11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?

magicbastarder · 29-06-2017 12:06pm

i have regularly seen cyclists undertake container lorries and other artics while crossing the east link.

ED E · 29-06-2017 12:07pm

fat bloke wrote: »

My ten year old car worth about 4000 euro beeps at me if the front or the rear or any of the four corners approach an obstacle. It's great for stopping me reversing into my bin every Friday.

So why can't a 150,000 euro truck have a few of those to cover those blind spots???

Truck companies are notorious for running vehicles into the ground. Port of Miami(IIRC) was attracting loads of trucks through the city so they banned old ones with terrible emissions standards which was basically the entire cohort. Caused uproar.

Sensors aside, HGVs shouldnt be interacting with vulnerable road users during normal hours. London is a great example of that.

There's no reason why they cant run at night, many of them do anyways.

Alanstrainor · 29-06-2017 12:15pm

ED E wrote: »

Truck companies are notorious for running vehicles into the ground. Port of Miami(IIRC) was attracting loads of trucks through the city so they banned old ones with terrible emissions standards which was basically the entire cohort. Caused uproar.

Sensors aside, HGVs shouldnt be interacting with vulnerable road users during normal hours. London is a great example of that.

There's no reason why they cant run at night, many of them do anyways.

Completely agree here. There should be strict access times for trucks of a certain size. Most likely in the middle of the night. The amount of 8 wheeler trucks that you see in traffic in Dublin city centre at rush hour is madness.

The technology aspect is another huge issue. Volvo cars have had blind spot monitors for years now. They are icons on your wing mirrors that show a red light when a car or cyclist is in your blind spot. I've seen them working when I cycle by. A similar system should be available to new trucks at the very least.

07Lapierre · 29-06-2017 12:19pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have regularly seen cyclists undertake container lorries and other artics while crossing the east link.

+1 There are a lot of clueless cyclists out there.

beauf · 29-06-2017 12:21pm

ED E wrote: »

...There's no reason why they cant run at night, many of them do anyways.

Not quite the same for building work, when digging or pouring concrete.

While those in the car might not want them on the road, the locals won't want them working through the night.

Of course we could suggest that common HGV routes must have segregated cycle lanes.

the_pen_turner · 29-06-2017 12:25pm

nothing good will come from running trucks at night.
only a few trucks could run at night anyway. bin trucks, refuelling trucks etc.
all the rest are delivering stuff to companies. how would you react if your boss said you have to do a night shift to take deliveries. ok in a factory but a shop or pub.
all the extra noise would piss off the locals

Chuchote · 29-06-2017 12:34pm

the_pen_turner wrote: »

nothing good will come from running trucks at night.
only a few trucks could run at night anyway. bin trucks, refuelling trucks etc.
all the rest are delivering stuff to companies. how would you react if your boss said you have to do a night shift to take deliveries. ok in a factory but a shop or pub.
all the extra noise would piss off the locals

I spent a lot of my life doing night shifts, so I did.

ED E · 29-06-2017 12:37pm

beauf wrote: »

Not quite the same for building work, when digging or pouring concrete.

While those in the car might not want them on the road, the locals won't want them working through the night.

Of course we could suggest that common HGV routes must have segregated cycle lanes.

Concrete trucks spend 3-4 months blocking the segregated and elevated cycle lane at Charlemont a year or so ago. Every day. If they treat them as loading bays its kinda pointless.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

nothing good will come from running trucks at night.
only a few trucks could run at night anyway. bin trucks, refuelling trucks etc.
all the rest are delivering stuff to companies. how would you react if your boss said you have to do a night shift to take deliveries. ok in a factory but a shop or pub.
all the extra noise would piss off the locals

Bin lorries run during the day. In town and the 'burbs. Gone be the days of them being done by noon.

If thats your job its your job. Dunnes load their veg at 4AM daily. Tesco do stock until 2ish in many branches (More like 5 in the big ones like Dundrum). No reason why others can't. Its unloading cages, not digging the next port tunnel. Noise isnt an issue.

Only thing stopping it is business bottom lines and frankly that shoudnt come before public safety and the traffic chaos on our roads.

Chuchote · 29-06-2017 12:39pm

Mods, can we please have a separate Zeze Cyclists, Zey Are Crezzy thread for a) They Go Through Red Lights b) They Don't Pay Road Tax c) I Saw a Cyclist Do A Mad Thing clutter?

beauf · 29-06-2017 2:21pm

ED E wrote: »

Concrete trucks spend 3-4 months blocking the segregated and elevated cycle lane at Charlemont a year or so ago. Every day. If they treat them as loading bays its kinda pointless. ...

Well thats an enforcement issue.

http://irishcycle.com/2017/06/27/human-barrier-protects-cycle-lane-in-dublin-before-nightline-truck-driver-parks-up/

AndrewJRenko · 29-06-2017 4:52pm

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i am both a driver and a cyclist however the majority of issues i see are with cyclists taking risks they dont need to take.

So I guess you don't see the 82% of motorists breaking the speed limit that the RSA see?

Tombo2001 · 29-06-2017 4:53pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So I guess you don't see the 82% of motorists breaking the speed limit that the RSA see?

If by risks he means getting on the bike in the first place then perhaps yes he is right.

By definition, cycling is risky when drivers behave they way they do.

con___manx1 · 30-06-2017 10:28pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cyclists will be banned from public roads. :mad:
(Mandatory use of cycle lanes)

I was cycling down a hill recently at a decent pace. There was car waiting to pull out on the main road. I could see that he saw me but pulled out in the road right in front of me anyway. I had to slam on the breaks and maneuver and missed his car by a small distance.
I was really hoping he would get caught in traffic as I would have kicked his head in or at least kicked the crap out of his car.
He didn't care about my safety or my life . I'm not really a cyclist just took it up recently but in on there side now.

Arcade_Tryer · 01-07-2017 2:02am

con___manx1 wrote: »

I was cycling down a hill recently at a decent pace. There was car waiting to pull out on the main road. I could see that he saw me but pulled out in the road right in front of me anyway. I had to slam on the breaks and maneuver and missed his car by a small distance.
I was really hoping he would get caught in traffic as I would have kicked his head in or at least kicked the crap out of his car.
He didn't care about my safety or my life . I'm not really a cyclist just took it up recently but in on there side now.

Don't do either of those things. You lose credibility, and are only asking for trouble. Threaten to report the person to the police instead, and perhaps throw them a finger or an ironic thumbs up.

I love Sean nos · 01-07-2017 9:25am

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Threaten to report the person to the police instead

There's less credibility in that empty threat.

Arcade_Tryer · 01-07-2017 9:45am

I love Sean nos wrote: »

There's less credibility in that empty threat.

Does not have to be an empty threat, and it is credible if they are convinced you are going to report them.

machiavellianme · 01-07-2017 10:00am

I always like to tell whoever caused my near miss that I have the whole thing on camera and I'll be dropping it into the garda barracks on my way past in the morning. It's nice to also throw in that I hope it was worth almost killing me just to end up caught at the next red light anyway.
There's usually a change in their tone to something more apologetic.

Thing is, I don't even have a camera but they don't need to know that.

I love Sean nos · 01-07-2017 10:00am

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Does not have to be an empty threat, and it is credible if they are convinced you are going to report them.

They may be convinced on the reporting aspect, but they'd be rightly skeptical about there being any consequences coming from it. I know I would.

con___manx1 · 01-07-2017 10:30am

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Don't do either of those things. You lose credibility, and are only asking for trouble. Threaten to report the person to the police instead, and perhaps throw them a finger or an ironic thumbs up.

Yea your probly right but my god I was so angry. The police would do nothing.

I love Sean nos · 01-07-2017 11:35am

machiavellianme wrote: »

I always like to tell whoever caused my near miss that I have the whole thing on camera and I'll be dropping it into the garda barracks on my way past in the morning. It's nice to also throw in that I hope it was worth almost killing me just to end up caught at the next red light anyway.
There's usually a change in their tone to something more apologetic.

Thing is, I don't even have a camera but they don't need to know that.

Yeah, your invisible camera would really help your credibility.

machiavellianme · 01-07-2017 12:52pm

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Yeah, your invisible camera would really help your credibility.

Cameras can be pretty small these days. They even come inside lights.
They don't have to be big stupid lenses sticking out of a helmet.
Plus, my bike has a lot of unusual looking gadgets (reelight neo and lumos indicating helmet) so how are they to tell in the heat of the moment?

I love Sean nos · 01-07-2017 12:59pm

machiavellianme wrote: »

Cameras can be pretty small these days. They even come inside lights.
They don't have to be big stupid lenses sticking out of a helmet.
Plus, my bike has a lot of unusual looking gadgets (reelight neo and lumos indicating helmet) so how are they to tell in the heat of the moment?

I'd still call your bluff. There are posts on the forum where the Gardai refused to even look at footage presented.

machiavellianme · 01-07-2017 1:21pm

Yes, but most motorists haven't read this forum to learn that.
I'd doubt some have ever even read the rules of the road.

It has been pretty effective to date.

I love Sean nos · 01-07-2017 1:26pm

machiavellianme wrote: »

Yes, but most motorists haven't read this forum to learn that.
I'd doubt some have ever even read the rules of the road.

It has been pretty effective to date.

At stopping motorists from performing unsafe manoeuvres?

machiavellianme · 01-07-2017 1:35pm

At getting an apology and recognition that we all share the road.

I love Sean nos · 01-07-2017 1:42pm

machiavellianme wrote: »

At getting an apology and recognition that we all share the road.

So, they're still threatening your wellbeing, but at least they're nice about it afterwards.

That's an improvement of sorts I suppose.

AndrewJRenko · 01-07-2017 10:21pm

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'd still call your bluff. There are posts on the forum where the Gardai refused to even look at footage presented.

You might well, having thought these issues through - but the average Joe driver probably wouldn't know what to even look for, and wouldn't know anything about the likelihood of the Gardai accepting it.

Certainly, if you got any hint of someone trying to pull a 'compo' job, and you don't have it on camera, you should tell them that you DO have it on camera.

check_six · 03-07-2017 11:26am

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'd still call your bluff. There are posts on the forum where the Gardai refused to even look at footage presented.

"I'd like to report an incident with a dangerous motorist. I have it all on camera."

"Ah, look, at the end of the day it's your word against theirs."

"But I have the video right here..."

"Nah nah nah. I can't hear you!" *sticks fingers in ears* *shuts eyes really tightly*

"

"

Shedite27 · 03-07-2017 12:36pm

machiavellianme wrote: »

I always like to tell whoever caused my near miss that I have the whole thing on camera and I'll be dropping it into the garda barracks on my way past in the morning. It's nice to also throw in that I hope it was worth almost killing me just to end up caught at the next red light anyway.
There's usually a change in their tone to something more apologetic.

Thing is, I don't even have a camera but they don't need to know that.

What are you hoping to achieve by that? Just give the driver a little scare? Or looking for an apology?

Macy0161 · 03-07-2017 12:39pm

Shedite27 wrote: »

What are you hoping to achieve by that? Just give the driver a little scare? Or looking for an apology?

Does it matter? If it makes the driver think of other consequences (as obviously nearly killing someone just isn't enough), who cares on the motivation?

11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?

Comments