Is it worth it anymore..... ?

mh_cork

Some earlier posts asked why cyclists RLJ and some replies said it was purely for selfish reasons and there was no safety element. Basically the reasoning was that you were just as safe if you waited in line.

This is not true.

A few years ago I read a research article that looked at cyclists deaths in London. It asked the reason why the rate of male and female deaths was similar when female cyclists made up less than 20% of the cyclists. Therefore a female cyclist was 2.5 times more likely to be killed than a male cyclist.

What it found was that male cyclists were more likely to be involved "T-bone" accidents, where the car hit them from the side. Female cyclists were more likely to get killed with large vehicles turning left at junctions.

They then went back to observe cyclists on the road and found that on average male cyclists either ran red lights or positioned themselves at the front of traffic lines. Female cyclists did not take an assertive position and waited in line.

Their recommendation was that lives would be saved if cyclists were allowed to treat red lights as flashing red, i.e. proceed with caution while still yielding way. More lives would be saved by avoiding the no.1 killer of cyclists in urban areas (getting caught on the inside of a large vehicle) than lost by cyclists ambling slowly through red lights.

I wish I could find the article again, because it combined statistical evidence and observational proof.

I did find this American study that concurs with that. Cyclists run red lights because they consider it safer.
http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/cyclists-break-the-law-to-stay-safe-study-finds

Chuchote

No

Very interesting. Haven't found it (yet) but here's one person making the same point:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/10252518/Why-cyclists-should-be-allowed-to-jump-red-lights.html

A conversation [with a shickaloney] followed in which phrases such as ‘oncoming traffic’ and ‘endangering pedestrians’ were given due prominence, to which I, in all honesty, contributed little. Had I been certain of a warmer reception, what I might have said was: ‘Mate I always go through that red light when the green man is on and the pedestrians have crossed. I do it to get to this bit of the road here, just after it narrows, where I turn right, so I can get a small head start on the cars behind me. It gives me a slightly better chance of not being left completely exposed in the middle of the road with cars passing very close, at speed, either side of me. Experience tells me that some of the drivers in those cars will not be thinking of my safety with any great concern. And I’m trying to stay alive.’

Edit: maybe this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm

In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.

Chuchote

No

Incidentally, in Paris last week I noticed that, while they do have railings at the edge of some streets, these railings have breaks in them. I'll post a photo later if I think of it.

Slutmonkey57b

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Let me repeat myself. Cyclists are not a problem on the road. Most collisions are not caused by cyclists. Nobody has ever been killed by a drunk cyclist. Most road deaths are not caused by cyclists and do not involve cyclists. The belief that road safety could be significantly improved by licensing and registering cyclists is quite simply inane. It betrays a wilful ignorance of the facts around road deaths in this country, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant about cyclists.

Then why does the majority of this thread focus on the behaviour of motorists around rush hour commutes in Dublin, when the graph on page 3 shows unambiguously that cyclist deaths are concentrated outside Dublin...?

If you want to talk about concentrating on facts rather than optics.

Chuchote

No

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Then why does the majority of this thread focus on the behaviour of motorists around rush hour commutes in Dublin, when the graph on page 3 shows unambiguously that cyclist deaths are concentrated outside Dublin...?

If you want to talk about concentrating on facts rather than optics.

Probably because the majority of the people posting here are cycling in Dublin, so it's more immediately apposite to their experience.

A huge factor in the lack of road safety must be the tiny sanctions imposed by judges when drivers kill or seriously injure other road users, and the forgiving remarks made about these drivers. It's typical that drivers will pay a small fine, and judges and lawyers will refer to "a momentary lapse in concentration by the motorist".

It's understandable that people sympathise with the trauma suffered by a driver who causes a death, but it really shouldn't be the main response, imho. And I strongly suspect that if someone riding a bike knocked down a young mother and killed her, this would not be the response.

alanjgalbraith

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe we should be pushing for a change to Traffic light sequence? Maybe we need UK type lights that go Amber, then Green instead of our..straight from Red to Green? This would, in effect, legalise those of us who predict the light sequence and move before the light is actually green?

.... and falso or the stopping sequence, where in the UK there is no amber in the sequence (AFAIK).

I ofter wonder if this (Green to Red with no amber) would help stop people accelerating on amber to beat the red light (bikes & cars) ... and make people more cautious when approaching any junction .. I expect there is a study/paper on why we have different traffic light sequences to the UK ...

Anyone got information on our traffic light sequences?

Slutmonkey57b

mh_cork wrote: »

A few years ago I read a research article that looked at cyclists deaths in London. It asked the reason why the rate of male and female deaths was similar when female cyclists made up less than 20% of the cyclists. Therefore a female cyclist was 2.5 times more likely to be killed than a male cyclist.

What it found was that male cyclists were more likely to be involved "T-bone" accidents, where the car hit them from the side. Female cyclists were more likely to get killed with large vehicles turning left at junctions.

Doesn't that indicate, however, that the behaviour of both types of cyclists was likely to raise the risk of death, according to the risk of the individual behaviour?

e.g. if a cyclist is going to be "T-boned" by a car, it indicates that they were across the path of an oncoming car; a risk much increased if red lights are ignored/bypassed. Therefore the male cyclist has simply swapped one type of risk (being in a HGV's blind spot) for another (crossing oncoming traffic). Questions of whether one is "less risky" than the other are similar to the same questions we can ask of motorists, is it "less risky" to do 90 in an 80 zone than it is to do 40 in a 30?

And HGV's, in general, are not treated with the appropriate respect for stopping distances, blind spots etc by either motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. In Chuchote's example, cyclist #2 may be following good practice for avoiding blind spots, but is making assumptions when cutting back in front of the HGV about braking distances that may not be realistic or reasonable.

CramCycle

mh_cork wrote: »

Some earlier posts asked why cyclists RLJ and some replies said it was purely for selfish reasons and there was no safety element. Basically the reasoning was that you were just as safe if you waited in line.

This is not true.

I remember this study but would disagree with the results. I think they attributed the increased risk of being female with the interpretation that females tended to be more cautious, less risk taking and hence got caught in "dangerous" situations, unlike men who were more likely to break the law.

A far simpler interpretation was that people who jumped red lights were more likely to get T-boned and being on the inside of a large HGV and presuming it can see you and would wait was not a sensible option.

My mind could be playing tricks on me but I was appalled at the interpretation of the data and the recommendations.

archer22

Worth what?

Went for my first cycle in couple of months yesterday morning...first thing I met was a clown on the wrong side of the road taking a hairpin bend...then a truck trying to pass a digger on a blind hill, and finally a ****wit who decided to pass me on a narrow road with a car coming on the opposite direction.
All that on a 12 mile spin in a quiet rural area!..so yes I am beginning to think its not worth it anymore

RayCun

mh_cork wrote: »

What it found was that male cyclists were more likely to be involved "T-bone" accidents, where the car hit them from the side. Female cyclists were more likely to get killed with large vehicles turning left at junctions.

They then went back to observe cyclists on the road and found that on average male cyclists either ran red lights or positioned themselves at the front of traffic lines. Female cyclists did not take an assertive position and waited in line.

We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago.

There is a big difference between, "it is safer to take the lane at traffic lights" and "it is safer to break traffic lights". One is supported by evidence, the other isn't.

RayCun

Chuchote wrote: »

Why is either of those a good idea?

Going up the left of a HGV is clearly bad.

Why go up the right of a HGV? There are blind spots on the right too, and if it starts moving forward, you are on the wrong side of a large vehicle that doesn't know you are there, and doesn't have any reason to believe that anything is there. If it is turning right you are ****ed again.

Why not stay behind?

Chuchote

No

In my experience, the problem doesn't come from my cycling up the inside or the outside of an HGV - what am I, crazy? - but from my positioning myself at the front of the road and an HGV then pulling up behind me.

In that case, you're much safer out the front, or if you can do it safely, across the road through the red light and well away from the truck.

CramCycle

RayCun wrote: »

Why is either of those a good idea?

Going to the right rather than the left is safer than the left as you have nothing to be pinned against. If the truck goes to turn right, you still have the lane beside you (while not ideal) to move into, you have nowhere to go on the left in many cases.

Why go up the right of a HGV? There are blind spots on the right too, and if it starts moving forward, you are on the wrong side of a large vehicle that doesn't know you are there, and doesn't have any reason to believe that anything is there. If it is turning right you are ****ed again.

I only ever overtake a HGV on the right and even then, only in multi lane traffic where I am in the same position as a car. If the HGV is turning right, it will most likely be in the right lane or straddling both lanes to give itself space and not get overtaken on the wrong side, the same (in reverse) for turning left.

Why not stay behind?

This is obviously the optimal choice, except for the fumes but still the safest in regards getting crushed.

RayCun

Chuchote wrote: »

In my experience, the problem doesn't come from my cycling up the inside or the outside of an HGV - what am I, crazy? - but from my positioning myself at the front of the road and an HGV then pulling up behind me.

In that case, you're much safer out the front, or if you can do it safely, across the road through the red light and well away from the truck.

If you're at the lights, and in the centre of the lane, when the truck arrives, they'll see you as they arrive, and you'll move before them anyway. It might feel safer to get a head-start by breaking the lights, but is it actually safer?

(and this situation is about 0.001% of the instances of cyclists breaking red lights)

Chips Lovell

mh_cork wrote: »

What it found was that male cyclists were more likely to be involved "T-bone" accidents, where the car hit them from the side. Female cyclists were more likely to get killed with large vehicles turning left at junctions.

They then went back to observe cyclists on the road and found that on average male cyclists either ran red lights or positioned themselves at the front of traffic lines. Female cyclists did not take an assertive position and waited in line.

No, as Chuchote points out, its waiting in the blind spot that puts you in danger. Waiting in line is the safest option by far.

It's one of the many reasons why cycle lanes are a bad idea, as they encourage inexperienced cyclists to move up the inside or wait on the left of traffic at junctions.

Tenzor07

RayCun wrote: »

If you're at the lights, and in the centre of the lane, when the truck arrives, they'll see you as they arrive, and you'll move before them anyway. It might feel safer to get a head-start by breaking the lights, but is it actually safer?
(and this situation is about 0.001% of the instances of cyclists breaking red lights)

I don't think there's a 100% correct answer to that, though I wouldn't be sitting in front of a HGV at a traffic signal anyways..
This is where protected/segregated infrastructure and advanced stop boxes, traffic signals placed at cyclist height with a 20 seconds advance green for cyclists would improve safety greatly and lessen any human error by the trucker...

And not these traffic signals which would mean that truck drivers have a perfect view which the bicycle user doesn't!



You can see in this pic that a UK reg HGV was proceeding to turn through a red light, but thanks to the segregated cycle path any impact from the bad driving:

Tenzor07

Surely you mean:

It's one of the many reasons why Badly designed cycle lanes are a bad idea, as they encourage inexperienced cyclists to move up the inside or wait on the left of traffic at junctions.

Chips Lovell

No, I meant cycle lanes, full stop.

Tenzor07

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No, I meant cycle lanes, full stop.

Ah, you must subscribe to the principles of "vehicular cycling."

Chips Lovell

Not familiar with that. Broadly speaking, I think they enhance the perception among non-cyclists and novice cyclists that cycling is so dangerous, they need to be separated from traffic. And they fuel the belief among some motorists that bikes don't belong on the road.

In many cases, they put cyclists in dangerous positions, such as encouraging them to stay on the left at junctions and also (in conjunction with advanced stop boxes) encourage unnecessary (and sometimes risky) overtaking.

Tenzor07

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Not familiar with that. Broadly speaking, I think they enhance the perception among non-cyclists and novice cyclists that cycling is so dangerous, they need to be separated from traffic. And they fuel the belief among some motorists that bikes don't belong on the road.

What's the alternative, remove all cycle related infra? The Grand Canal and Clontarf-Sutton routes for example?

AmberGold

No

2016 Motorcyclist Deaths 4
2016 Cyclists Deaths 7

I cant see any stats for '17 but there seems to have been a lot more cyclists killed.

I'd also say a fair amount of motorcyclist deaths don't involve cars but speed. It appears the humble push bike is the new Death Trap due to Distracted Driving.

For this reason I do more on the Turbo, less solo rides ( as I feel motorists notice groups more ) and stay off dual carriageways and long straight roads.

Chips Lovell

Noting so radical. Just stop building it and remove most on-road, on-footpath ones whenever roads are being redone. Stuff like the greenways and the coast ones I've no issue with

Tenzor07

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Noting so radical. Just stop building it and remove most on-road, on-footpath ones whenever roads are being redone.

Yea so remove the box ticking and mostly dangerous Irish cycle paths and replace them with Dutch/Danish quality design and construction...

Chuchote

No

As Professor Arne Bjornbeg says of the Irish health system in a disastrous report

http://www.irishtimes.com/special-reports/irelands-patient-healthcare-system/ireland-below-macedonia-in-healthcare-rankings-1.3084854

"If governments stop trying to reinvent the wheel, in favour of copying proven progress, [health-]reform speed could increase. That would reduce mortality, improve quality of life and save money.”

This largely ignored and hugely important Euro Health Consumer Index 2016 report, ranking Ireland's healthcare disastrously compared to other European countries, makes a point that could be a watchword across the board in Ireland, from drugs policy to prisons to infrastructure to building regulations to buying and selling houses - and to cycling policy: we should look at what works elsewhere and do that.

CramCycle

I'd be more in agreement with Jep on this one. Danger to cyclists is generally caused by other road users not obeying the law or they themselves not obeying the law.

If we took all of the money that has been piled into cycle paths in Dublin and just handed it over to enforcement of road traffic law, the risks that people feel would dissipate quite quickly and eventually, good etiquette and behaviour would become the norm.

I won't hold my breath on this though.

Tenzor07

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd be more in agreement with Jep on this one. Danger to cyclists is generally caused by other road users not obeying the law or they themselves not obeying the law.
If we took all of the money that has been piled into cycle paths in Dublin and just handed it over to enforcement of road traffic law, the risks that people feel would dissipate quite quickly and eventually, good etiquette and behaviour would become the norm.

Well yea, you'd need MPD and strict liability in cycle - motorist collisions, and enforcement for starters...

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well yea, you'd need MPD and strict liability in cycle - motorist collisions, and enforcement for starters...

I am not certain about strict liability. Rumours that it exists in the Netherlands are blown out of proportion is my understanding. It just so happens that they seem to always find in favour of the cyclist because it is nearly always the motorists fault. I believe a legal eagle for Amsterdam council pointed this out in an article before.



Enforcement to me is the way forward until it becomes a societal norm. Makes me sound very right wing but I just can't see a more practical way to get a large swathe of society to change their attitude to wards safety and the law in a short time frame.

ED E

Worth what?

CramCycle wrote: »

Enforcement to me is the way forward until it becomes a societal norm. Makes me sound very right wing but I just can't see a more practical way to get a large swathe of society to change their attitude to wards safety and the law in a short time frame.

If only there was any hope of an ounce of enforcement.

Victor

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

As a car driver, I'd have to say it depends on which section of the N4 you're talking about. All the way from Kilmainham

The N4 only starts at the M50 junction http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3597/-6.3861

and particularly out past the M50 is effectively motorway and the only reason it isn't officially made one is that they like to keep speed traps there.

You seem to forget the people of Palmerstown trying to get to the village or to / from Chapelizod.