.

In light of that it seems bizarre that there is no equivalent of a black box recording for cars so the victims in collisions could prove their case. The technology is there and the cost would be minor compared to the cost of a car.
Who wouldn't want to be able to show that the driver they were passing pulled out at the worst possible time or that the driver that hit them was doing 20kph over the speed limit. I think Teslas have this data recording feature already so hopefully it is only a matter of time.

magicbastarder

i vaguely remember hearing that newer volvos have the functionality too.

greenspurs

Reply from John McGuinness T.D .

Dear *****,



Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above matter which I have brought to John’s attention.

John will give your views every consideration.



Kind regards,



Sandra Thompson

Parliamentary Assistant for John McGuinness, T.D.

Slutmonkey57b

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Revenue from the speed camera system equals approximately 45% of its cost. €6,905,600 versus a cost of €16million.

Speed cameras are only one part of speeding enforcement.

Collision data does not = speed data. The original Garda document you quoted even admits that there is no definite correlation between speed data and deaths in the results they're presenting. Unless the reporting also includes other mitigating factors in those zones with respect to cause of collision, and any other modifications that may have taken place in that zone to the road operation/layout/condition, then the conclusions aren't definite.

e.g. a "zone" is designated due to 10 low-speed minor collisions in gridlocked traffic in bad weather on a poorly surfaced road. A speed camera is set up and 2 days later the road is resurfaced, removing the proximate cause of the 10 collisions. 0 collisions occur over 5 years. Was the reduction in collisions due to the speed camera? How many deaths were averted?

mcgratheoin wrote: »

In terms of reducing road deaths, prior to the introduction of safety cameras, approximately 31% of fatal collisions occurred in the enforcement zones. In 2015 this figure was 14%. Argue all you like about the figures and pixelisation of single year data, but the onus is on those giving out about speed cameras to produce data and facts to back up their arguments,

Read your own document again.

Between 2004 -2008 the ratio of collisions occurring in speed
enforcement zones was approximately 30%
In 2015 the ratio of collisions occurring in speed enforcement zones had
reduced to 14%.

The numbers are for collisions, not deaths. The numbers are quoted under the death numbers in order to get people to make the mental leap that the two figures are related. They are not. The only deaths-related numbers are quoted as follows;



In 2012 there were 162 road deaths.
...
In 2015 there were 166 road deaths.

Road deaths went up after 2012. Not down. Up. Every year there were more road deaths than in 2012.

The Bishop Basher

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

The facts are easily identifiable via a quick search but it suits many people to regurgitate what they believe themselves through anecdotes or some guy in a pub or a taxi driver or "sure everyone knows..."

I haven't regurgitated anything..

On the contrary, I spent quite a few hours comparing the RSA collision data with known speed van locations.

They didn't match..

And by some incredible coincidence, the vast majority of the speed van locations are in places where..

1) There have been zero injuries or fatalities
2 ) There is a good road with an unusually low limit
3) There is a good road with a reduction in the limit

It's possible that the regulations you mention only apply to the Go Safe operators however regardless of the regulations I can tell you that cash vans, in my locality, are regularly conducting speed traps in places where no-one has been killed or injured.

On that basis, and until that changes, i have no doubt whatsoever that it's primarily about generating revenue, and not saving lives as you and they would like us to believe.

Chuchote

No

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Road deaths went up after 2012. Not down. Up. Every year there were more road deaths than in 2012.

Now, this is just my observation as a random gobshíte, but it seems to me that in the last five years there has been a huge rise in numbers of cars, and also a huge rise in the number of very young drivers (so both more likely to be reckless and less likely to be experienced). Am I wrong in this?