Is it worth it anymore..... ?

tomasrojo

No

Autochange wrote: »

Its common sense to have helmets and safety gear.
You wouldnt drive your car without a seatbelt would you?

I'm following Mod orders and not discussing this here.

Autochange

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm following Mod orders and not discussing this here.

Me too as there is nothing to discuss

ThinkProgress

CramCycle wrote: »

One uses a vehicle, the other doesn't. One causes a risk to the other in shared space by virtue of its unbalance at slow speed and reaction time at higher speed, the other can be rectified by improved behaviour. They are very different.

I think you might be sidestepping my question there a bit...

If I was to jog in traffic next to (and in between) large powerful vehicles, such as 40 tonne trucks on busy city streets... would you consider that to be a safe thing to do? And if that truck ran me over and killed me...? I was an idiot for being there, right?

So what major difference does a cyclist have on their side, that makes it logical for them do that very same thing as described above??

We know that their bike affords zero protection. And we know that greater speed usually only makes any potential collision worse... so what other significant factor differentiates a cyclist from some madman running in heavy traffic next to powerful vehicles?

It may seem like I'm being pedantic here... but I'm really not trying to be. It is a genuine question... I fail to see any major significant differences that make it logical or sensible for cyclists to be be there!

tomasrojo

No

Autochange wrote: »

Me too as there is nothing to discuss

Well, if you're interested in reading around the subject, the megathreads are:
Helmet
Hiviz

MediaMan

In response to some earlier comments, that things are not that bad.., the number of deaths are still low in comparative terms..., and the health risks outweigh the benefits....

None of these points are of any comfort if you are the one that gets knocked down and seriously injured or killed. Or if you know someone to whom that has happened. Or if you get buzzed by cars and vans on a daily basis.

Furthermore, the issue at hand here is not only that people on bikes are getting injured and killed on our roads. The deaths are at the pointy end of the pyramid of bad outcomes, near misses, abusive behaviour and bad infrastructure that people on bikes have to deal with in Ireland.

It truly is time for people to be getting on to their TDs and other public reps to get attention on this.

tomasrojo

No

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So what major difference does a cyclist have on their side, that makes it logical for them do that very same thing as described above??

They're legally obliged to use the road rather than the footpath. And using the road is pretty safe: the serious injury/fatality rate for pedestrians and cyclists is pretty similar. Cyclists are fairly universally prohibited from using footways, because they keep colliding with pedestrians. This has been the case since the nineteenth century.

The other option is to have protected cycling routes, which is obviously strongly favoured by many. But if you're suggesting that cyclists should use the footway instead, you won't find many takers for that.

Autochange

MediaMan wrote: »

In response to some earlier comments, that things are not that bad.., the number of deaths are still low in comparative terms..., and the health risks outweigh the benefits....

None of these points are of any comfort if you are the one that gets knocked down and seriously injured or killed. Or if you know someone to whom that has happened. Or if you get buzzed by cars and vans on a daily basis.

Furthermore, the issue at hand here is not only that people on bikes are getting injured and killed on our roads. The deaths are at the pointy end of the pyramid of bad outcomes, near misses, abusive behaviour and bad infrastructure that people on bikes have to deal with in Ireland.

It truly is time for people to be getting on to their TDs and other public reps to get attention on this.

Get onto their TDs and public reps? how is the local snout in the trough going to stop the white van man from texting the wife as he drives too close to you or I out on our bicycle? And why would he/ she even care

Unfortunately i dont share your faith in elected representatives

Autochange

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, if you're interested in reading around the subject, the megathreads are:
Helmet
Hiviz

No thanks

Allah snackbar

I enjoy the cycling threads , it's a mix between militant cyclists who I think would happily put their head under a bus to prove how dangerous vehicles are and the normal Joe soap who just wants to go to work and feel healthy .

I drive a truck and constantly come across cyclists , never had an issue as I treat them as I treat every other road users (i.e.) with respect and give them plenty room when overtaking , but , much and all as I like them and slightly envy their healthier way of life I don't think I'll ever come to the fact that some think they're crush proof , here's a couple of tips I think cyclists could have the benefit of from my birds eye view from the cab

1. Never assume I have enough room to pass , that's my job , as a driver I always prefer when a cyclist dominates the lane therefore taking away from me the uncertainty of making a decision until I'm entirely sure it's safe to go

2 . I have 7 mirrors on my cab and a camera , and believe it or not I still have blind spots , a purple Nissan Micra went into my blind spot earlier this week and I saw it go in and not come out for 300 metres , what chance have I got of seeing a cyclist ? Please attempt to be visible to the driver , raise your hand or make eye contact and if you don't get an acknowledgment from the driver don't proceed , even give a knock on the passenger door to alert him to your presence

3. Flesh will never beat metal , hold back an extra few metres , that red light doesn't have to be broken every morning :-) and a lorry rolling up to a red light ( trucks don't like too much starting and stopping therefore the driver will try to keep rolling as much as possible) will turn at surprising speed

4. We should try and make things as easy as possible for everyone , I don't want the guilt of something bad happening that's entirely within all our control to prevent simply because of bad or non communication on the roads or impatience by either party , take the lane , I can wait , Give me a thumbs up and you've immediately made it personal and I stop seeing a figure on a bike and see a person who's eyes I've made contact with .

5. We all want to go home in the evening , a few small changes means we will , but it'll take both sides and I'm trying to do my bit , we can always do a bit more

I'll also be glad to take advice as well :-)

Rokta

No

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think you might be sidestepping my question there a bit...

If I was to jog in traffic next to (and in between) large powerful vehicles, such as 40 tonne trucks on busy city streets... would you consider that to be a safe thing to do? And if that truck ran me over and killed me...? I was an idiot for being there, right?

So what major difference does a cyclist have on their side, that makes it logical for them do that very same thing as described above??

We know that their bike affords zero protection. And we know that greater speed usually only makes any potential collision worse... so what other significant factor differentiates a cyclist from some madman running in heavy traffic next to powerful vehicles?

It may seem like I'm being pedantic here... but I'm really not trying to be. It is a genuine question... I fail to see any major significant differences that make it logical or sensible for cyclists to be be there!

English is not my first language so please correct me if I am getting you wrong but I am getting the impression that:

a) cyclists are too fast for their own good, btw I actually appreciate that if you think I am fast
b) actually, they shouldn't be on the road at all because they all whizz around the cars in traffic in city centre

Would you believe me that I can take a bet on that 99% of all cyclists here would rather have a "proper" cycle path at the Quays rather than whizzing around cars? Guess what cyclists do not have?

I try to tread carefully here as I am tired of more alpha dog discussions who owns the road here but tbh, the above pretty much sounds like it.

PS: What I mean with proper.... well take a look at how the dutch are doing it.

tomasrojo

No

MediaMan wrote: »

None of these points are of any comfort if you are the one that gets knocked down and seriously injured or killed.

Well, obviously, but that would be true no matter how low the fatality rate was. The thread is about whether it's worth continuing to cycle. For a lot of people it is, and they gave the reasons why.

MediaMan wrote: »

Or if you get buzzed by cars and vans on a daily basis.

I don't, so I'm happy enough. You're right about agitating for a society where nobody has to put up with that.

Rokta

No

Allah snackbar wrote: »

I enjoy the cycling threads , it's a mix between militant cyclists who I think would happily put their head under a bus to prove how dangerous vehicles are and the normal Joe soap who just wants to go to work and feel healthy .

I drive a truck and constantly come across cyclists , never had an issue as I treat them as I treat every other road users (i.e.) with respect and give them plenty room when overtaking , but , much and all as I like them and slightly envy their healthier way of life I don't think I'll ever come to the fact that some think they're crush proof , here's a couple of tips I think cyclists could have the benefit of from my birds eye view from the cab

1. Never assume I have enough room to pass , that's my job , as a driver I always prefer when a cyclist dominates the lane therefore taking away from me the uncertainty of making a decision until I'm entirely sure it's safe to go

2 . I have 7 mirrors on my cab and a camera , and believe it or not I still have blind spots , a purple Nissan Micra went into my blind spot earlier this week and I saw it go in and not come out for 300 metres , what chance have I got of seeing a cyclist ? Please attempt to be visible to the driver , raise your hand or make eye contact and if you don't get an acknowledgment from the driver don't proceed , even give a knock on the passenger door to alert him to your presence

3. Flesh will never beat metal , hold back an extra few metres , that red light doesn't have to be broken every morning :-) and a lorry rolling up to a red light ( trucks don't like too much starting and stopping therefore the driver will try to keep rolling as much as possible) will turn at surprising speed

4. We should try and make things as easy as possible for everyone , I don't want the guilt of something bad happening that's entirely within all our control to prevent simply because of bad or non communication on the roads or impatience by either party , take the lane , I can wait , Give me a thumbs up and you've immediately made it personal and I stop seeing a figure on a bike and see a person who's eyes I've made contact with .

5. We all want to go home in the evening , a few small changes means we will , but it'll take both sides and I'm trying to do my bit , we can always do a bit more

Thanks for your comment on this and tbh I find it very helpful, the roads could use more drivers like you.

ThinkProgress

Rokta wrote: »

English is not my first language so please correct me if I am getting you wrong but I am getting the impression that:

a) cyclists are too fast for their own good, btw I actually appreciate that if you think I am fast
b) actually, they shouldn't be on the road at all because they all whizz around the cars in traffic in city centre

Would you believe me that I can take a bet on that 99% of all cyclists here would rather have a "proper" cycle path at the Quays rather than whizzing around cars? Guess what cyclists do not have?

I try to tread carefully here as I am tired of more alpha dog discussions who owns the road here but tbh, the above pretty much sounds like it.

PS: What I mean with proper.... well take a look at how the dutch are doing it.

I also have no interest in "alpha dog" discussions on who owns the road... that is a completely pointless debate!

I am also not anti-cyclists.

I do think many cyclists go far too fast in heavy traffic. And I think it is one of numerous contributing factors that lead to crashes, and sadly deaths.

My only real point, is that I see cyclists as every bit as vulnerable as pedestrians on foot. And in some respects possibly even more vulnerable, because of the reasons I stated in my previous posts...

Being as vulnerable as they are, I see no logical reason why we as a society consider it acceptable for them to be mixed in with powerful vehicles like trucks, buses and cars on busy roads... while pedestrians on foot require the safety of the footpath, pedestrian crossings, guardrails etc etc

It just seems completely illogical to me. I don't see any factors that would make a cyclist better equipped to deal with those vehicles than the pedestrians on the footpath... they are both essentially the same in my eyes!

ThinkProgress

tomasrojo wrote: »

They're legally obliged to use the road rather than the footpath. And using the road is pretty safe: the serious injury/fatality rate for pedestrians and cyclists is pretty similar. Cyclists are fairly universally prohibited from using footways, because they keep colliding with pedestrians. This has been the case since the nineteenth century.

The other option is to have protected cycling routes, which is obviously strongly favoured by many. But if you're suggesting that cyclists should use the footway instead, you won't find many takers for that.

Yes, I think protected dedicated cycleways would be the answer.

It certainly would be a huge undertaking, to transform somewhere like Dublin city in that way though... I'm not sure our political figures could pull it off. Or if they could even be persuaded to do so.

CramCycle

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It just seems completely illogical to me. I don't see any factors that would make a cyclist better equipped to deal with those vehicles than the pedestrians on the footpath... they are both essentially the same in my eyes!

Put cyclists on foot paths and then come back to me with the difference, it will be quite obvious.

Autochange

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I also have no interest in "alpha dog" discussions on who owns the road... that is a completely pointless debate!

I am also not anti-cyclists.

I do think many cyclists go far too fast in heavy traffic. And I think it is one of numerous contributing factors that lead to crashes, and sadly deaths.

My only real point, is that I see cyclists as every bit as vulnerable as pedestrians on foot. And in some respects possibly even more vulnerable, because of the reasons I stated in my previous posts...

Being as vulnerable as they are, I see no logical reason why we as a society consider it acceptable for them to be mixed in with powerful vehicles like trucks, buses and cars on busy roads... while pedestrians on foot require the safety of the footpath, pedestrian crossings, guardrails etc etc

It just seems completely illogical to me. I don't see any factors that would make a cyclist better equipped to deal with those vehicles than the pedestrians on the footpath... they are both essentially the same in my eyes!

Old lady steps out of Post office as cyclist whizzes by

ThinkProgress

CramCycle wrote: »

Put cyclists on foot paths and then come back to me with the difference, it will be quite obvious.

I'm not suggesting they should be mixed with people walking... but they certainly have more place next to pedestrians, rather than next to 40 tonne lorries!

But again it comes down to speed. Why not have stricter rules for the speed of cyclists in certain zones/areas? Cyclists currently have carte blanche in this regard... and many abuse this factor! (not all I must stress)

You still haven't addressed my main question?

tomasrojo

No

A successful strategy has been to remove trucks from residential roads, and to lower the speed limit. On main roads, segregation of cyclists is often used.

You're making far too much of speed. Most cyclists don't go much over 20km/h. It's not that fast.

Autochange

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I'm not suggesting they should be mixed with people walking... but they certainly have more place next to pedestrians, rather than next to 40 tonne lorries!

But again it comes down to speed. Why not have stricter rules for the speed of cyclists in certain zones/areas? Cyclists currently have carte blanche in this regard... and many abuse this factor! (not all I must stress)

You still haven't addressed my main question?

I do agree cyclists should be under a speed limit in certain areas. especially built and traffic heavy ones where the chance of accident are higher.
I must have missed that. What question did you ask me?

beauf

ThinkProgress wrote: »

....It just seems completely illogical to me. I don't see any factors that would make a cyclist better equipped to deal with those vehicles than the pedestrians on the footpath... they are both essentially the same in my eyes!

Because cyclist move at a similar speed to other road traffic in cities.

They do not move at the speed of pedestrians.

Its why certain slow vehicles aren't allowed on the motorway.

ThinkProgress

tomasrojo wrote: »

A successful strategy has been to remove trucks from residential roads, and to lower the speed limit. On main roads, segregation of cyclists is often used.

You're making far too much of speed. Most cyclists don't go much over 20km/h. It's not that fast.

I don't think I am making too much of speed...

I cycled in Dublin for many years. Not every motorist that failed to spot a cyclist, was a bad driver... some of the accidents that I witnessed, were practically unavoidable from the motorist's perspective.

The reason I say that, is because when you combine all the factors together... it can often be near impossible to see a (bad) cyclist coming. Their relative size, the fact they can be hidden behind other vehicles, their ability to weave between tight spaces. And yes their speed, particularly when quite often everything else around them could be stationary or very slow moving... meaning motorists might not be expecting to encounter something coming at speed from a direction where everything else might be moving slow or stationary!

There are other factors too. Speed is key imo though, because it gives motorists less time to react and avoid.

tomasrojo

No

70+% of cyclist deaths in urban settings are caused by buses or HGVs turning at junctions. The cyclist is usually not going fast. The causative factor is the inappropriateness of trucks in urban settings: huge momentum, even at low speeds; poor manoeuvrability, blind spots.

Even where I see incidents where a cyclist is at fault, it's usually impatience, not high speed. Inappropriate speed for the circumstances maybe, but you're still talking about maybe 30km/h, max.

As for motorists not having time to react and observe, I find it bizarre that you think the speed of the cyclist (20km/h or less usually) is more germane than the speed of the motorist (50-80km/h on 50km/h roads).

ThinkProgress

beauf wrote: »

Because cyclist move at a similar speed to other road traffic in cities.

They do not move at the speed of pedestrians.

Its why certain slow vehicles aren't allowed on the motorway.

So, theoretically, if I could run at the same speed as a cyclist... do you think I should be allowed to join the traffic on busy city streets??

What would be the difference? Cyclists have no more protection than a pedestrian running in traffic!

Btw, there are some elite runners that could do a good job keeping up with many city cyclists... so it's not as crazy an idea as you might think. But do you think it would be crazy to allow a runner to be alongside lorries, buses and cars on a busy city street?

CramCycle

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I'm not suggesting they should be mixed with people walking... but they certainly have more place next to pedestrians, rather than next to 40 tonne lorries!

I disagree, pedestrians should always be the number one priority for a city. 40 Tonne lorries should not be in a city or should be severely restricted.

But again it comes down to speed. Why not have stricter rules for the speed of cyclists in certain zones/areas? Cyclists currently have carte blanche in this regard... and many abuse this factor! (not all I must stress)

Bicycles do not have speedos, there abuse of this speed is rare (most cyclists do not go above 30kmph) and in general it would be impossible to implement.

You still haven't addressed my main question?

It was answered several times now.

beauf

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So, theoretically, if I could run at the same speed as a cyclist... do you think I should be allowed to join the traffic on busy city streets??

What would be the difference? Cyclists have no more protection than a pedestrian running in traffic!

Btw, there are some elite runners that could do a good job keeping up with many city cyclists... so it's not as crazy an idea as you might think. But do you think it would be crazy to allow a runner to be alongside lorries, buses and cars on a busy city street?

On a motorway someone driving too slow is dangerous. But if they are at the similar speed to the other traffic its ok. Why is that?

Besides which its not cyclist speed which is a cause of cyclist accidents. you've just made that up. Its a lack of awareness of cyclists, as in not looking for them. As in not checking mirrors and turning across them.

tomasrojo

No

ThinkProgress wrote: »

What would be the difference? Cyclists have no more protection than a pedestrian running in traffic!

It's not a protection issue. There are three choices: footway, carriageway or protected cycle infrastructure. Where the third doesn't exist, cyclists use the carriageway, because they travel at about 20km/h, which is incompatible with pedestrians travelling at about 8km/h.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Btw, there are some elite runners that could do a good job keeping up with many city cyclists... so it's not as crazy an idea as you might think.

No, it's pretty half-baked.

The world record for the 5000m is an average speed of about 24km/h, so, yeah, that's comparable; there aren't many people capable of that speed for any length of time. If you were to habitually run at that speed, the Gardaí would keep stopping you because they'd assume you were fleeing a crime scene or something.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But do you think it would be crazy to allow a runner to be alongside lorries, buses and cars on a busy city street?

It's reasonably safe. Why do you keep saying or implying it's not? The dubinbike scheme (which operates pretty much exclusively on busy city streets) has had many millions of journeys and one fatality. It's not all that dangerous.

beauf

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So, theoretically, if I could run at the same speed as a cyclist... do you think I should be allowed to join the traffic on busy city streets??

What would be the difference? Cyclists have no more protection than a pedestrian running in traffic!

Btw, there are some elite runners that could do a good job keeping up with many city cyclists... so it's not as crazy an idea as you might think. But do you think it would be crazy to allow a runner to be alongside lorries, buses and cars on a busy city street?

By your logic is crazy to allow a half a tonne car on the same road as a 40 tonne truck.

CramCycle

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So, theoretically, if I could run at the same speed as a cyclist... do you think I should be allowed to join the traffic on busy city streets??

Your choice to make, but odd given the fact that you can integrate with typical pedestrian traffic easily, cyclists can't, even if travelling slowly. The main issue on the roads are lack of enforcement of the law and in general, good behaviour (this comment applies to all road users).

What would be the difference? Cyclists have no more protection than a pedestrian running in traffic!

And? I really don't get your point here. I can assure you, if you start sprinting through moving traffic, you will either get tired or injured far quicker than a cyclist. The protection you refer to is not as clear cut as you think, the one that jumps out at me is fatigue, a typical runner running at the same speed as a typical cyclist is unsustainable for the majority over all but the shortest distances but I think you may already know that.

do you think it would be crazy to allow a runner to be alongside lorries, buses and cars on a busy city street?

If you went around Dublin, you would find several runners do. This said you are clearly avoiding the points being made and looking over them.
Is there a reason you are not involving yourself in the discussion. Speed, predictability, defined roles, lack of alternatives, lack of issues caused by runners in pedestrian zones etc.

ThinkProgress

CramCycle wrote: »

I disagree, pedestrians should always be the number one priority for a city. 40 Tonne lorries should not be in a city or should be severely restricted.
Bicycles do not have speedos, there abuse of this speed is rare (most cyclists do not go above 30kmph) and in general it would be impossible to implement.
It was answered several times now.

So basically, according to many of you on here... the sole reason that cyclists should be allowed next to powerful vehicles on our roads (while pedestrians are not), is because of their ability to achieve a greater speed than pedestrians!?

Yet it is a statistical fact, that speed is a major factor in road deaths. Obviously I can't pull out stats on cyclist's speeds, and correlate them with accidents... but only someone attempting to be very obtuse, would deny that the ability to achieve greater speeds - while having no protection - is going to be a factor in accidents.

You have not answered my question! You are sidestepping it...

Greater speed is the only significant factor that differentiates cyclists from pedestrians on the footpath. And you think it is perfectly logical that this factor should be enough to put cyclists in harm's way next to powerful vehicles... while pedestrians should be protected on the footpath?

That's still making zero sense to me, I'm afraid...

Cyclists have no place being near powerful vehicles on busy streets. Their greater speed does not offer them any more protection over the man/woman walking slowly on the footpath.... if anything it actually puts them in greater danger!


Right, I'm out of this discussion... I don't want to keep repeating the same points.

Pedestrians have zero protection against a collision with a powerful vehicle (beyond their quick wits that is )... and this fact does not change one bit, just because you jump on a bike... you were vulnerable before you got on the bike, now you are even more vulnerable and going faster! That's my final word on this! Peace & stay safe!

tomasrojo

No

You have no evidence to back up anything you're saying. Every country in the world puts bicycles on the road for the sake of pedestrian safety and comfort (except for Japan, which can't make up its mind), or else provides infrastructure for bicycles that is separate from both pedestrians and motorised vehicles.

It's just about possible that you're right, and the practice adopted throughout the entire world for the last century or so is wrong, but given that you don't have any numbers to back up what you're saying, I'm not betting on it.