Is it worth it anymore..... ?

beauf

ThinkProgress wrote: »

...Yet it is a statistical fact, that speed is a major factor in road deaths. ....

So you think we should ban trucks and cars from the city center and reduced speed nationally especially in suburban areas. How about 20Kph.

CramCycle

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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!?

No, you are purposefully misreading it. Even at slow speeds, it is dangerous to have cyclists mixing with pedestrians. The issue here is not cyclists, the issue here is the integration of powerful vehicles on our roads in built up areas. Rather than asking is it safe to have cyclists integrating with 40 ton vehicles, why are you not asking , is it safe to have 40ton vehicles allowed in city centres integratign with pedestrians and cyclists.

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.

Not being obtuse, you are referring to the speed of motorised vehicles, you are literally making sh1t up to make a point that at this point in time is nonsensical

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

Explain how, rather than just stating? I have answered (with different answers) several times now and you have sidestepped the answer by ignoring it or misinterpreting 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...

Your interpretation is missing one thing, change. You assume that speed is the only factor, I have given you others. You also presume that these 40tonne vehicles have to be dangerous, or more importantly, have to be there at all.

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!

And what is your solution, I have given a few, you have given none other than hinting at putting pedestrians in harms way.

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

You haven't had any discussion yet, that involves you getting involved in the debate and taking other points on board.

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!

And???? You really just keep saying this without offering anything else. It is the way things are, what would you change, what would you do, are there solutions or compromises?

smacl

No

Rokta wrote: »

I fully agree with this.

I am scared sh@#less of the idea of letting my son cycle to school.... even though we are talking about a school way of less than 5km because of this.

Have you cycled the route with him and looked at alternative routes for parts you're not happy with? I did this with my youngest, and while it has ended up turning an 8km each way spin into 10km it is a very safe route that she enjoys, albeit only on an occasional basis currently. Worth remembering that the best route out may be different to the best route home, particularly where roundabouts are involved (i.e. taking the first exit on most roundabouts is typically safe, taking the last one can present hazards). My approach was to cycle the route a couple of times each way with my daughter, showing her how to deal with each contentious junction. This typically involves taking the more pedestrian route, which is different to how a more experienced cyclist would handle it. e.g. to go straight ahead at the junction below, I get her to cross using the pedestrian light rather than with the flow of traffic as I would;



IMHO, taking time to show your child how to cycle safely by highlighting all the risks is far more important than so-called 'safety-equipment'. While the cycling infrastructure is a PITA for experienced adult cyclists, with a bit of planning it is actually quite good for kids.

lucernarian

Worth what?

Silly season here, with cycling and walking being treated equivalently by some in terms of safety.

Mixing foot and bike traffic doesn't work. Totally different manoeuvrability and take up different spaces.

Does no one remember the crash in the Phoenix Park between a cyclist and pedestrian? The cyclist died in that collision but it nonetheless shows why the two modes should be typically separated. And why I HATE cycling or other cyclists on footpaths.

greenspurs

Thanks everyone for their opinions.

It comes down to respect. Respect for another person on a bike while they are driving in their car/van/truck.
And while there are lots of motorists that will respect the person on the bike, there will always be those that dont.
Dont see the harm in squeezing past at speed, Dont see the harm in turning across them, Dont see why they should be cycling in the middle of the lane, Dont know why they are cycling two abreast ......
It wont ever change. Its endemic in the psyche of motorists now. The media have made us the scapegoats for all bad behavior on the road , "Shur he had no helmet" ....

I have to say that Cycling Ireland are disgraceful. They should be more proactive in trying to achieve more recognition for improved safety on the roads towards cyclists. People pay €40 (?) per year , for a little piece of cardboard with Cycling Ireland on it!! Why arent they producing Ads for the media promoting cycling ? Or lobbying for the 1.5m M.P.D ? They are sitting in Dublin counting the membership fees, whilst cyclists/members are left to it !!
Disgracful carry on, but i wouldnt expect anything else from them!....

*No replies from any td's/councillors yet.

buffalo

No

greenspurs wrote: »

a little piece of cardboard

I think someone's pulled a fast one on you there. Mine's made of plastic... I really hope yours doesn't say CI in crayon on it!

greenspurs

buffalo wrote: »

I think someone's pulled a fast one on you there. Mine's made of plastic... I really hope yours doesn't say CI in crayon on it!

Ok....
Cardboard covered with a plastic film ..... :rolleyes:
Thanks for the input .........

CramCycle

greenspurs wrote: »

I have to say that Cycling Ireland are disgraceful. They should be more proactive in trying to achieve more recognition for improved safety on the roads towards cyclists. People pay ?40 (?) per year , for a little piece of cardboard with Cycling Ireland on it!! Why arent they producing Ads for the media promoting cycling ? Or lobbying for the 1.5m M.P.D ? They are sitting in Dublin counting the membership fees, whilst cyclists/members are left to it !!

People forget that Cycling Ireland are a sporting organisation not a commuting cyclist lobby group and it is not part of their remit. This has started to shift in recent times with the demographic of the organisation changing but blaming them for this would be like blaming Athletics Ireland for danger posed to Pedestrians while out and about.

magicbastarder

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The one major change that could be implemented in the short term to make cycling safer in cities, would be to have speed limiters fitted on bikes...

I *do* have speed limiters fitted on my bikes, but let's not get into the disc vs. rims debate here.

I'll go back to a previous point I made. The bicycle is one of humanity's greatest, most ecologically friendly, and democratising inventions. The notion that it needs to be 'fixed' with what sounds like a ludicrously over engineered addition is the stuff of monty python. How would you even go about it?

greenspurs

CramCycle wrote: »

People forget that Cycling Ireland are a sporting organisation not a commuting cyclist lobby group and it is not part of their remit. This has started to shift in recent times with the demographic of the organisation changing but blaming them for this would be like blaming Athletics Ireland for danger posed to Pedestrians while out and about.

Pedestrians dont pay Athletics Ireland a fee every year ?

And im not a commuter, I am part of a club that are members of Cycling Ireland ...
What is their remit then ? What are they supposed to do for their members ?

smacl

No

buffalo wrote: »

I think someone's pulled a fast one on you there. Mine's made of plastic... I really hope yours doesn't say CI in crayon on it!

Double standards! Mines cardboard too, pushed out of the accompanying letter. (No crayon to be fair)

07Lapierre

No

buffalo wrote: »

I think someone's pulled a fast one on you there. Mine's made of plastic... I really hope yours doesn't say CI in crayon on it!

Leisure licenses are paper, competition licenses are plastic.

Macy0161

No

CramCycle wrote: »

People forget that Cycling Ireland are a sporting organisation not a commuting cyclist lobby group and it is not part of their remit.

In fairness, a number of the serious incidents in recent years have been people on club spins - it's not like close passes/ incidents are exclusively on commutes.

smacl

No

smacl wrote: »

Have you cycled the route with him and looked at alternative routes for parts you're not happy with? I did this with my youngest, and while it has ended up turning an 8km each way spin into 10km it is a very safe route that she enjoys, albeit only on an occasional basis currently. Worth remembering that the best route out may be different to the best route home, particularly where roundabouts are involved (i.e. taking the first exit on most roundabouts is typically safe, taking the last one can present hazards). My approach was to cycle the route a couple of times each way with my daughter, showing her how to deal with each contentious junction. This typically involves taking the more pedestrian route, which is different to how a more experienced cyclist would handle it. e.g. to go straight ahead at the junction below, I get her to cross using the pedestrian light rather than with the flow of traffic as I would;



IMHO, taking time to show your child how to cycle safely by highlighting all the risks is far more important than so-called 'safety-equipment'. While the cycling infrastructure is a PITA for experienced adult cyclists, with a bit of planning it is actually quite good for kids.

Ah this lovely junction..

There is so much wrong with this junction from a cycling perspective, it's one of the worst examples out there.

Chuchote

No

A new American study found that separated cycling infrastructure had a huge beneficial effect on the number of injuries to people on bikes

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303546

Trends in Walking and Cycling Safety: Recent Evidence From High-Income Countries, With a Focus on the United States and Germany

The World Health Organization (WHO) has
identified traffic injuries and fatalities as among
the world’s 5 most important causes of unnatural
death, with predictions that they will
become the leading cause by 2030.2 As of
2015, they were already the leading cause of
unnatural death among persons in the group
aged 15 to 29 years. Reducing pedestrian
and cyclist deaths and injuries is obviously
a benefit in itself. In addition, however, safer
walking and cycling conditions have been
shown to increase levels of walking and
cycling, especially among vulnerable or
risk-averse groups such as children, seniors, and
women

snip

Without exception, all 11 countries succeeded
in reducing pedestrian and cyclist
fatality rates per capita between the periods of
1990–1994 and 2010–2014. By far, the least
progress has been made in the United States.
Its pedestrian fatality rate per capita fell by 35%
compared with 49% in Canada, 52% in Japan,
and 63% to 75% in Australia and the 7
Western European countries. Similarly, the
cyclist fatality rate in the United States fell by
30% compared with 46% in Australia, 47% in
Japan, 49% in Canada, and by 53% to 68% in
Western Europe.

Sarz91

No

ronoc wrote: »

Ah this lovely junction..

There is so much wrong with this junction from a cycling perspective, it's one of the worst examples out there.

It's much worse a few hundred meters up the road towards the crossroads before stepaside where the bike track disappears and turns into a path with a very nasty exit out onto the road. There's no way of safely merging from the end of the cycle path onto the road with the way it's designed. You have to wait for there to be no traffic and then merge.

mcgratheoin

No

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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!

I think you're barking up the wrong tree completely with your focus on this nebulous concept of "protection". KSI figures for Irish roads are heavily weighted towards motor vehicle users and passengers (125/166 deaths in 2015) who would arguably benefit from whatever protection you believe cyclists do not have. This assumption goes to the heart of why driving behaviour is so poor in Ireland - there is an assumption that you are cocooned in your little safety box with all sorts of protections should something go wrong - I can't remember who first said it but behaviours would be an awful lot better if there was a big spike sticking out of the wheel towards the driver.

A more pertinant question should be why should a vehicle, travelling at similar speed to all other vehicular traffic, not be allowed to use the carriageways provided? If we could get an answer that didn't have some form of victim blaming (she/he was asking for it) that'd be nice.

smacl

No

Sarz91 wrote: »

It's much worse a few hundred meters up the road towards the crossroads before stepaside where the bike track disappears and turns into a path with a very nasty exit out onto the road. There's no way of safely merging from the end of the cycle path onto the road with the way it's designed. You have to wait for there to be no traffic and then merge.

This is where you have to be pragmatic as a parent organising a route for your child. Where the cycle lane ends there, I get her to stay on the footpath to Lamb's cross and get cross the road using the pedestrian light. Worth remembering that a small kid with a schoolbag is going to be cumbersome starting on a hill, so a safe option to push the bike across such a junction is always better. While some tut-tut about cycling on the footpad, it is the safest option for this short stretch, and she can always dismount if its busy (which it never is). I also cycle that road often enough and don't use the cycle track at all, for the simple reason that exiting it at that pinch point is dangerous, whereas being on the main road already means you have the lane for the narrow section. It does illustrate why cycling the route with your child makes sense, as doing so by yourself leads you to miss these things.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

there is a serious lack of respect from a large minority of road users, walkers, runners, cyclists, motorists.
And its getting worse on all sides.
Something has to be done as deaths and serious injuries will increase and my fear is when we finally try and do something it will be too late, the culture of ignorance will be ingrained in too many.

I think we need a private transport police whose profits are derived from fines imposed.
Let them enforce the rules of the road for all road users with fines in excess of €1000.00.
We need to start coming down on hard on certain rule infractions, hand held mobile phone usage by all road users, driving over the limit in residential areas both which are rampant and I think we could consider jail time for these.

also all tractors should be banned from all roads between 7 - 10 am and 4 - 7pm and trucks banned from all residential areas for those same times. Just to relieve the pressure the bigger urban areas are under as it all feeds into each other.

Chuchote

No

Have people been entering their scary encounters into the Dublin Inquirer linked map of bike accident blackspots in Dublin, by the way?

Is there a route-around option so you don't have to pass this spot?

Slutmonkey57b

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think some people were asking what the trend of the last few years has been. IrishCycle.com did a graph:

I find it fascinating that the commentary for the whole thread has almost exclusively focussed on enforcement of traffic laws in Dublin city centre and hgv's, even though this graph is on page 3.

It's the same with road deaths all over: deaths are overwhelmingly outside Dublin, but all the enforcement happens on high volume N roads with good safety features and farcical low speed limits, e.g. N11, Con Colbert road. You can't do more than 60 on a 3 lane dual carriageway with no crossings or nearby habitation but you can do 100 on an unlit semi paved boreen which might have 50 cows round a blind corner.

greenspurs

There is life outside of Dublin!

Commuting in City traffic is different to cycling along N roads , or smaller.

You rarely get a close pass at 100kmph+ in Dublin. .. so thats where my thread was aimed.
It just seems to have headed/derailed into a commuter problem thread

cython

No

Ibrahim Millions Railroad wrote: »

there is a serious lack of respect from a large minority of road users, walkers, runners, cyclists, motorists.
And its getting worse on all sides.
Something has to be done as deaths and serious injuries will increase and my fear is when we finally try and do something it will be too late, the culture of ignorance will be ingrained in too many.

I think we need a private transport police whose profits are derived from fines imposed.

Absolutely not!! While we need more enforcement of and action on violations of motoring and cycling offences, justice and integrity go out the window when the enforcers stand to make a direct profit from levying fines. Even GoSafe don't pocket the profits of fines from their vans, but look at the attitude towards them (Flash for cash, etc.).

Ibrahim Millions Railroad wrote: »

Let them enforce the rules of the road for all road users with fines in excess of €1000.00.
We need to start coming down on hard on certain rule infractions, hand held mobile phone usage by all road users, driving over the limit in residential areas both which are rampant and I think we could consider jail time for these.

Agree with this.

Ibrahim Millions Railroad wrote: »

also all tractors should be banned from all roads between 7 - 10 am and 4 - 7pm and trucks banned from all residential areas for those same times. Just to relieve the pressure the bigger urban areas are under as it all feeds into each other.

And back to disagreeing with at least part of this. Your blanket ban on tractors, for example, is farcical. By all means keep them out of urban areas at these times, but plenty of roads where tractors are used have very little other traffic at these times, so they are not actually causing any issue, but yet you want to make almost all farmers' lives more difficult because of a few nuisances. Would you also restrict livestock movements at these times? Because plenty of farmers move cattle to be milked at these times, to give just one example.

smacl

No

greenspurs wrote: »

There is life outside of Dublin!

Commuting in City traffic is different to cycling along N roads , or smaller.

You rarely get a close pass at 100kmph+ in Dublin. .. so thats where my thread was aimed.
It just seems to have headed/derailed into a commuter problem thread

Option I use on longer rural spins, e.g. South Wexford back to Dublin, is to avoid the N roads entirely and stick to quieter roads. I used to use the N30 and N80 but found them dodgy and unpleasant for the reasons outlined, especially in bad weather. Plenty of alternate routes, and I don't go near N roads and largely avoid busy R-roads these days.

Comes down to the type of cycling you're doing. I'd guess for those training for racing, or cycling in large groups, the L-roads and smaller R-roads could be a pain. For general leisure cycling, and for finding a safe route from A to B, these roads are great where they're an option.

Macy0161

No

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

It's the same with road deaths all over: deaths are overwhelmingly outside Dublin, but all the enforcement happens on high volume N roads with good safety features and farcical low speed limits, e.g. N11, Con Colbert road. You can't do more than 60 on a 3 lane dual carriageway with no crossings or nearby habitation but you can do 100 on an unlit semi paved boreen which might have 50 cows round a blind corner.

Not necessarily disagreeing that there needs to be enforcement away from the usual spots, but the speed limit is the speed limit. They wouldn't target these places if motorists stuck to the posted speed limits on these routes. I think I made the point earlier that "cyclists" are expected to comply with all the rules of the road, whereas some illegal motorist behaviour is so ingrained that enforcement is given out about. Stopped at the lights giving out about rlj cyclists - lights go green and they're back to cruising at 65 in a 50 zone...

btw, I don't recall experiencing a close pass or near miss on a narrow L road tbh. Most of them that weren't outright punishment passes, have been on wide roads with plenty of room - just a lack of patience by the motorist.

pelevin

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I can't remember who first said it but behaviours would be an awful lot better if there was a big spike sticking out of the wheel towards the driver.

Unrealistic.

ednwireland

No

Had an artic at 100kmh12 inches from my shoulder a couple weeks ago dutch reg lhd so could see exactly where I was.did wake me up I'll say - not normally one for worrying about it but was coming up to a hole and gravel where I normally swing out a bit so thought that's a bit thoughtless as he had 2 lanes to go at and could see me way down the road.

mcgratheoin

No

pelevin wrote: »

Unrealistic.

Did you think I was seriously suggesting it? :rolleyes: It's a thought experiment designed to highlight how building safer cars does not lead to safer driving.

pelevin

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Did you think I was seriously suggesting it? :rolleyes: It's a thought experiment designed to highlight how building safer cars does not lead to safer driving.

And do you think I was serious?!

NIMAN

There has been a couple of programmes on British TV this last week showing shocking dashcam footage, and some of the near misses on cyclists are scary.