11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?

Macy0161

The AA asked almost six thousand people if they believe that pedestrians should be held to the same road safety standards as drivers and two-thirds of people agreed that they should.

Wonder how many motorists would support wide spread APRN, average speed cameras, quadrupling the number of GATSO vans etc? Or would we get the usual "fish in a barrel", "purely revenue generating", "concentrating on the speedo instead of the road" bs from a wide section of motorists that are concerned with clamping down on other user groups bad behaviour?

tomasrojo

It's 15m, isn't it, not 50? I seem to remember Faughnan "confusing" the two numbers a few months ago.

tomasrojo

If pedestrians were held to the same standards as motorists, I presume the situation would be much the same anyway: blind eye being turned towards everyday infractions, to the point that people expect the law-breaking behaviour (speeding, parking on footpaths/cycle tracks, crossing the road, driving the wrong way around car parks, whatever).

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's 15m, isn't it, not 50? I seem to remember Faughnan "confusing" the two numbers a few months ago.

correct it is 15m which is ~50 foot

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

correct it is 15m which is ~50 foot

Let's not go there again!

kiddums

I haven't read all of this, but I'm already disappointed in the amount of people blaming drivers in this.
Some drivers are twats and idiots. Accept this and start wondering how we can reduce the number of cyclists that are the same?

But when I see a cyclist cycling on the road, beside a cycle lane, dressed in dark colours, no lights/reflectors, no helmet, head down staring at the front wheel, ignoring traffic lights or junctions, I do have to wonder should there be mandatory training for cyclists? Surely increasing their own awareness will reduce the number of accidents?

I ride a motorcycle and a huge part of that training is being aware of your surroundings and watching all junctions and other road users. Assume no one sees you, so you have to watch for them. Can cyclists not have similar training? And a law to wear helmets?


This is entirely my own observations and opinions. I've no information on the deaths, or any statistics.

Macy0161

kiddums wrote: »

This is entirely my own observations and opinions. I've no information on the deaths, or any statistics.

Ha, quote from the journalism thread today...

buffalo wrote: »

It's the ever-present 'but' in nearly every interview and article

"X should happen to promote cycling, BUT cyclists need to wear helmets."

"Cyclists' deaths should not be allowed to continue, BUT if cyclists continue to break red lights..."

"Motorist behaviour has to change, BUT so do cyclists."

WHATABOUTERY!

kiddums wrote: »

I ride a motorcycle and a huge part of that training is being aware of your surroundings and watching all junctions and other road users. Assume no one sees you, so you have to watch for them. Can cyclists not have similar training? And a law to wear helmets?

Not sure using motorbikes as an example of compulsory training is really helping your arguement to be honest. Some illegal behaviours are routine, such as using bus lanes, filtering up mandatory cycle lanes.

tomasrojo

kiddums wrote: »

I ride a motorcycle and a huge part of that training is being aware of your surroundings and watching all junctions and other road users. Assume no one sees you, so you have to watch for them. Can cyclists not have similar training? And a law to wear helmets?

Mandatory helmet laws net effect on serious head injuries is pretty much zero, plus or minus error bars. The effect on numbers cycling is profoundly negative.

Besides which, check out the Netherlands.

07Lapierre

kiddums wrote: »

But when I see a cyclist cycling on the road, beside a cycle lane, dressed in dark colours, no lights/reflectors, no helmet, head down staring at the front wheel, ignoring traffic lights or junctions, I do have to wonder should there be mandatory training for cyclists? Surely increasing their own awareness will reduce the number of accidents?

Dark cloths, no lights, yet you see them??

as for awareness, Yes,being aware of your surroundings is important, but your assuming ALL accidents are due to Cyclists lack of awareness.

rubadub

kiddums wrote: »

Can cyclists not have similar training? And a law to wear helmets?

The RSA says cyclists and pedestrians are the 2 most vulnerable road users. All of your suggestions could apply to pedestrians too, why single out one road user. If you replace "cyclists" wtih "pedestrians in your post then you might be able to answer all of your own questions.

Loads who scream about cyclists not obeying the "rules of the road" (which are not always law) are routinely not following the rules of the road as a pedestrian.

Walking beside or along a road
If there is a footpath, you must use it.
If there is no footpath, you must walk as near as possible to the righthand
side of the road (facing oncoming traffic).
Do not walk more than two abreast. If the road is narrow or carries heavy
traffic, you should walk in single file.
You should always wear bright and hi-viz clothing during the day and
reflective clothing at night when walking outside built-up areas.
You should always carry a torch when walking at night time.
You should always be aware of other road users

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

Loads who scream about cyclists not obeying the "rules of the road" (which are not always law) are routinely not following the rules of the road as a pedestrian.

And, of course, walking facing oncoming traffic while on a bend veering right is completely the wrong thing to do, but the RSA don't know much about walking or cycling.

Tombo2001

kiddums wrote: »

I haven't read all of this, but I'm already disappointed in the amount of people blaming drivers in this.
Some drivers are twats and idiots. Accept this and start wondering how we can reduce the number of cyclists that are the same?

But when I see a cyclist cycling on the road, beside a cycle lane, dressed in dark colours, no lights/reflectors, no helmet, head down staring at the front wheel, ignoring traffic lights or junctions, I do have to wonder should there be mandatory training for cyclists? Surely increasing their own awareness will reduce the number of accidents?

I ride a motorcycle and a huge part of that training is being aware of your surroundings and watching all junctions and other road users. Assume no one sees you, so you have to watch for them. Can cyclists not have similar training? And a law to wear helmets?


This is entirely my own observations and opinions. I've no information on the deaths, or any statistics.

1- There are heaps of studies showing that what a cyclist wears makes zero difference to driver behaviour around them.

2 - the cyclists most likely to be without hi-viz/ helmet/ lights are Europeans who move over here. This is because they are used to cycling in this way in their own country; and this is the way cyclist go in their own country; and cycling conditions and safety are far superior in their own country.

3 - have you ever once come across an accident involving a motorbike where people said - well he should have been wearing a hi-viz.

4 - motorists break lights just as routinely as cyclists. You mightn't like that comment but they do. Everyday at lights I see the same thing - the lights are orange going red, and 2 - 3 - 4 cars will pass through before the traffic starts moving the counter direction. The fact is that the ONLY car that can break the lights is the one at the junction as the lights are going red and in Ireland that particular car nearly always chooses to break the lights. The rest of them are stuck behind in a single file lane, so they physically cant break the lights. But where drivers have the opportunity to break, they do so.

kiddums

kiddums wrote:

head down staring at the front wheel

Surely, as a motorcyclist, you are aware of the hazards posed to two-wheeled vehicles by poor road surfaces. The hazards are worse when on a bicycle, which has thinner wheels. It is important to constantly scan the surface. Pot-holes can kill.

kiddums wrote:

no helmet

Helmets are useless for protection when hit by a motor vehicle. They might actually be worse than useless by promoting the illusion of increased safety, thus encouraging riskier driving and cycling.

kiddums wrote:

beside a cycle lane

Most of Ireland's cycle lanes are not fit for purpose and many put cyclists at increased risk of death.

kiddums wrote: »

This is entirely my own observations and opinions. I've no information on the deaths, or any statistics.

This is the problem, isn't it? You've made up your mind about how people should be cycling, yet you don't actually know best practices, the problems that cyclists have to deal with or the evidence behind the greatest risks and most appropriate actions to take while cycling.

It's not just you, though - prejudiced conclusions about cyclists is responsible for the seemingly unstoppable torrent of abuse suffered by many people who use bikes. This abuse ranges from being shouted at to being run over as punishment for the imaginary crime of using a vehicle that lacks an engine.

It depends on how fault is determined, but in general, the evidence tends to show that cyclists are rarely to blame for serious collisions with motor vehicles. The most common collisions (if I remember correctly - I might be wrong) are motorists rear-ending and left-hooking cyclists at junctions.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9

Will you be wiling to change your mind following an evaluation of the evidence?

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely, as a motorcyclist, you are aware of the hazards posed to two-wheeled vehicles by poor road surfaces. The hazards are worse when on a bicycle, which has thinner wheels. It is important to constantly scan the surface. Pot-holes can kill.



Helmets are useless for protection when hit by a motor vehicle. They might actually be worse than useless by promoting the illusion of increased safety, thus encouraging riskier driving and cycling.


Most of Ireland's cycle lanes are not fit for purpose and many put cyclists at increased risk of death.



This is the problem, isn't it? You've made up your mind about how people should be cycling, yet you don't actually know best practices, the problems that cyclists have to deal with or the evidence behind the greatest risks and most appropriate actions to take while cycling.

It's not just you, though - prejudiced conclusions about cyclists is responsible for the seemingly unstoppable torrent of abuse suffered by many people who use bikes. This abuse ranges from being shouted at to being run over as punishment for the imaginary crime of using a vehicle that lacks an engine.

It depends on how fault is determined, but in general, the evidence tends to show that cyclists are rarely to blame for serious collisions with motor vehicles. The most common collisions (if I remember correctly - I might be wrong) are motorists rear-ending and left-hooking cyclists at junctions.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9

Will you be wiling to change your mind following an evaluation of the evidence?

Bingo.

Some cyclists don't wear a high viz.

There are lots of accidents involving cyclists.

Does not equal

Accidents are happening because cyclists don't wear high-viz.


Every commuting cyclist on this website can recount multiple incidences where drivers have behaved dangerously around them. A hi-viz has absolutely no bearing on that.

07Lapierre

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Bingo.

Some cyclists don't wear a high viz.

There are lots of accidents involving cyclists.

Does not equal

Accidents are happening because cyclists don't wear high-viz.


Every commuting cyclist on this website can recount multiple incidences where drivers have behaved dangerously around them. A hi-viz has absolutely no bearing on that.

cant find it now, but there was a chart somewhere that showed 82% of cycling accidents occurred in daylight! If i can find it i'll post a link.

Not the report im thinking of but... http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RSA%20Provisional%20Review%20of%20Fatalities%202016.pdf

qrx

I think expecting drivers and cyclists to become safer is a futile exercise. The streets are full of morons of every mode of transport and nothing will ever change that. Surely cyclists and motorists (and indeed pedestrians) need to be separated. These different modes of transport are simply not compatible. We have footpaths for pedestrians, we should also have separate cycle paths for cyclists. Obviously space is a problem and possibly a safety issue with entrances, but I don't think these are difficult to overcome.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Let's not go there again!

Roughly 0.0107 of a Sheppy

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Every commuting cyclist on this website can recount multiple incidences where drivers have behaved dangerously around them. A hi-viz has absolutely no bearing on that.

When I think of the two or three horrible incidents that happened to me, which were all types of intimidation, I would have been better off if the driver hadn't been able to see me.

Joking aside, my appearance, which was very hi-vizy at the time, seemed to enrage one particular driver, who I guess took it as evidence of my holier-than-thou bicyclistic piousness.

Macy0161

qrx wrote: »

I think expecting drivers and cyclists to become safer is a futile exercise. The streets are full of morons of every mode of transport and nothing will ever change that. Surely cyclists and motorists (and indeed pedestrians) need to be separated. These different modes of transport are simply not compatible. We have footpaths for pedestrians, we should also have separate cycle paths for cyclists. Obviously space is a problem and possibly a safety issue with entrances, but I don't think these are difficult to overcome.

You're proposing cycle paths and footpaths for the entire road network? Good luck with that, given footpaths don't even go as far as most village limits.

What's needed is a bit of cop on from everyone, and in particular patience from motorists. If that's not going to happen, then we need to hammer home enforcement. Red Light Cameras, APRN's, Average Speed Camera's, make any legal changes that might make it easier to use helmet cam footage etc.

mr spuckler

qrx wrote: »

I think expecting drivers and cyclists to become safer is a futile exercise.

it's happened elsewhere so why not here?

groovyg

When I hear of the constant arguments for cyclist wearing helmets I always think of this chap who was wearing a helmet but was left with horrendous injuries as a result of a truck rolling over him.

AndrewJRenko

kiddums wrote: »

I haven't read all of this, but I'm already disappointed in the amount of people blaming drivers in this.

Possibly because where good research has been done into the cause of motorist/cyclist crashes, the fault generally lies with the motorist.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/12/vancouver-drivers-at-fault-in-93-of-collisions-with-bicycles-city-report.html

kiddums wrote: »

This is entirely my own observations and opinions. I've no information on the deaths, or any statistics.

No, really?

kiddums wrote: »

And a law to wear helmets?

For motorists or cyclists? Given that about 50% of head injuries happen in cars compared to just 2% on bikes, mandatory motoring helmets would be an obvious starting point if we want to reduce head injuries;

qrx

mr spuckler wrote: »

it's happened elsewhere so why not here?

OK, maybe a combination of better infrastructure, laws and enforcement. Separating cyclists from cars is still the most obvious solution to me. I don't think it's an impossible task. It can be implemented over a couple of decades with modest investment. I would start with dedicated commuter routes first. Even give them a name, we have the M50, N11 etc. Dedicated cycle routes should have the same.

mr spuckler

groovyg wrote: »

When I hear of the constant arguments for cyclist wearing helmets I always think of this chap who was wearing a helmet but was left with horrendous injuries as a result of a truck rolling over him.

i'd never read of that case before. fvcking hell.

mr spuckler

qrx wrote: »

OK, maybe a combination of better infrastructure, laws and enforcement. Separating cyclists from cars is still the most obvious solution to me. I don't think it's an impossible task. It can be implemented over a couple of decades with modest investment. I would start with dedicated commuter routes first. Even give them a name, we have the M50, N11 etc. Dedicated cycle routes should have the same.

it is certainly the best option in my opinion and one that people have been calling for over an extended period. the push to increase spending on bicycle related infrastructure from the current 1% of total transport budget to closer to the 20% recommended by the UN is a big part of this, however at best that is years away.
so in the meantime we have to focus on behaviour, whether that's through education or enforcement.

AndrewJRenko

mr spuckler wrote: »

i'd never read of that case before. fvcking hell.

The truck had 70 defects, and Verona thinks that helmets are the solution;

http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/22/truck-transport-group-wants-headphones-banned-in-public-cyclists-to-undergo-training-and-penalty-points-for-poor-cycling/

Macy0161

Macy0161 wrote: »

You're proposing cycle paths and footpaths for the entire road network? Good luck with that, given footpaths don't even go as far as most village limits.

It has to change, though. It's far more likely than a drastic improvement in road culture. Eleven cyclists dead and we're only just past mid-summer...

kiddums

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not sure using motorbikes as an example of compulsory training is really helping your arguement to be honest. Some illegal behaviours are routine, such as using bus lanes, filtering up mandatory cycle lanes.

I used it as an example of a road user who is more vulnerable than cars, and also faces issues being seen. I don't have bus lanes, and I don't use the cycle lanes. You're assuming all bikers do those things.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Mandatory helmet laws net effect on serious head injuries is pretty much zero, plus or minus error bars. The effect on numbers cycling is profoundly negative.

Besides which, check out the Netherlands.

Ok, read this:

Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. 1 Helmet use has been estimated to reduce the odds of head injury by 50 percent, and the odds of head, face, or neck injury by 33 percent. 2 Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have helmet use laws applying to young bicyclists; none of these laws applies to all riders. Local ordinances in a few states require some or all bicyclists to wear helmets. The odds that a bicyclist will wear a helmet are 4 times higher after a helmet law is enacted than before a law is passed. 3 Helmets are important for riders of all ages, not just young bicyclists. Eighty-six percent of bicyclist deaths are persons ages 20 and older. During the past few years, no more than 17 percent of fatally injured bicyclists were wearing helmets.

Thats the first link I found on Google.
I've been to the Netherlands, cyclists are more aware of whats going on around them there. I'm allowing for the culture difference.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Dark cloths, no lights, yet you see them??

as for awareness, Yes,being aware of your surroundings is important, but your assuming ALL accidents are due to Cyclists lack of awareness.

Yes I do, I'm more observant than most drivers, and I also see them when I'm a lot closer to them than I would like to be or they would like me to be. How can I stay 1.5M away from them if I can't see them till I've almost hit them?
Where did I say ALL accidents? I'm just talking about reducing statistics.

rubadub wrote: »

The RSA says cyclists and pedestrians are the 2 most vulnerable road users. All of your suggestions could apply to pedestrians too, why single out one road user. If you replace "cyclists" wtih "pedestrians in your post then you might be able to answer all of your own questions.

Loads who scream about cyclists not obeying the "rules of the road" (which are not always law) are routinely not following the rules of the road as a pedestrian.

Hey, I'm just playing the cyclist game here, cyclists single out drivers.
Long rant short, everyone needs to be far more aware than they are. Besides, the RSA hate drivers too. They blame the driver and speed for everything. There are so many other factors to blame in an accident.

And I do complain the same about runners/joggers as cyclists.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

1- There are heaps of studies showing that what a cyclist wears makes zero difference to driver behaviour around them.

2 - the cyclists most likely to be without hi-viz/ helmet/ lights are Europeans who move over here. This is because they are used to cycling in this way in their own country; and this is the way cyclist go in their own country; and cycling conditions and safety are far superior in their own country.

3 - have you ever once come across an accident involving a motorbike where people said - well he should have been wearing a hi-viz.

4 - motorists break lights just as routinely as cyclists. You mightn't like that comment but they do. Everyday at lights I see the same thing - the lights are orange going red, and 2 - 3 - 4 cars will pass through before the traffic starts moving the counter direction. The fact is that the ONLY car that can break the lights is the one at the junction as the lights are going red and in Ireland that particular car nearly always chooses to break the lights. The rest of them are stuck behind in a single file lane, so they physically cant break the lights. But where drivers have the opportunity to break, they do so.

1 - there are also heaps to show it saves lives when people wear them

2 - So make it compulsory here or improve the cycling conditions.

3 - Not quite, but a hi viz behind a motorcycle screen isn't as effective. But I never said hi viz for a cyclist, just dress for the conditions, light colours for dark etc. Lights have far more importance.

4 - I agree. Both need to be dealt with severely. But cyclists move slower by nature so should be more aware.

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely, as a motorcyclist, you are aware of the hazards posed to two-wheeled vehicles by poor road surfaces. The hazards are worse when on a bicycle, which has thinner wheels. It is important to constantly scan the surface. Pot-holes can kill.

Yes I know, but thats where awareness comes in, look down the road and read the surface ahead. I can do it at 100kph, you can do it at 30kph.

Deleted User wrote: »

Helmets are useless for protection when hit by a motor vehicle. They might actually be worse than useless by promoting the illusion of increased safety, thus encouraging riskier driving and cycling.

Are they? Show me that fact for a properly rated, fitting and worn correctly helmet.
I do slightly agree with the second point, but again, education should reduce that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Most of Ireland's cycle lanes are not fit for purpose and many put cyclists at increased risk of death.

I agree, but their what we have, so either use them or get them taken off the roads where their useless, road space is a premium.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the problem, isn't it? You've made up your mind about how people should be cycling, yet you don't actually know best practices, the problems that cyclists have to deal with or the evidence behind the greatest risks and most appropriate actions to take while cycling.

It's not just you, though - prejudiced conclusions about cyclists is responsible for the seemingly unstoppable torrent of abuse suffered by many people who use bikes. This abuse ranges from being shouted at to being run over as punishment for the imaginary crime of using a vehicle that lacks an engine.

It depends on how fault is determined, but in general, the evidence tends to show that cyclists are rarely to blame for serious collisions with motor vehicles. The most common collisions (if I remember correctly - I might be wrong) are motorists rear-ending and left-hooking cyclists at junctions.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9

Will you be wiling to change your mind following an evaluation of the evidence?

I have cycled in the past, so I have some idea of whats going on. But cyclists have the same attitude about all other road users. You are not a pedestrian, you move a lot quicker than them. You do not have an engine so are slower than the rest, be aware of that and keep watching whats around you. If more road users (Yes all of them) kept more awareness of their surroundings there would be less accidents in general. Being rear ended is also a huge issue for bikers too, so we are taught to not put ourselves in situations where that is an increased risk. Cyclists should do the same.

Thanks for the links, I'm always open to factual education. I'll give them a read.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Bingo.

Some cyclists don't wear a high viz.

There are lots of accidents involving cyclists.

Does not equal

Accidents are happening because cyclists don't wear high-viz.


Every commuting cyclist on this website can recount multiple incidences where drivers have behaved dangerously around them. A hi-viz has absolutely no bearing on that.

Where did I say hi viz was the answer? On a motorbike, with dipped lights on, a bright yellow jacket, and an led indicator on, I've had people pull out in front of me while looking right at me. People can be twats. But being seen will reduce the number of these incidents. Lights and/or bright colours at all times will help. Runners, joggers, walkers, cyclists & bikers should all be more aware of being seen, were all more likely to be seriously injured in an accident.

Chuchote

I'm all for people choosing to be visible and choosing to wear a helmet.

Making it compulsory? Nope.

kiddums

kiddums wrote:

I'm more observant than most drivers,

Are you saying that the problem is really about drivers not being observant?

That is what the evidence seems to indicate.

kiddums wrote:

Thats the first link I found on Google.

kiddums wrote:

1 - there are also heaps to show it saves lives when people wear them

Where? You just said in your previous post that you had no knowledge of the studies, so either you're presuming or you have barely looked into it.

The 1987 Seattle study by Thompson et al has been discredited. Subsequent studies have failed to reproduce the results.

Hi-viz is not just useless; it sometimes increases the risk of a collision. Visibility is about contrast.

Helmets increase the risk of death by strangulation, too.

None of these things help against malicious or uncaring motorists, of which there are plenty.

kiddums wrote:

Yes I know, but thats where awareness comes in, look down the road and read the surface ahead. I can do it at 100kph, you can do it at 30kph.

Weren't you just giving out about someone doing that on a bike?

kiddums wrote:

I agree, but their what we have, so either use them

"I agree that cycle lanes can make it more likely that you will die, but use them anyway."

kiddums wrote:

Cyclists should do the same.

Educate me, please.

I apologise if I sound like I'm becoming a bit irritated, but that's because I am. People use the same arguments against me when trying to run me off the road and treating me with sheer contempt. The victim-blaming never stops.