Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?
Options
Comments
-
Yeah, a helmet wouldn't have helped there. But then again, what would have helped in that case? Driver was a moron, truck owner was a gobsh1te. Truck should have been off the road and that driver should have his license cut up.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.
Fascinating that the 2 accident types used as examples in that news report are running stop signs, like cyclists don't do that. And getting hit with a door. Are the cyclists too close to the cars and not paying attention to something like that? Would they notice if a kid ran out from between parked cars and the cyclist hit them? But that would be the childs fault right? Blame is with both sides for the door thing.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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
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;
Car manufacturers are taking care of that with airbag systems. Show me that stat for a seatbelted driver in a modern car with all the airbags that they have these days.
Also, lets talk relative % here. % of head injuries in cars for the number of car accidents. % of head injuries for cyclists for the numbers of them. Not out of a total accident count, where there will be more drivers anyway.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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/0 -
mr spuckler wrote: »however at best that is years away
All revolutions are "years away" until the societal push makes them suddenly happen.0 -
Yeah, a helmet wouldn't have helped there. But then again, what would have helped in that case? Driver was a moron, truck owner was a gobsh1te. Truck should have been off the road and that driver should have his license cut up.
Fascinating that the 2 accident types used as examples in that news report are running stop signs, like cyclists don't do that. And getting hit with a door. Are the cyclists too close to the cars and not paying attention to something like that? Would they notice if a kid ran out from between parked cars and the cyclist hit them? But that would be the childs fault right? Blame is with both sides for the door thing.
Car manufacturers are taking care of that with airbag systems. Show me that stat for a seatbelted driver in a modern car with all the airbags that they have these days.
Also, lets talk relative % here. % of head injuries in cars for the number of car accidents. % of head injuries for cyclists for the numbers of them. Not out of a total accident count, where there will be more drivers anyway.
Cyclists get grief for "blocking" traffic, then when we move closer to parked cars it's our fault for getting doored?
Any other victim blaming you want to start here? Yet another troll with no idea what it's like to cycle in the city.0 -
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.
Observation/not paying attention/distraction etc. when these are combined with speed and a metal box weighing 1/2 tonne or more, the result can be lethal (not the driver).
If your not seeing a cyclist early enough (in daylight), that's up to you to sort out. I totally accept that a numpty cycling at night with no lights is a problem(and illegal!) and very few cyclists would disagree with you on that one.
I take your point about ALL accidents.0 -
.
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.
.
Show us a few of those studies please.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fascinating that the 2 accident types used as examples in that news report are running stop signs, like cyclists don't do that.
It's a false equivalence; bikes and cars are not the same thing and the dangers and risks associated with both are completely different.
This is no way an endorsement of running stop signs, but it is dishonest to treat them the same.0 -
This thread is the perfect argument for the research.
As usual an awful lot of anecdote and assumptions about helmets, hi vis, red lights etc which amount to a belief that cyclist fatalities are somehow the fault of the cyclist themselves. The truth is we don't know and won't know unless there is some proper work done on this.
The last I heard most cyclist fatalities were caused by large vehicles turning left, and there was some evidence that law-abiding cyclists (who stopped at red lights in a truck's blind spot) were actually more at risk. I don't know is that is still accurate.
But like the OP I would like to see real, publicised research because at the moment the general public appear to believe that cyclists die when they deliberately cycle into cars when not wearing a helmet.0 -
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.
In a conversation about cyclists being killed - you have first said - why is everyone giving out about drivers, why aren't they looking at cyclists - and then said - loads of cyclists aren't wearing hi viz.0 -
Lights and helmets shouldn't be law? So why are seatbelts? Why do modern vehicles have to have lights on all the time now? Because being visible and using safety equipment helps all road users.I'm all for people choosing to be visible and choosing to wear a helmet.
Making it compulsory? Nope.
I'm saying the problem isn't just with drivers, all road users need to be more observant. Drivers get all the punishment.Deleted User wrote: »Are you saying that the problem is really about drivers not being observant?
That is what the evidence seems to indicate.
I took a quick google, basically its inconclusive if they help or hinder, but why take the risk?Deleted User wrote: »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.
Thats why I didn't say hi viz, I said about being seen.
If your helmet strangles you then:
1- You're wearing it wrong
2 - They need redesigned
3 - It doesn't fit you right
Maybe it won't help in all cases, but we're talking about reducing numbers here.
No. You read that wrong. When you walk do you stare at your feet, or look ahead of you? Thats the kind of difference I'm talking about. Don't stare at your front wheel, look ahead of you (down the road, not down at the road).Deleted User wrote: »Weren't you just giving out about someone doing that on a bike?
Way to cut my quote to suit. Either use the lanes provided, or get them taken away. Don't campaign to get a lane then not use it. All you've done is narrow the road more. Educate the councils if that will fix it.Deleted User wrote: »"I agree that cycle lanes can make it more likely that you will die, but use them anyway."
Its called paying attention. Go up the side of cars in traffic, so you're not at the back of the line, but only if its safe. And stay in as far as is safe for you to do on your lane. Be aware of whats behind you, signal your intentions, and let them know you're breaking or turning in plenty of time. All pretty basic stuff really.Deleted User wrote: »Educate me, please.
I understand where you're coming from. I'm the same just the other side. I'm fed up of drivers getting the blame for every action on the road. All road users need better education and far more awareness than they currently have. We all share the already ****ty and small roads, we need to be aware of the needs of others. Like what percentage of normal road users know how **** the blind spots are in a truck? Or the turning circle of one? Or the acceleration of a motorcycle? Or how easily a cyclist can be in a blind spot and you won't see with out being aware of them?Deleted User wrote: »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.
Can't we all just get along and work together?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,608 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 49041
there's a flaw with this argument, which is based purely on how a helmet protects you in the case of an accident. it assumes the accident and takes it from there, without addressing how the mandatory helmet will affect the chances of that accident in the first place. nor on the effects on numbers cycling, which seems to be a greater factor in cyclist safety.Lights and helmets shouldn't be law? So why are seatbelts? Why do modern vehicles have to have lights on all the time now? Because being visible and using safety equipment helps all road users.
lights *are* mandatory for cyclists.
there's a signifcant difference between helmets, and seatbelts/DRLs - the motorist does not have to carry the seatbelt around with them after they get out of the car.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lights and helmets shouldn't be law? So why are seatbelts? Why do modern vehicles have to have lights on all the time now? Because being visible and using safety equipment helps all road users.
I'm saying the problem isn't just with drivers, all road users need to be more observant. Drivers get all the punishment.
I took a quick google, basically its inconclusive if they help or hinder, but why take the risk?
Thats why I didn't say hi viz, I said about being seen.
If your helmet strangles you then:
1- You're wearing it wrong
2 - They need redesigned
3 - It doesn't fit you right
Maybe it won't help in all cases, but we're talking about reducing numbers here.
No. You read that wrong. When you walk do you stare at your feet, or look ahead of you? Thats the kind of difference I'm talking about. Don't stare at your front wheel, look ahead of you (down the road, not down at the road).
Way to cut my quote to suit. Either use the lanes provided, or get them taken away. Don't campaign to get a lane then not use it. All you've done is narrow the road more. Educate the councils if that will fix it.
Its called paying attention. Go up the side of cars in traffic, so you're not at the back of the line, but only if its safe. And stay in as far as is safe for you to do on your lane. Be aware of whats behind you, signal your intentions, and let them know you're breaking or turning in plenty of time. All pretty basic stuff really.
I understand where you're coming from. I'm the same just the other side. I'm fed up of drivers getting the blame for every action on the road. All road users need better education and far more awareness than they currently have. We all share the already ****ty and small roads, we need to be aware of the needs of others. Like what percentage of normal road users know how **** the blind spots are in a truck? Or the turning circle of one? Or the acceleration of a motorcycle? Or how easily a cyclist can be in a blind spot and you won't see with out being aware of them?
Can't we all just get along and work together?
You are a smart guy, and respectful, as these conversations go.
I don't particularly like having online 'debates' but sometimes its too easy to get sucked in.
What I would suggest to you is - cycle around the city for a week or, commute into work a few times a week - and then revisit the conversation.
Most people who are cycle commuters are also drivers; they have both perspectives.
Most people who are drivers - and commenting on this debate - are not also cyclists. They don't have both perspectives.0 -
Yes I agree. Pay attention when in control of a vehicle (All vehicles).07Lapierre wrote: »Observation/not paying attention/distraction etc. when these are combined with speed and a metal box weighing 1/2 tonne or more, the result can be lethal (not the driver).
If your not seeing a cyclist early enough (in daylight), that's up to you to sort out. I totally accept that a numpty cycling at night with no lights is a problem(and illegal!) and very few cyclists would disagree with you on that one.
I take your point about ALL accidents.
I didn't say that was in daylight, I was talking in response to my original example which was in the dark. Driver hits a cyclist at night with no lights on the bike, the driver still gets the blame for it.
So if you can't move out then pay more attention to the cars you're close to, watch for the ones that might have people in them. If you don't know how then get some training. Its not rocket science.schemingbohemia wrote: »Cyclists get grief for "blocking" traffic, then when we move closer to parked cars it's our fault for getting doored?
Any other victim blaming you want to start here? Yet another troll with no idea what it's like to cycle in the city.
I said both parties were at fault. Cyclists should be watching better, drivers should be looking in mirrors and blind spots before opeing the door.
But I'm just a big scary troll who know nothing, right?
Ok, not going to do all the digging here. I took a look, and it looks like the type and manufacture of helmets needs to be sorted out, the huge range of types is throwing the results all over the place. Yes, I read past the initial stats. I could have just blindly posted them. I just don't see how a good and properly designed helmet won't help for brain injuries.Show us a few of those studies please.
How are they completely different? Please enlighten me as to how breaking the law and running a stop sign isn't stupid regardless of mode of transport. The risk is the same regardless, you could cause an accident by doing so.Deleted User wrote: »It's a false equivalence; bikes and cars are not the same thing and the dangers and risks associated with both are completely different.
This is no way an endorsement of running stop signs, but it is dishonest to treat them the same.
Yes, that is part of what I said. What I meant was why is everyone only looking at drivers. I have only mentioned hi viz to say I haven't mentioned it. Lights are more important IMO. Be seen, lights, reflectors and dress for the light conditions. Where is the hi viz in that?In a conversation about cyclists being killed - you have first said - why is everyone giving out about drivers, why aren't they looking at cyclists - and then said - loads of cyclists aren't wearing hi viz.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,608 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49041
you've lost me here. a car and a bike running a red light are equally dangerous?How are they completely different? Please enlighten me as to how breaking the law and running a stop sign isn't stupid regardless of mode of transport. The risk is the same regardless, you could cause an accident by doing so.0 -
But if wearing a helmet makes a cyclist take more risks, then that goes to my other point. More education and awareness. If a cyclist is doing that, the helmet won't have a negative impact. (I'm not victim blaming there, just talking from a pure helmet prospective, I could say similar about airbags or seatbelts)magicbastarder wrote: »there's a flaw with this argument, which is based purely on how a helmet protects you in the case of an accident. it assumes the accident and takes it from there, without addressing how the mandatory helmet will affect the chances of that accident in the first place. nor on the effects on numbers cycling, which seems to be a greater factor in cyclist safety.
lights *are* mandatory for cyclists.
there's a signifcant difference between helmets, and seatbelts/DRLs - the motorist does not have to carry the seatbelt around with them after they get out of the car.
My apologies, I didn't realize they were, I was basing that on the number of cyclists I see without them. It's almost novel to see one with lights.You are a smart guy, and respectful, as these conversations go.
I don't particularly like having online 'debates' but sometimes its too easy to get sucked in.
What I would suggest to you is - cycle around the city for a week or, commute into work a few times a week - and then revisit the conversation.
Most people who are cycle commuters are also drivers; they have both perspectives.
Most people who are drivers - and commenting on this debate - are not also cyclists. They don't have both perspectives.
Thank you. I am just trying to make both sides that read this realize that they all need to be aware.
I completely agree.
Ok, I get what you are saying, but using that logic, go drive a lorry round a town for a week. See how bad the blind spots are, see the big swing needed for some turns.
That works great as a statement, but that kind of education is not the answer.
As road users we all need to be aware of each others needs. The whole system needs overhauled and everyone needs education on how to use the road when they're still in school.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »you've lost me here. a car and a bike running a red light are equally dangerous?
Yes.
Car runs light, could hit someone crossing, a cyclist or another car or have a car take avoiding action, and have an accident caused.
Cyclist runs light, could get hit by car, or hit someone crossing, or have a car take avoiding action, and have an accident caused.
Why are you condoning anyone running a light or stop sign?
No one should do it.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,608 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49041
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,608 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49041
what if a motorist behaves in a riskier manner when dealing with cyclists wearing helmets?But if wearing a helmet makes a cyclist take more risks, then that goes to my other point. More education and awareness. If a cyclist is doing that, the helmet won't have a negative impact. (I'm not victim blaming there, just talking from a pure helmet prospective, I could say similar about airbags or seatbelts)0 -
Do we believe most motorists even notices whether the cyclist has helmet or not? Maybe there's a study out there but i'd be surprised....0
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,608 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49041
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yes.
Car runs light, could hit someone crossing, a cyclist or another car or have a car take avoiding action, and have an accident caused.
Cyclist runs light, could get hit by car, or hit someone crossing, or have a car take avoiding action, and have an accident caused.
Why are you condoning anyone running a light or stop sign?
No one should do it.
So firstly let's establish that in the vast majority of cases red lights are actually traffic flow measures, not safety measures. Amazing how many people do not realise that.
That helps us understand that most anger at red light jumping is because someone else (usually a cyclist) is 'cheating'. What that person is doing is of course almost always totally safe. You don't see cyclists just firing themselves out into perpendicular traffic, they would not last a moment. They are treating a red light as a 'yield', which is bog standard in many other countries because it makes perfect sense.
If you believe that this behaviour is de facto dangerous then what you are saying is that trusting any motorist or cyclist to use a yield sign is also dangerous, as is any road junction without traffic lights. Which would be completely absurd.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »So firstly let's establish that in the vast majority of cases red lights are actually traffic flow measures, not safety measures. Amazing how many people do not realise that.
That helps us understand that most anger at red light jumping is because someone else (usually a cyclist) is 'cheating'. What that person is doing is of course almost always totally safe. You don't see cyclists just firing themselves out into perpendicular traffic, they would not last a moment. They are treating a red light as a 'yield', which is bog standard in many other countries because it makes perfect sense.
If you believe that this behaviour is de facto dangerous then what you are saying is that trusting any motorist or cyclist to use a yield sign is also dangerous, as is any road junction without traffic lights. Which would be completely absurd.
One of the reasons that this is safe of course is that cyclists can edge out towards the junction and have a full view of the traffic in all directions.
Another reason is that cyclists can stop and start almost instantly, cars cant.
A third is that cyclist have full peripheral vision, motorists don't.
As mentioned - cyclists brake red lights; but I have yet to see a cyclist put themselves in danger by doing so. No doubt it happens, but its rare. The notion that cyclists are going to put themselves at risk for the sake of a few seconds - it wont happen and doesn't happen.
Final point - and one that motorist of course wouldn't be aware of - is that it is often far safer for a cyclist to brake a light than to stay with the light. if you have a lot of traffic around you taking off at the same time, potentially going in different directions - that is a high risk situation. A case in point - a really good example of this - is crossing the Liffey from Busarus.....Green light go.....four lanes going in three different directions, cars switching lane to get in position - if you are a cyclist in the middle of this, it can be scary. if I can, I would much rather get ahead of that traffic, e.g. cross on the pedestrian green, and cross that bridge with nobody around me. (And no, that doesn't put pedestrians at risk- if by risk we mean what actually happens in the real world, with statistics to back it up).0 -
One of the reasons that this is safe of course is that cyclists can edge out towards the junction and have a full view of the traffic in all directions.
Another reason is that cyclists can stop and start almost instantly, cars cant.
A third is that cyclist have full peripheral vision, motorists don't.
As mentioned - cyclists brake red lights; but I have yet to see a cyclist put themselves in danger by doing so. No doubt it happens, but its rare. The notion that cyclists are going to put themselves at risk for the sake of a few seconds - it wont happen and doesn't happen.
Final point - and one that motorist of course wouldn't be aware of - is that it is often far safer for a cyclist to brake a light than to stay with the light. if you have a lot of traffic around you taking off at the same time, potentially going in different directions - that is a high risk situation. A case in point - a really good example of this - is crossing the Liffey from Busarus.....Green light go.....four lanes going in three different directions, cars switching lane to get in position - if you are a cyclist in the middle of this, it can be scary. if I can, I would much rather get ahead of that traffic, e.g. cross on the pedestrian green, and cross that bridge with nobody around me. (And no, that doesn't put pedestrians at risk- if by risk we mean what actually happens in the real world, with statistics to back it up).
There is absolutely no way anyone should cycle through the green man with pedestrians crossing, whatever about running any red light which is illegal anyway.0 -
But if wearing a helmet makes a cyclist take more risks, then that goes to my other point. More education and awareness. If a cyclist is doing that, the helmet won't have a negative impact. (I'm not victim blaming there, just talking from a pure helmet prospective, I could say similar about airbags or seatbelts)
My apologies, I didn't realize they were, I was basing that on the number of cyclists I see without them. It's almost novel to see one with lights.
Thank you. I am just trying to make both sides that read this realize that they all need to be aware.
I completely agree.
Ok, I get what you are saying, but using that logic, go drive a lorry round a town for a week. See how bad the blind spots are, see the big swing needed for some turns.
That works great as a statement, but that kind of education is not the answer.
As road users we all need to be aware of each others needs. The whole system needs overhauled and everyone needs education on how to use the road when they're still in school.
You make a lot of good points about what cyclists can do to make themselves safer but while I see you are trying to present some balance, it's the balance in the media that is the problem not here.
Many articles are on cyclists needing to cop on, or wear more high viz and helmets but I can't remember one that balances that with a motorists need to change their attitude. Not one.
Although we can make effort to mitigate risk ultimately it is motorists who need to take more care to prevent more deaths, and this message is not been heard.
This is why their is such push back whenever anyone mentions helmets etc. Please try and understand the frustration with the situation where drivers are not being taken to account at all for the current prevailing attitude to cyclists.
Cyclist making themselves safer feels like a red herring, victim blaming and failing to address the big problem of changing driving behaviour in this country.0 -
Do cyclists want more respect from other road users?
If the answer is yes it doesnt matter if RLJing is safe or not. If motorists think "cyclist = lawbreaker" safety doesnt come into it, we just get the George Hook mentality behind the wheel.0 -
Do cyclists want more respect from other road users?
If the answer is yes it doesnt matter if RLJing is safe or not. If motorists think "cyclist = lawbreaker" safety doesnt come into it, we just get the George Hook mentality behind the wheel.
No, cyclists want more safety from other road users. Best way to get that is to obey the UN's suggestion and spend 20% of transport funding on safe infrastructure for active travel, which would mean at the very least 10% of transport funding on safe separated protected cycle lanes.If motorists think "cyclist = lawbreaker" safety doesnt come into it, we just get the George Hook mentality behind the wheel.
This suggests that 'motorists' (people driving cars) are psychopaths. Not my experience.0 -
Ok, I get what you are saying, but using that logic, go drive a lorry round a town for a week. See how bad the blind spots are, see the big swing needed for some turns..
I used to drive a lorry, a large van, a small van. I now drive a car and I cycle. I know about blindspots but they can be negated by more mirrors, better truck cab design, cameras, sensors and even just adjusting your head position to see more in the mirrors i.e. lean forward etc. Having blindspots is not a get out clause. Having blind spots is careless at best. Driving without knowing your blindspots and being extra careful is dangerous at best. Having blind spots is no excuse for hitting anyone or anything. Particularly in cities/towns a driver should assume that some people are just not as aware of the dangers or intelligent etc. and therefore the driver should turn as if there is always someone in the blind spot.0 -
Fighting Tao wrote: »I used to drive a lorry, a large van, a small van. I now drive a car and I cycle. I know about blindspots but they can be negated by more mirrors, better truck cab design, cameras, sensors and even just adjusting your head position to see more in the mirrors i.e. lean forward etc. Having blindspots is not a get out clause. Having blind spots is careless at best. Driving without knowing your blindspots and being extra careful is dangerous at best. Having blind spots is no excuse for hitting anyone or anything.
Well said! If there is a blind spot it's negligent not to make additional checks. Just a cop out!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Why? It happened in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Utrecht. Why is Ireland any different? Those cities managed to turn back the damage prioritising private cars for years had done. Vastly more pleasant popular cities now.
Perhaps it can happen but if you look at the fiasco created by an apparently simple effort to add a segregated cycle lane along the Liffey in Dublin it should be obvious that it is currently unlikely, There is a concerted effort by pro-car pressure groups to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen. Rather they claim they are happy to see good quality segregated cycle paths but only if they appear by magic, not impinging on the divine right of motorists to go where they want, when they want. The councillors are either enthusiastically pro-car, bizarrely anti-cyclist or too mired in local politics to take any action that might annoy anyone.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement