cycling and danger - actual and//or perceived?

smacl

07Lapierre wrote: »

"Risk adverse"...yes the motor industry is spending billions developing safer cars. The safer the car, the safer the driver feels. the safer the driver feels, the more risks they will take..at least that's what I think.

The single biggest safety feature they can add to a car, bus or truck is to take the monkey away from the controls. Once that happens, manually driven cars will become prohibitively expensive to insure and hence far less common. How long this will take isn't certain, my guess about a decade, but it does seem inevitable.

Wishbone Ash

smacl wrote: »

....How long this will take isn't certain, my guess about a decade, but it does seem inevitable.

It will take much longer than a decade. I can't see it being done in 50 years. (And what about those into motorcycles and classic cars?).

Macy0161

iirc the vast majority of deaths this year have been in daylight, and most them in a rural environment. Even what might be described as urban, most have been suburban rather than city centres.

I do agree that most of those that don't use lights don't see themselves as "cyclists" - they're just using a bike as it's quicker and convenient. If they could walk or use one of those adult scooters they'd be just as likely. I think their only relevance is really as they seem to give some motorists and some of the media carte blanche in not caring about other law abiding cyclists. I think that's what we really have to target, that one behaviour excuses another behaviour.

The standard of driving is so bad that I feel the need for a dashcam in the car, and a camera (soon to be two) on the bike. I don't know whether anything will ever get enforced with them, which is the crux of the issue for all road users.

I'm going to state this before I'm accused of having aspergers or whatever it was yesterday - the mode of travel I use most is a car. On this forum I can't think of anyone that has objected to FPN, or greater enforcement of laws as they pertain to cyclist. Go on the motors forum and it is littered with threads justifying speeding, complaining about reduced speed limits, complaining about enforcement (shooting fish in a barrel etc.). That's the attitude we, as a society, have to address. It won't be addressed, because these attitudes are so ingrained, it would be too politically unpopular to roll out an extensive anpr system for speeding, average speed, red light jumping, tax and insurance, driving unaccompanied...

smacl

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It will take much longer than a decade. I can't see it being done in 50 years. (And what about those into motorcycles and classic cars?).

The IEEE are predicting 75% of cars will be driverless by 2040. Many in the industry forecast we'll see a lot of consumer options being available between 2020 and 2025. At a guess, once driverless cars become commonplace and are shown to be safer than people driving, those who chose not to use them will pay an ever increasing premium on their insurance.

Pinch Flat

Lumen wrote: »

Maybe if you didn't use a front strobe the drivers would have enough functioning vision to operate their vehicles safely.

Just a personal opinion of course. We all have our preference of what works best, usually based on experience.

It's a twin light - strobe plus constant beam. It has constant, more powerful functions well which I prefer to use in more remote / less lit locations. My own experience is that a constant beam is ignored more. Drivers will see the strobe when I'm filtering up their inside left and some will move to facilitate me. Constant beam, not so much. Similarly, a strobe will attract attention approaching a junction or roundabout, constant beam not so much. All personal preference of course based on experience.

Incidentally, white van man that cut me up approached from my rear. So nothing to do with my front light.

Chips Lovell

magicbastarder wrote: »

I was just reading that cycle commuting jumped - between the 2011 and 2016 censuses - by 46%. obviously, that does not mean that all forms of cycling have seen a similar increase, but let's take it as a crude baseline for the sake of argument.

Cycling Ireland saw its membership grow from 9,000 in 2010 to 28,000 last year. There's obviously a lot more leisure cyclists that aren't members, but the increase is indicative of the increase in the number of leisure and racing cyclists.

It's important to see accident statistics in the context of overall cycling numbers. The most useful statistic for calculating risk (and one that isn't really tracked regularly here) is fatalities or injuries per million km traveled.

Annie get your Run

I've only been cycling as a commuter for 19 months, before that I cycled to school in the 80's and to the train station for most of my working life so I'm very comfortable on a bike, I'm not a nervous cyclist.

Even in those 19 months I've seen things get worse. For me it seems to be that everyone is in a rush to get to their destination and they will literally drive through whatever obstacle they need to to get there breaking road rules in the process. Sometimes I feel as a woman I get a lot more abuse on the roads than the guys do, because I'm small and it's easy to bully someone smaller than you?? I could be wrong, but I know my 6ft 2 neighbour can cross our local bridge on his bike without issue however, when I do it I get revving engines, beeping horns and punishment passes as soon as we're over the bridge. The other evening coming home on a narrow country road, a jeep behind me who couldn't pass because the traffic on the far side of the road was bumper to bumper, and I wasn't in far enough to let him squeeze by (obviously!) went ballistic when he finally did get to pass me (too closely) - I reached the junction shortly after he did and he was so incensed he double backed around the roundabout so he could continue yelling abuse out his window. I'm fairly tough but I'm sorry to say he reduced me to tears. I have retired the bike for rest of the year - I need a rest from the constant aggression.

The problem is these people literally do not realise how close they come to killing another human every day they drive like this. They have no sense of the potential consequences. How do they think they would feel if someone died from a wallop of their car? Even if the blame was 50 / 50 how could you live with yourself??? I think this is what the RSA should focus on - although, TV ads don't seem to have any impact.

Hopefully I will get back on the bike in the new year feeling refreshed after the break, the evenings will be starting to get brighter too and that will help.

Stay safe out there folks.

magicbastarder

one thing which makes my blood boil is the 'i'll just nip out into traffic in front of this guy here' approach, which is irritating if you're in a car, and an adrenaline rush (to put a positive spin on it) if you're on a bike. most motorists who do it probably don't even start to realise how bullying it is to cyclists, because a cyclist does not know if he or she has been spotted.
happened this morning on a roundabout where a guy in an articulate flatbed (the sort used for transporting heavy plant machinery) did it to me, even though i had right of way.

Tony EH

smacl wrote: »

The single biggest safety feature they can add to a car, bus or truck is to take the monkey away from the controls. Once that happens, manually driven cars will become prohibitively expensive to insure and hence far less common. How long this will take isn't certain, my guess about a decade, but it does seem inevitable.

I don't know about that.

While we give out about idiot drivers, the vast majority of people on the road are careful. They are cautious about what happens on the road, both to themselves and others (largely because of the impact on themselves, it has to be said).

A robot doesn't give a crap whether it even lives or not, never mind whether you do.

So, while robot cars seem like a great idea, the reality would probably be quite different.

Macy0161

Tony EH wrote: »

While we give out about idiot drivers, the vast majority of people on the road are careful. They are cautious about what happens on the road, both to themselves and others (largely because of the impact on themselves, it has to be said).

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that to be honest - they think they are careful. I've said on many threads, the thing that really bothers me is the number of times (either group or solo) that I'm overtaken with plenty of space. But, there's no way they can see far enough ahead to complete the move, either because of bends or brows of hills/ undulations*.

And then that's where their survival instinct comes in - it becomes them taking the head on, or ploughing into the cyclist(s) they've apparently given a safe overtake too.

*actually I see it also with tractors/ trucks/ slow cars, but obviously in those cases consequences are much more even, or even weighted against the overtaking car.

Pinch Flat

Tony EH wrote: »

So, while robot cars seem like a great idea, the reality would probably be quite different.

I'll be disappointed if robot cars don't look like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o

Tony EH

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that to be honest - they think they are careful. I've said on many threads, the thing that really bothers me is the number of times (either group or solo) that I'm overtaken with plenty of space. But, there's no way they can see far enough ahead to complete the move, either because of bends or brows of hills/ undulations*.

And then that's where their survival instinct comes in - it becomes them taking the head on, or ploughing into the cyclist(s) they've apparently given a safe overtake too.

*actually I see it also with tractors/ trucks/ slow cars, but obviously in those cases consequences are much more even, or even weighted against the overtaking car.

Sure. But, like everything it's the outrageous that tends to stand out. But, I do tend to make sure I recognise when drivers do the decent thing as it were.

The thing is, those times are fairly innocuous. It's making sure to pass with space. It's slowing down to let a cyclist take a turn off on a busy road. It's simply being aware of others on the road apart from oneself.

Of course, that all gets overshadowed by the clown that overtakes you and suddenly turns left, cutting you off and forcing you to break hard, hoping you don't snap your cables.

Tony EH

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'll be disappointed if robot cars don't look like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o

I just knew someone was going to post that.

If they're Johnny cabs - bring it on.*








*not really though. The amount of people who rely on driving for a living is huge. But, that's another thread.

magicbastarder

Tony EH wrote: »

A robot doesn't give a crap whether it even lives or not, never mind whether you do.

So, while robot cars seem like a great idea, the reality would probably be quite different.

not sure i follow - your concern is that they'll allow robot cars which are indifferent to preventing fatal collisions?

Tony EH

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure i follow - your concern is that they'll allow robot cars which are indifferent to preventing fatal collisions?

It's not that no.

Thing is, a computer doesn't think, about itself or anything else. It simply follows program and if something happens that's outside of its programming, a computer tends to just go its base alternative.

Experience counts for a lot and a human brain grows with experience. A computer will never grow and will never experience. It will never truly learn.

There was a trial with driverless buses in Las Vegas recently. The bus nearly crashed into a truck, because the truck suddenly appeared from out of an alley way. The bus's computer didn't know how to handle the particular situation. It wasn't part of the programming.

Now, a human may have the same situation happen to them. but, they'll learn from the close call, understanding that next time could seriously **** them up.

A computer won't think along those lines, because it cares nothing for its own safety, or the safety of the people in the vehicle it controls.

Tombo2001

Tony EH wrote: »

I've never been off a bike of some description for over 20 years. Too me, it's definitely more dangerous cycling around Dublin, etc, today than it's ever been before.

You really have to treat everyone on the road as if they're an absolute numpty, because if you give anyone the benefit of the doubt and hope they're not, that's the numpty that plows into you and the numpty number is rising.

It's amazing seeing some of the, flat out, stupid things that people do. It's actually a wonder we don't have more death on our roads.

This is interesting to me.

Why is it more dangerous cycling in Dublin today than 20 years ago?

Tombo2001

Macy0161 wrote: »

iirc the vast majority of deaths this year have been in daylight, and most them in a rural environment. Even what might be described as urban, most have been suburban rather than city centres.

I do agree that most of those that don't use lights don't see themselves as "cyclists" - they're just using a bike as it's quicker and convenient. If they could walk or use one of those adult scooters they'd be just as likely. I think their only relevance is really as they seem to give some motorists and some of the media carte blanche in not caring about other law abiding cyclists. I think that's what we really have to target, that one behaviour excuses another behaviour.

The standard of driving is so bad that I feel the need for a dashcam in the car, and a camera (soon to be two) on the bike. I don't know whether anything will ever get enforced with them, which is the crux of the issue for all road users.

I'm going to state this before I'm accused of having aspergers or whatever it was yesterday - the mode of travel I use most is a car. On this forum I can't think of anyone that has objected to FPN, or greater enforcement of laws as they pertain to cyclist. Go on the motors forum and it is littered with threads justifying speeding, complaining about reduced speed limits, complaining about enforcement (shooting fish in a barrel etc.). That's the attitude we, as a society, have to address. It won't be addressed, because these attitudes are so ingrained, it would be too politically unpopular to roll out an extensive anpr system for speeding, average speed, red light jumping, tax and insurance, driving unaccompanied...

I was listening to the radio (in the car) the other day, one of the Dublin stations, and the DJ announces that someone has just phoned in to say there is a Garda with a speed camera on one of the flyover bridges on the M1 - he specific the junction even.....watch out you guys........unbelievable really that this was seen as a service to his listeners......

07Lapierre

smacl wrote: »

The single biggest safety feature they can add to a car, bus or truck is to take the monkey away from the controls. Once that happens, manually driven cars will become prohibitively expensive to insure and hence far less common. How long this will take isn't certain, my guess about a decade, but it does seem inevitable.

Maybe, but IMO driverless cars will always need Human input of some kind. there will always have to be an override facility, where a human can take control of the car. A person will always have to be responsible for the car's actions. Computers /technology cannot make moral decisions. At least I hope that the way it goes!

Tony EH

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This is interesting to me.

Why is it more dangerous cycling in Dublin today than 20 years ago?

More cars, more cyclists too. People less aware and more prone to risks. Everything is get there fast and there's more pressure on everyone these days. Also, there's a concerted and rather petty "fuck cyclists" attitude among some people that wasn't there 20 years ago.

All of the above is, of course, subjective. YMMV as the Yanks say.

Pinch Flat

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This is interesting to me.

Why is it more dangerous cycling in Dublin today than 20 years ago?

My own comments. I cycled in Dublin from about 1994 - 1995, came here straight after college.

I used to cycle from Terenure to Ballymount, crossing the Walkinstown roundabout and takinga right hand turn in the process. :eek:. I also had a job in Dublin 2, just beside what is now Goolgle's offices. So cycled from terenure, though Kimmage and on to Grand Canal Street, along the canals.

The volume of traffic was no where near as it was now - so about 1 million cars on the roads countrywide compared to the 2 million plus today. In the 18 months or so I cycled in Dublin, I never can remember a close pass, aggressive incident. There was zero animosity and it didn't feature in the media (this was pre social media /. internet). Cycled in normal clothes, sans helmet and without any hi-vis / lights.

Chips Lovell

And yet, statistically speaking, cycling is safer today than it was in the mid-nineties. Death rates were coming down by then but still around 30 a year. But the overall number of people cycling to work is about 20 percent higher.

ford2600

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My own comments. I cycled in Dublin from about 1994 - 1995, came here straight after college.

I used to cycle from Terenure to Ballymount, crossing the Walkinstown roundabout and takinga right hand turn in the process. :eek:. I also had a job in Dublin 2, just beside what is now Goolgle's offices. So cycled from terenure, though Kimmage and on to Grand Canal Street, along the canals.

The volume of traffic was no where near as it was now - so about 1 million cars on the roads countrywide compared to the 2 million plus today. In the 18 months or so I cycled in Dublin, I never can remember a close pass, aggressive incident. There was zero animosity and it didn't feature in the media (this was pre social media /. internet). Cycled in normal clothes, sans helmet and without any hi-vis / lights.

Sounds like a great time to be on the road, only for 472 people died on Irish roads that year despite people driving less and the significantly fewer cars.

50% of that number would be considered horrific now.

What your looking back hasn't controlled for is your aversion to risk and how that has changed as you've got older, perhaps become a parent etc etc The probability is you a little more risk averse now which might alter your perception?

We also suffer quite badly with regard to looking backwards, sport was better, cars were better etc etc. Except 20 years ago were talking the same old ****e about 40 years ago

Chips Lovell

Another thing to bear in mind is that, in the UK at least, walking is slightly more dangerous than cycling:

Mile by mile, people in the UK are actually more likely to die walking than cycling, according to figures from the Department for Transport. For every billion miles cycled last year [2015], 30.9 cyclists were killed, while 35.8 pedestrians were killed for every billion miles walked. Both activities are significantly safer than riding a motorbike – 122 motorcyclists are killed for every billion miles driven.

Yet you never hear anything near the level of scaremongering about walking as you do about cycling. When was the last time you heard someone declare, "that's it, walking to work is not worth the risk anymore".

ford2600

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Another thing to bear in mind is that, in the UK at least, walking is slightly more dangerous than cycling:



Yet you never hear anything near the level of scaremongering about walking as you do about cycling. When was the last time you heard someone declare, "that's it, walking to work is not worth the risk anymore".

Is distance fair metric for comparing walking with cycling(or comparing any two modes)?

If you correct for time walking would become three times safer or thereabouts?

Not sure what the correction factor should be though

Without checking about 40 pedestrians die per year I think. One last week in Kerry, hardly a word about it

Alanstrainor

I was writing a big post about my thoughts on driverless cars. But I reckon that's for another thread.

As for my perception of danger on the roads when cycling, it's definitely dangerous. And I would agree that things have gotten worse over the years. But there's lots of factors at play, no one thing has changed it all. More cars, more bikes is obviously a big one.

The almost constant use of phones by people is a big one, it's not just using a phone but how people use them these days. 10 or 15 years ago it was texting and talking. Both bad, but no where near as bad as what goes on now. Watching netflix with their phone over the speedo, browsing clothes on amazon, snapchatting are all ones I've witnessed on numerous occasions. Driven to distraction.

Perception of cyclists being a menace is another one. The amount of people who will come up behind me on a narrow stretch and lean on the horn and gesture to me to move over is ridiculous. Yeah buddy, let me just cycle into this hedge here beside me so you can pass me within an few CM of the bars. Feck that.

smacl

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe, but IMO driverless cars will always need Human input of some kind. there will always have to be an override facility, where a human can take control of the car. A person will always have to be responsible for the car's actions. Computers /technology cannot make moral decisions. At least I hope that the way it goes!

Driving a car from A to B doesn't require a morality. A driverless vehicle will make conservative decisions based on observing a full 360 degree view at all times. It will prioritise everyone's safety ahead of the drivers urgency to get to their destination or to beat other traffic. No speeding, dangerous overtakes, jumping lights, etc.. Not the most interesting driving experience, but certainly safer, and in the long term, faster. You'll have driver override until such time as people are happy the technology works.

cdaly_

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not that no.

Thing is, a computer doesn't think, about itself or anything else. It simply follows program and if something happens that's outside of its programming, a computer tends to just go its base alternative.

Experience counts for a lot and a human brain grows with experience. A computer will never grow and will never experience. It will never truly learn.

There was a trial with driverless buses in Las Vegas recently. The bus nearly crashed into a truck, because the truck suddenly appeared from out of an alley way. The bus's computer didn't know how to handle the particular situation. It wasn't part of the programming.

Now, a human may have the same situation happen to them. but, they'll learn from the close call, understanding that next time could seriously **** them up.

A computer won't think along those lines, because it cares nothing for its own safety, or the safety of the people in the vehicle it controls.

It's ok, I think they have it covered...

magicbastarder

Tony EH wrote: »

There was a trial with driverless buses in Las Vegas recently. The bus nearly crashed into a truck, because the truck suddenly appeared from out of an alley way. The bus's computer didn't know how to handle the particular situation. It wasn't part of the programming.

the bus didn't nearly crash into a truck, the truck crashed into the bus - because the truck driver reversed into it.

Las Vegas police officer Aden Ocampo-Gomez said the truck’s driver was at fault for the crash and was cited for illegal backing.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/self-driving-bus-crashes-two-hours-after-las-vegas-launch-truck-autonomous-vehicle

anyway, it's an immature technology. and it was a trial; you cannot say driverless cars will be fatally flawed in 2025 because there are still teething problems today.

Pinch Flat

ford2600 wrote: »

Sounds like a great time to be on the road, only for 472 people died on Irish roads that year despite people driving less and the significantly fewer cars.

50% of that number would be considered horrific now.

What your looking back hasn't controlled for is your aversion to risk and how that has changed as you've got older, perhaps become a parent etc etc The probability is you a little more risk averse now which might alter your perception?

We also suffer quite badly with regard to looking backwards, sport was better, cars were better etc etc. Except 20 years ago were talking the same old ****e about 40 years ago

Yeah that's a fair point. The accident rates were horrific back them, double what they are with half the traffic. So a factor of four I guess? But driving and cycling I didn't see it. Maybe I've gotten more observant in my older age - having a family / kids / mortgage and other responsibilities probably something to do with it.

Borderfox

From cycling back in the 90's and now the same clueless/aggressive drivers are there I was in three collisions back in the 90's and two full on fights with drivers too (one had overtook a club spin after being held back and ploughed into us)

the perception is worse now because of media attention