#StopKillingCyclists - Kildare Street Tuesday 21st 5.30

AndrewJRenko

Jawgap wrote: »

And the vast majority of motorists, the vast majority of the time are grand - but you do get the odd idiotic cyclist, driver or pedestrian.

We have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits in the RSA Speed Survey - the one action that makes certain that if something goes wrong, you will have less time to respond and the outcome will be more serious for the injured party.

We have the 2nd worst rates of mobile phone abuse in Europe.

We have frequent illegal parking that endangers cyclists and pedestrians, with almost zero enforcement.

I'm not sure that the vast majority of motorists are grand the vast majority of time.

Jawgap

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits in the RSA Speed Survey - the one action that makes certain that if something goes wrong, you will have less time to respond and the outcome will be more serious for the injured party.

We have the 2nd worst rates of mobile phone abuse in Europe.

We have frequent illegal parking that endangers cyclists and pedestrians, with almost zero enforcement.

I'm not sure that the vast majority of motorists are grand the vast majority of time.

.....and occasionally crappy weather.

I wouldn't conflate the two - it doesn't follow that just because drivers are speeding that it's dangerous for cyclists. Speed limits should be enforced more rigorously but someone doing 32km/hr in a 30km zone is a world apart from someone doing 52 in a 50.

As for poorly parked vehicles, I can't speak for anyone else, but I just cycle around them.

tomasrojo

It could be a lot better -- and it's mostly no good for children cycling, apart from very limited localised routes -- but my personal experience isn't of heart-in-mouth everyday near-misses. (Apart from the cyclists skimming past me in the bakfiets at rush hour. They're not heart-in-mouth experiences anyway.)

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

It could be a lot better -- and it's mostly no good for children cycling, apart from very limited localised routes -- but my personal experience isn't of heart-in-mouth everyday near-misses. (Apart from the cyclists skimming past me in the bakfiets at rush hour. They're not heart-in-mouth experiences anyway.)

somewhat ironically, the only route I wasn't happy about the kids cycling (when they were younger) was to school because of the idiotic parents who insisted not just on driving their offspring but on parking in as confused and chaotic a fashion as possible so their darlings had the absolute shortest distance to walk to the gates! Mad stuff.

Personally, I'd ban parking within 500m of any school, unless you are a resident and possess the requisite permit.

tomasrojo

Jawgap wrote: »

the idiotic parents who insisted not just on driving their offspring but on parking in as confused and chaotic a fashion as possible so their darlings had the absolute shortest distance to walk to the gates! Mad stuff.

There's a woman in my estate who drives her kids to their school ... also in my estate, two streets over from her house. About a four-minute walk away.

She pulled out of her street in front of me (on my bike) one day at speed, and then stopped, about fifteen seconds later, in front of the school.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's a woman in my estate who drives her kids to their school ... also in my estate, two streets over from her house. About a four-minute walk away.

She pulled out of her street in front of me (on my bike) one day at speed, and then stopped, about fifteen seconds later, in front of the school.

Does she then drive back home or continue somewhere else in her car?

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

So then the question is, whats an acceptable number of cyclist deaths per year for a country of our size and our current cycling population?

The answer no one wants to give, I am going to say 5. I think if we could get it below five and 80%+ were due to cyclist error or were out of the control of everyone involved, I would think it was a job well done. i wouldn't be happy but this to me is the number I see that just happens and there is nothing we can realistically do to help anymore.

doozerie wrote: »

Driverless cars raise some very interesting questions, that's for sure. Someone mentioned to me recently that he had read that the software struggles with cyclists in particular.

Apparently cyclists are a problem because in terms of size they are closer to a pedestrian but in terms of speed they are closer to a car but they are deemed less predictable than a car. I'm not sure on what basis they are deemed less predictable, but it's a description that fits with my own anecdotal experience.

It is also that early software couldn't map size very well and the algorithms kept switching in it's IDing of the cyclist between a pedestrian and a car as the cyclist turned. I imagine it is an issue that can be worked around, I heavily suspect that one of the issues that may occur with programming for cyclist is that unless the programmers themselves are cyclists, it is hard to understand the actions that are taken.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits in the RSA Speed Survey - the one action that makes certain that if something goes wrong, you will have less time to respond and the outcome will be more serious for the injured party.

We have the 2nd worst rates of mobile phone abuse in Europe.

We have frequent illegal parking that endangers cyclists and pedestrians, with almost zero enforcement.

I'm not sure that the vast majority of motorists are grand the vast majority of time.

I think most of them act in a way that if they were to be questioned on it, they can't see the issue with it. The best example of this is going at the speed limit on a country road that they know.

Jawgap wrote: »

I wouldn't conflate the two - it doesn't follow that just because drivers are speeding that it's dangerous for cyclists. Speed limits should be enforced more rigorously but someone doing 32km/hr in a 30km zone is a world apart from someone doing 52 in a 50.

Same here, someone doing 30kmph in an estate with lots of parking and poor sightlines is driving dangerously although in their mind, maybe not illegally (and they can't see the issue). On the other hand, someone doing 60kmph on a link road with high walls on both sides, clear sightlines and nowhere for someone to sneak out from isn't but is a 50kmph zone, but only one of them will get a ticket, only the one getting the ticket is not the one likely to kill someone.

Now the second person should get a ticket, because if they can't follow the rules there, they probably can't anywhere but still, they should not be the concern with limited resources.

As for poorly parked vehicles, I can't speak for anyone else, but I just cycle around them.

I don't like it, but in general, yes, look around, indicate, make sure it is safe to pull out and pass. It took longer to type the sentence that moving round all the parked cars on my commute takes.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

Does she then drive back home or continue somewhere else in her car?

Hard to say for everyone but in my old estate, many returned home or done a U turn and went in the opposite direction, where in leaving the car at home and walking there and back would have been quicker (although why the kids could not walk themselves was beyond me).

tomasrojo

She goes straight back to her house. It's a cul-de-sac anyway (if you're in a car). She could more easily walk to school, collect, walk home and then drive to another destination.

mr spuckler

Jawgap wrote: »

somewhat ironically, the only route I wasn't happy about the kids cycling (when they were younger) was to school because of the idiotic parents who insisted not just on driving their offspring but on parking in as confused and chaotic a fashion as possible so their darlings had the absolute shortest distance to walk to the gates! Mad stuff.

Personally, I'd ban parking within 500m of any school, unless you are a resident and possess the requisite permit.

my commute normally starts at around 9am so i miss all the school related nonsense. this morning though I needed to leave the house at 8 and I was pretty taken aback by some of the manouevres I witnessed near schools.

although they were all trumped by the lady who stopped very abruptly on the James Larkin road (school-kid in the passenger seat) to lean out the window to pour some water on her windscreen that had somehow frozen as she drove. traffic behind her got quite a shock!

ford2600

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Our lack of control over individual drivers and continuous training are policy choices. We absolutely could take control over both of these, with improved enforcement through speed cameras, red light cameras, ANPR tracking, maybe even GPS monitoring of each vehicle if we chose to do so. We could also implement requirements for ongoing training and periodic retesting of drivers.



Roadcraft is great, but the best thing you can do is create a culture of zero acceptable deaths.

While everyone would like zero deaths, I'm not aware of any civilisation which has achieved it.

Since the time of Highwaymen and before, transport has come with risks of injury or death. It is now better than it has every been here and in the UK. There has been a paradigm shift in attitude to death on the road and in the workplace in that time.

In many undeveloped countries, in particular in Africa the attitude to accidents/death is treated like it is fate, just one of those things kind of attitude.

More people now die typically in the home from accidents than on our roads; than should be an easier place to reduce deaths given the level of control we have over our homes.

You can look for all the training/enforcement you want; it will make it better but zero is not remotely realistic. Data protection/civil liberties groups would probably be a big stumbling block even if we didn't have an inept Ministry of Transport/Justice and a discredited Garda force.

Humans will err and people will continue to die on our roads even with the advent of driverless cars, zero isn't yet achieveable.

There are no zero risk activities, and many of us a really poor and judging risk.

The current, primarily social media, hysteria around road deaths doesn't achieve much. While we are waiting for our inept departments to make a whole host of changes not in force in any other jurisdiction, the best things every cyclist can do today to make themselves safer is improving their roadcraft and route selection, bike in good condition etc etc.

1bryan

Jawgap wrote: »

Listening to some of the rhetoric out there you'd think cycling in Dublin is dangerous - it's not. A bit of cop on, a decent set of lights and a respectful (but appropriately assertive) attitude towards other road users will see anyone right.

....could it be better? Abso-feckin-lutely.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a nice city for cycling around. And the vast majority of motorists, the vast majority of the time are grand - but you do get the odd idiotic cyclist, driver or pedestrian.

in summary, if we want safer roads for cyclists in urban areas we need to emphasise the positives and be truthful about the negatives - not over-playing them.

in your opinion, fine, however I disagree. I'd consider Dublin a dangerous city to cycle in.

I do consider it safer than before the lorry-ban from the city but really, that's the only notable improvement I've seen in my 25 years or so of commuting by bike on the routes I take.

By the way I think they've done amazing things for cycling in the sticks. For example, out by Tallaght, from Glenview up to the village, and while great and all as that may be, it's lip service. It's within a 5-10 mile radius of the city center where most work is still needed.

Jawgap

1bryan wrote: »

in your opinion, fine, however I disagree. I'd consider Dublin a dangerous city to cycle in.

I do consider it safer than before the lorry-ban from the city but really, that's the only notable improvement I've seen in my 25 years or so of commuting by bike on the routes I take.

By the way I think they've done amazing things for cycling in the sticks. For example, out by Tallaght, from Glenview up to the village, and while great and all as that may be, it's lip service. It's within a 5-10 mile radius of the city center where most work is still needed.

Well, it's not really my opinion - it's what the evidence and data suggests.

People are overly influenced by 'eventful' events - or to put it another way, ain't anybody going to write a headline that says "100,000 km cycled in Dublin in 24 hours.....no fatalities reported."

1bryan

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, it's not really my opinion - it's what the evidence and data suggests.

People are overly influenced by 'eventful' events - or to put it another way, ain't anybody going to write a headline that says "100,000 km cycled in Dublin in 24 hours.....no fatalities reported."

ok, so we're still nitpicking. Whereas only one piece of data matters as far as I'm concerned. That being, number of fatalities. And that is rising.

Anyway, that's it from me on this. I'm out.

doozerie

1bryan wrote: »

I'd consider Dublin a dangerous city to cycle in.

I hear that a lot. Most recently I heard it from some fellow parents at my daughter's school, where the daily standard of parking(/car abandoning) and associated car manouvering by some of those very people is shocking. No-one that I have asked has ever been able to explain why they feel it is dangerous, "it just is" is basically the answer.

I don't consider it dangerous as such. Put yourself in any situation where a bad action or decision by someone else puts you at risk, and by definition it is dangerous to some degree, but that applies to pretty much anything that involves interacting with others - walking on the pavement can be described as dangerous simply because some other pedestrian may push you over, for example.

Personally I actually feel safer on a bike around Dublin than in a car. In a car I'm surrounded by other motorists that are impatient at the traffic that is delaying us all, in their rush to make some kind of progress far too many of them will do stupid things and I have nowhere to go to get out of their way. At least on a bike I have more options to keep away from such antics, for one thing.

To put some figures against that though, I roughly commute about 4,000km by bicycle per year, in all weathers. It's a pretty consistent figure from year to year for over 20 years now. In addition I do somewhere between 4,000km and 7,000km riding for fun at weekends and summer evenings. I've been cycling for over 35 years, the last 25 of those in Dublin. By comparison I do less than 8,000km per year in the car. I'd choose cycling over driving every time, in Dublin or not.

tomasrojo

Has anyone posted this?
I'm going to read it when I have time to read it properly.
http://irishcycle.com/2017/11/24/why-i-support-the-use-of-die-ins-to-push-for-cycling-safety/

GreeBo

1bryan wrote: »

ok, so we're still nitpicking. Whereas only one piece of data matters as far as I'm concerned. That being, number of fatalities. And that is rising.

Anyway, that's it from me on this. I'm out.

I think it was posted earlier, while it is indeed rising, the sample size is too small to draw any significance from it.

Its akin to trying to define global warming based on what the weather was like last week.

Corca Baiscinn

Jawgap wrote: »

Personally, I'd ban parking within 500m of any school, unless you are a resident and possess the requisite permit.

I was thinking about that just yesterday. Assuming that for whatever reason, parents will still be driving their kids to school and in my town they will be, as substantial numbers live in outlying areas, then they have to park somewhere. There are two schools on the same road and two public car parks quite near. Older kids could certainly be dropped off to walk, though the who weight of schoolbags comes into play, but parents could be waking the younger one sand there's no way they'd pay for parking twice a day , five days a week so it could work if parking were free for that purpose.

AndrewJRenko

Jawgap wrote: »

I wouldn't conflate the two - it doesn't follow that just because drivers are speeding that it's dangerous for cyclists. Speed limits should be enforced more rigorously but someone doing 32km/hr in a 30km zone is a world apart from someone doing 52 in a 50.

Untrue - speed absolutely does make it dangerous for cyclists, pedestrians and others. There is a direct relationship between the speed of the driver and the degree of damage and injury resulting in a crash. It doesn't necessarily mean this driver was the immediate cause - it could be the other guy that caused. It could even possibly be a cyclist that caused it. But whoever caused it, the higher the speed, the greater the damage and injury.

Jawgap wrote: »

As for poorly parked vehicles, I can't speak for anyone else, but I just cycle around them.

Funnily enough, I cycle round them too. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean that it would be easy for an 8 year old to cycle round them, or a parent herding a couple of kids to cycle round them.

Don't design for yourself - design for 8 year olds and 80 year olds.

ford2600 wrote: »

While everyone would like zero deaths, I'm not aware of any civilisation which has achieved it.

Since the time of Highwaymen and before, transport has come with risks of injury or death. It is now better than it has every been here and in the UK. There has been a paradigm shift in attitude to death on the road and in the workplace in that time.
[....]
You can look for all the training/enforcement you want; it will make it better but zero is not remotely realistic. Data protection/civil liberties groups would probably be a big stumbling block even if we didn't have an inept Ministry of Transport/Justice and a discredited Garda force.

Humans will err and people will continue to die on our roads even with the advent of driverless cars, zero isn't yet achieveable.

There are no zero risk activities, and many of us a really poor and judging risk.

The current, primarily social media, hysteria around road deaths doesn't achieve much. While we are waiting for our inept departments to make a whole host of changes not in force in any other jurisdiction, the best things every cyclist can do today to make themselves safer is improving their roadcraft and route selection, bike in good condition etc etc.

Zero probably isn't achievable - but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the target.

Maybe the target should be zero people killed by the actions of others on the road, or similar.