11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?

amcalester

Send In The Robots wrote: »

The simple fact is that most roads are only designed for motorised vechiles.

With the advent of faster and electric powered bikes, perhaps it's time to take a look at motorbikers. I.e. Using protective clothing.
Most bikers can come off at up to 35kmph, slide, roll and even tap a few walls without suffering any real damage. Not the case with cyclists.

Basic standard is leather outer skins, high-impact foam inserts with outer shells at main points (knees, elbows, shoulders etc).

But there is also next-gen materials such as D30, carbon fiber helmets, and compact Co2 airbags, that take this to the next level.

So the answer to cyclists being knocked down by motorists is for cyclists to wear motorcycle-grade protective gear.

Doesn't really address the issue does it? It's just another variation on mandatory helmets and hi-viz.

Chuchote

flatface wrote: »

What we need is the facts of these deaths. Pointless arguing about 2 abreast if no deaths were of anyone in a group. Pointless arguing about red light jumping if not one death was in those circumstances.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/the-10-cyclists-killed-on-our-roads-to-date-this-year-1.3128356

(snippage in list)

• Tonya McEvoy (34) … was out training with the Orwell Wheelers Cycling Club.
• Daragh Ryan (30) was coming out of the Phoenix Park on to Conyngham Road at about 2pm when he was involved in a collision with an oncoming driver. The junction is considered to be a blackspot for traffic collisions and is a very busy stretch of road.
• Des Butler (50) was cycling down the N18 near Bunratty when his bike collided with the van travelling towards Ennis.
• Luby Maryori Arroyave Ramirez, in her late 30s, was involved in a collision with a truck at a roundabout in Templeogue at a busy junction between Templeville Road and Wellington Road.
• Robin Ball (62) was knocked at Lissanoohig, near Skibbereen.
• Annette Mannix (48) died after a collision in Killarney with a tractor on what locals described as a dangerous junction on the N22 bypass, on May 10th. She had been cycling with a local club on the spring evening.
• Donal O’Brien (46) was involved in a fatal collision with a car while cycling on the Ballincollig bypass heading into Cork city.
• Patrick McHale (54) from Ballina, Co Mayo, was knocked down by a car while cycling in Rathoreen, Ballina in the evening.
• Janet Price, an American tourist visiting Ireland, in her 60s and from Washington State, was travelling around Kerry with her husband Don Theiler. They were cycling around the Gap of Dunloe, Co Kerry, when she collided with a 4x4 vehicle on a narrow mountain road on May 30th.
• Pádraic Carney (53), principal of St Louis primary school in Rathmines, South Dublin, was involved in a traffic collision with a car at a busy junction on Butterfield Park in Rathfarnham while cycling from his home to St Louis school at 8:10am on Monday, June 19th.

Send In The Robots

ED E wrote: »

They weren't, arguably aren't, and don't have to be. Cycles have used our roads for a lot lot longer than cars.

True, but that was before they envisaged sharing with 2tonnes of motorised metal with ever increasing average velocity.
The average modern family car is bigger and quester than decades ago and can say hello to 0-100kph in well below 10seconds, may cases 5-6secs.

amcalester wrote: »

So the answer to cyclists being knocked down by motorists is for cyclists to wear motorcycle-grade protective gear.

Doesn't really address the issue does it? It's just another variation on mandatory helmets and hi-viz.

Are helmets and hi-vis mandatory? Doesn't look like it.

Yes near-motorcycle grade materials will vastly improve both injury and survival rates. Remember future cyclists will be propulsion assisted anyway.

Came off a motorbike years ago, did a summersault, roll and landed against a wall.
The only result was slightly less leather on the jacket, a minor tingle on the elbow and knee which dissapated in a few hours.
Had it been t-shirt and shorts, some bandages might have been needed.

I love Sean nos

ella23 wrote: »

I don't take those roads too fast, they are treacherous, and two people cycling abreast can be hazardous on those roads

How so? Unless you're going too quickly for the road.

ella23 wrote: »

But try one of those roads in a car going the speed that is adequate for said road and see what I'm talking about. Neither the cyclist or the motorist are given much of a chance.

I dispute your use of the word adequate here.

amcalester

Send In The Robots wrote: »

True, but that was before they envisaged sharing with 2tonnes of motorised metal with ever increasing average velocity.
The average modern family car is bigger and quester than decades ago and can say hello to 0-100kph in well below 10seconds, may cases 5-6secs.



Are helmets and hi-vis mandatory? Doesn't look like it.

Yes near-motorcycle grade materials will vastly improve both injury and survival rates. Remember future cyclists will be propulsion assisted anyway.

Came off a motorbike years ago, did a summersault, roll and landed against a wall.
The only result was slightly less leather on the jacket, a minor tingle on the elbow and knee which dissapated in a few hours.
Had it been t-shirt and shorts, some bandages might have been needed.

No, they're not mandatory but it is often put forward as a possible solution to cyclist being hit by motorists.

The issue is that motorists are killing cyclists in increasing numbers (albeit based on low absolute numbers) and people keep suggesting that cyclists should do x y and z but no mention of motorists, you know, not driving into cyclists.

I'm not sure what relevance you falling off a motorcycle has in a thread about cyclists being killed by motorists.

ED E

If cyclists wanted to be motorcyclists they would be.

Its preposterous to suggest that cyclists would wear similar protection, it takes zero effort to ride a motorbike quite unlike a bicycle.

homerjay2005

the simple solution here is cyclists and pedestrians co existing as opposed to cyclists and cars/lorries/buses.

the roads of Dublin are a death trap for cycling in many areas and its time to change the laws and keep cyclists safe.

amcalester

ED E wrote: »

If cyclists wanted to be motorcyclists they would be.

Its preposterous to suggest that cyclists would wear similar protection, it takes zero effort to ride a motorbike quite unlike a bicycle.

And we'll all be mechanically powered eventually anyway, apparently.

Sure cyclists are nothing more than wannabe motorcyclists anyway. 🙄

magicbastarder

Send In The Robots wrote: »

Remember future cyclists will be propulsion assisted anyway.

Remember future cars will be autonomously driven anyway. and legally won't be allowed to perform illegal manouevres.

Chuchote

amcalester wrote: »

Sure cyclists are nothing more than wannabe motorcyclists anyway. ��

None that I've met

amcalester

Chuchote wrote: »

None that I've met

Was my sarcasm too subtle? Sorry, will spread it on thicker next time.

I love Sean nos

magicbastarder wrote: »

legally won't be allowed to perform illegal manouevres.

That's optimistic.

People hack devices all the time.

Send In The Robots

ED E wrote: »

If cyclists wanted to be motorcyclists they would be.

Its preposterous to suggest that cyclists would wear similar protection, it takes zero effort to ride a motorbike quite unlike a bicycle.

Professional, leisure and sport focused type cyclists, yes.

But average 'functional commuter' use types will desire to have a powered option available, 'at the flick of a switch' as technology advances and costs reduce. Wonder how many bikes folks such as G-tech have sold this year, thousand, probably tens of thousands. Wouldn't most average Joe/Janes choose this option for e.g. 20% price addition?

It takes more training, skill, clothing, insurance and a licence to travel at speed like a motorbike. A cyclist can do pretty much whatever they want, get up on a footpath, sneak the odd red light etc.

So as cyclists speeds will become more like moped users speeds, perhaps they need more training, legislation, skill and adequate clothing for these speeds.

Chuchote

Send In The Robots wrote: »

So as cyclists speeds will become more like moped users speeds, perhaps they need more training, legislation, skill and adequate clothing for these speeds.

In that case the 'cyclists' will actually be motorcyclists and SendIn will be correct. But that's a whole different discussion. And it's true that speeds on assisted bikes can require better protection - a friend using an electric came off on a patch of gravel and made a hames of his wrist - he wasn't aware of the speed because he was thinking of it as a bicycle.

Send In The Robots

Deedsie wrote: »

I choose to be a commuter cyclist because I get to exercise on my way to and from work. It's far better for my health. Why would I ruin that by choosing a "powered" option? I power it myself thanks.

Why buy a washing machine when you can hand-wash everything? Think of all the calories that can be burnt, great for health!

=Efficency, speed, practicality.

The fact is e-bike sales are growing year on year, getting better and cheaper.
There is the option to switch the assisted funciton off also (if desired).

In 5-10yrs may well be pitied for using a manual bike on the streets.
Fine for tearing down mountains, or at the olmypics, but not for darker, urban, rain-soaked streets.

Chuchote

Send In The Robots wrote: »

Why buy a washing machine when you can hand-wash everything? Think of all the calories that can be burnt, great for health!

=Efficency, speed, practicality.

The fact is e-bike sales are growing year on year, getting better and cheaper.
There is the option to switch the assisted funciton off also (if desired).

Yeah, but ebikes are awfully heavy if you switch off the assistance. They're fine for some people - if your knees are a goner, if you're really too fat to cycle, if you live at the tip top of a mountain - but they'd take all the fun out of cycling for me, I'd have to say.

Send In The Robots

Chuchote wrote: »

Yeah, but ebikes are awfully heavy if you switch off the assistance. They're fine for some people - if your knees are a goner, if you're really too fat to cycle, if you live at the tip top of a mountain - but they'd take all the fun out of cycling for me, I'd have to say.

The techology (weight and range) is constantly improving (like everything), so just dial in the percentage of assistance required: 10% or 90%.

3hr charge is 30miles on standard models, the battery pack could likely be used in other devices also eventutally, hoovers, laptops etc.

Beasty

This is a very serious topic which should not be derailed by moving off-topic to discuss the likes of e-bikes

Any questions PM me

Thanks

rubadub

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.

kiddums wrote: »

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

"the same", so do you think they should also have mandatory training and mandatory helmets? If not, why not? as I said before I reckon you already have the answers to your own questions.

If you do want mandatory training and helmets for joggers rather than all pedestrians then you have the problem of legally defining what a jogger is.

I think when many people are calling for mandatory training/helmets/licencing/taxation/high viz for cyclists they are not readily realising it means the same for their own young kids/nieces/nephews, or their elderly relative who goes on a spin around an empty cul de sac twice a year on their bike.

magicbastarder

I love Sean nos wrote: »

That's optimistic.

People hack devices all the time.

sure as tachographs in trucks? like i said, not legal.

magicbastarder

Send In The Robots wrote: »

Remember future cyclists will be propulsion assisted anyway.

are you posting from 1907?

I love Sean nos

magicbastarder wrote: »

sure as tachographs in trucks? like i said, not legal.

I was more thinking about hacking the car OS, but whatever. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. You're assuming that no cars will be able to perform illegal manoeuvres and I'm saying that you shouldn't count on that.

magicbastarder

i said 'legally won't be allowed', which is not the same as 'won't be able to perform illegal manouevres'.

rubadub

Send In The Robots wrote: »

So as cyclists speeds will become more like moped users speeds, perhaps they need more training, legislation, skill and adequate clothing for these speeds.

If a bike goes over 25 km/h it is a motorbike or something else falling under "mechanically propelled vehicle". People on legal ebikes would rarely match the speed of people on regular road bikes. As the assistance cuts off at 25km/hr you are left with cycling a very heavy bike which is very hard to get up to high speeds.

07Lapierre

Send In The Robots wrote: »

The simple fact is that most roads are only designed for motorised vechiles.

With the advent of faster and electric powered bikes, perhaps it's time to take a look at motorbikers. I.e. Using protective clothing.
Most bikers can come off at up to 35kmph, slide, roll and even tap a few walls without suffering any real damage. Not the case with cyclists.

Basic standard is leather outer skins, high-impact foam inserts with outer shells at main points (knees, elbows, shoulders etc).

But there is also next-gen materials such as D30, carbon fiber helmets, and compact Co2 airbags, that take this to the next level.

The only roads designed specifically for motorised vehicles are motorways. ALL other roads are shared roads.

ella23

07Lapierre wrote: »

tell me this then... what should be done to make these roads less treacherous?

That is a question for the county councils who have no interest in doing anything with the roads that aren't national roads. I'm not here to start an argument or antagonise anyone, but everything i seem to be saying is getting up your back? Why? I'm not educated in cycling, nor did I say that I was, I stated the reasons why i'm nervous of being on the road. So I really cannot tell you what should be done to make the roads less treacherous!

Chuchote

ella23 wrote: »

That is a question for the county councils who have no interest in doing anything with the roads that aren't national roads. I'm not here to start an argument or antagonise anyone, but everything i seem to be saying is getting up your back? Why? I'm not educated in cycling, nor did I say that I was, I stated the reasons why i'm nervous of being on the road. So I really cannot tell you what should be done to make the roads less treacherous!

The next council elections are two years away. If we want good infrastructure that's safe for people on bikes, it's time to back people who will build that infrastructure, or put forward our own candidates who will and canvass for them. Not a long time to 2019.

ella23

I love Sean nos wrote: »

How so? Unless you're going too quickly for the road.


Hairpin turns... Give them a shot! 10kmph even will give you a fair hop when there's a few bikes in front of you. As i said before, it is not the cyclists fault in my experiences (Obviously both can be at fault i'm guessing in cities and other instances), I'm literally only talking about why I am nervous and I seem to be dragged in to and attacked on discussions about speeding issues with motorists. Ye're a very odd bunch on the cycling forum. I didn't realise you needed a Phd in cycling to participate in this discussion. Can ye not take a post or give advice to a layman?

Excuse me while i leave.

ella23

Chuchote wrote: »

The next council elections are two years away. If we want good infrastructure that's safe for people on bikes, it's time to back people who will build that infrastructure, or put forward our own candidates who will and canvass for them. Not a long time to 2019.

I agree and thank you. I appreciate the answer!

07Lapierre

ella23 wrote: »

That is a question for the county councils who have no interest in doing anything with the roads that aren't national roads. I'm not here to start an argument or antagonise anyone, but everything i seem to be saying is getting up your back? Why? I'm not educated in cycling, nor did I say that I was, I stated the reasons why i'm nervous of being on the road. So I really cannot tell you what should be done to make the roads less treacherous!

It's not a question for the county councils. You need to accept that the roads you describe are public roads. These roads can be used by anyone..cyclists, joggers, walkers, motorists, farmers in tractors etc.

If you are nervous driving on roads, that's something you need to deal with. You need to drive at a speed that you are comfortable with and allows you to anticipate any potential hazards.