Road Safety Authority: 2017 Road Deaths 186->158 but Cyclists 10->15

brocbrocach

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Good to finally see some actual stats around the deaths. I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured. Sunday having almost half the deaths but not being a work day is another interesting statistic, would this point to car drivers being perhaps under the influence from Saturday night or perhaps inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads on that day, difficult one to pinpoint a cause.

It just goes to show that all the bruhaha about ninja cyclists and Hi-vis etc etc etc is hugely exaggerated. What will the RSA focus on when their bandwagon is gone?

07Lapierre

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Good to finally see some actual stats around the deaths. I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured. Sunday having almost half the deaths but not being a work day is another interesting statistic, would this point to car drivers being perhaps under the influence from Saturday night or perhaps inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads on that day, difficult one to pinpoint a cause.

10 killed on roads with 80kph limit. To me that says it all....speed kills. Speed combined with lack of due care and attention.

Going by those stats, cycling at night is much safer which is something I tend to agree with (as long as your bike has good lights on ). I find I get less close passes in the dark then during daylight hours.

GreeBo

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I'm very surprised at the breakdown of deaths during darkness, I would have thought this would be when most deaths occured.

Again the sample size is very small...but (ignoring cycle ninjas & invisible cars) its often *much* easier to notice things at night due to the contrast of lights against darkness than during the day where "everything* is contrasting with everything else and it can be harder to distinguish a guy crossing the road from a brightly coloured bus shelter in your peripheral vision.

GreeBo

brocbrocach wrote: »

It just goes to show that all the bruhaha about ninja cyclists and Hi-vis etc etc etc is hugely exaggerated. What will the RSA focus on when their bandwagon is gone?

Or it shows that (thankfully) the number of idiots who cycle without lights or reflective gear isnt a significant number?

The numbers are far too low for you to draw any such conclusions.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

10 killed on roads with 80kph limit. To me that says it all....speed kills. Speed combined with lack of due care and attention.

Same for every form of transport.
If something goes wrong, the slower everyone is going the better.

Some (typically in the motors forum!) will argue that its *inappropriate* speed (to which they include going too slowly) but I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

Faster = more splat in the event of a collision.

Eamonnator

If you're aged under 24 or between 40-44, stay away from Dublin, Kerry and Cork, cycle only on Thursday and Saturday and only during the hours of darkness and stick to 50kph roads, you've a great chance of survival.

1bryan

Eamonnator wrote: »

If you're aged under 24 or between 40-44, stay away from Dublin, Kerry and Cork, cycle only on Thursday and Saturday and only during the hours of darkness and stick to 50kph roads, you've a great chance of survival.

Getting that on a t-shirt

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

Some (typically in the motors forum!) will argue that its *inappropriate* speed (to which they include going too slowly) but I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

On motorways, i'd agree with this. there should be a minimum speed limit on motorways.

I remember matching an episode of " Police Intrerceptors" about UK traffic cops and they pulled a guy over for travelling too slow on the motorway.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

On motorways, i'd agree with this. there should be a minimum speed limit on motorways.

I remember matching an episode of " Police Intrerceptors" about UK traffic cops and they pulled a guy over for travelling too slow on the motorway.

100%, but 80km/h isn't slow (unless you are in the Motors forum)

AndrewJRenko

dense wrote: »

Why not all of them?
Why are we not seeing such campaigns aimed at drivers and cyclists?

There was an RSA TV campaign aimed at motorists regarding cyclists (that I havent seen in a while) but I don't ever remember one from the RSA aimed at specifically teaching cyclists anything.

Has there been any?

You'll see videos aimed at both cyclists and motorists on their YouTube channel;

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi8nqrsVU6ht0pNF4PjtpD4I0w7X_gsPC

But I guess the emphasis on truckers would be because;

• They are the ones who actually cause harm
• They are the ones at work on the road - doing a job, with all the regulation that entails
• They're not the victims

Victim-blaming campaigns aren't generally a great idea from a public safety point of view.

"Young ladies, please wear drab clothes and don't drink alcohol to avoid being raped".

GreeBo wrote: »

Or it shows that (thankfully) the number of idiots who cycle without lights or reflective gear isnt a significant number?

Or that it shows that cyclists without lights are generally visible anyway in the cities.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

100%, but 80km/h isn't slow (unless you are in the Motors forum)

its too slow when your on the slip road trying to join the main carraigeway, when everyone else is doing 100/120.

You can't put a number on driving too slow on the motorway...an appropriate speed is the speed everyone else is doing. if all cars are travelling at 150, then any speed slower than that could be seen as "inappropriate". knowing the correct speed comes with experience.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

its too slow when your on the slip road trying to join the main carraigeway, when everyone else is doing 100/120.

You can't put a number on driving too slow on the motorway...an appropriate speed is the speed everyone else is doing. if all cars are travelling at 150, then any speed slower than that could be seen as "inappropriate". knowing the correct speed comes with experience.

I think 80km/h would be on the limit of slowness for joining a motorway, but not too slow.
It would be very rare that the road would be so busy that you couldnt easily merge at 80 or so empty that the cars doin 100/120 couldnt see you and move to lane 2. ( Not that you have a right to merge anyway)

I'm not looking to get into an argument about car speeds, (especially in a thread about cycling!), but since you mentioned driving on the motorway, thats what I was referring to.
80km/h is not "too slow" for an Irish motorway.
150km/h is too fast for an Irish motorway.

Survival statistics for pedestrians/cyclists at various speeds clearly demonstrate that pure speed kills, appropriate or not.

GreeBo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or that it shows that cyclists without lights are generally visible anyway in the cities.

The point is that it shows nothing as the numbers are statistically insignificant.

If 4 of the bikes involved were blue, are blue bikes more dangerous to cycle than red ones?

DirkVoodoo

Speed is not an issue on most motorways that we have.

It's how people drive on them: dangerous over and undertaking (saw a lot of this yesterday!), driving too close, dangerous lane switching (something we seem particularly good at on the m50 - exiting from the outside lane!), not driving appropriate to the conditions (fog, heavy rain, etc)

If we could follow most of those like reasonable drivers, I would say that you could drive at 140/160 on most of the 120 motorway sections without issue.

GreeBo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Speed is not an issue on most motorways that we have.

It's how people drive on them: dangerous over and undertaking (saw a lot of this yesterday!), driving too close, dangerous lane switching (something we seem particularly good at on the m50 - exiting from the outside lane!), not driving appropriate to the conditions (fog, heavy rain, etc)

If we could follow most of those like reasonable drivers, I would say that you could drive at 140/160 on most of the 120 motorway sections without issue.

I think we need to "save" these discussion for the motors forum.

Beasty

Eamonnator wrote: »

If you're aged under 24 or between 40-44, stay away from Dublin, Kerry and Cork, cycle only on Thursday and Saturday and only during the hours of darkness and stick to 50kph roads, you've a great chance of survival.

Yep - that gives the rest of us a bit more space as well. In fact, I think they are selfish hogging the emergency services, so I think we should ban the lot of 'em




:pac:

magicbastarder

brocbrocach wrote: »

It just goes to show that all the bruhaha about ninja cyclists and Hi-vis etc etc etc is hugely exaggerated. What will the RSA focus on when their bandwagon is gone?

as others have mentioned, i don't think you can draw conclusions from incomplete data. it could be possible that few cyclists die at night because cyclists avoid the dangerous roads at night.

Eamonnator

magicbastarder wrote: »

as others have mentioned, i don't think you can draw conclusions from incomplete data. it could be possible that few cyclists die at night because cyclists avoid the dangerous roads at night.

Fortunately, because so few cyclists are killed on our roads, it takes very little to skew the statistics.

Ferris

15 instances is too low to provide any meaningful analysis, particularly as the quantity of factors present is so high (night vs. day, rural vs. city etc.).

Whats needed is additional analysis of non-fatal collisions as, unfortunately, these occur in higher numbers. I can see merit in such an analysis but am unsure if any collection of this data is in place, do the gardai / ins. companies record it?

brocbrocach

magicbastarder wrote: »

as others have mentioned, i don't think you can draw conclusions from incomplete data. it could be possible that few cyclists die at night because cyclists avoid the dangerous roads at night.

It's true that the sample size is very small but it can be used to illustrate certain broad points I think.
The amount of white noise about lights, Hi-Vis, dark clothes would lead you to think that this is the overwhelming number one issue in cycling safety. The fact that comparatively few die at night would suggest that the attention would be best directed somewhere else.

flatface

brocbrocach wrote: »

It's true that the sample size is very small but it can be used to illustrate certain broad points I think.
The amount of white noise about lights, Hi-Vis, dark clothes would lead you to think that this is the overwhelming number one issue in cycling safety. The fact that comparatively few die at night would suggest that the attention would be best directed somewhere else.

Exactly this. if cyclist misbehaviour was such a big factor you would see a large number of urban fatalities considering the number of journeys taken in the city, red lights jumped etc.
Year on year we see the majority of deaths in rural counties implying speed and driver inattention being the biggest factor. It would be nice if the media picked up on this one.

GreeBo

brocbrocach wrote: »

It's true that the sample size is very small but it can be used to illustrate certain broad points I think.
The amount of white noise about lights, Hi-Vis, dark clothes would lead you to think that this is the overwhelming number one issue in cycling safety. The fact that comparatively few die at night would suggest that the attention would be best directed somewhere else.

That's exactly what it can't do, because it's not statistically relevant.

Literally nothing can be gained from these stats or indeed any further analysis as any insights would suffer from the same too small sample space.

As I asked earlier, would you avoid a blue bike if the stats showed 5 bikes involved had been blue?
I'm assuming not, as that would be ridiculous, so why take other factors and present them as facts?

Beasty

GreeBo wrote: »

That's exactly what it can't do, because it's not statistically relevant.

Literally nothing can be gained from these stats or indeed any further analysis add any insights would suffer from the same too small sample space.

As I asked earlier, would you avoid a blue bike if the stats showed 5 bikes involved had been blue?
I'm assuming not, as that would be ridiculous, so why take other factors and present them as facts?

I think they could start to become statistically significant if they were run on, say, a cumulative 5 year basis. The problem then though is it could never properly reflect any small changes that are introduced (or even occur naturally) part way through the period

I think the general message remains that over an extended period deaths have reduced, but that applies over all modes of road use

The only reasonable stats for some of the factors mentioned would need to come from other larger countries, and in particular the UK, although there remain a number of differences, including road traffic legislation, state of road repair and the like which would be difficult to adjust for

magicbastarder

i would be curious - in a superficial way though, as any conclusions drawn would be done so with a pinch of salt - as to whether either cyclist killed at night were wearing hi-vis.
there would be a certain - grim - irony if they were.

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote:

That's exactly what it can't do, because it's not statistically relevant.

So where are the stats that back the focus on hiviz and helmets by the RSA, and dark clothes and red light jumping by the commentariat?

Slydice

Infographic from Dublin Cycling:
https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/948208638191169536

GreeBo

Macy0161 wrote: »

So where are the stats that back the focus on hiviz and helmets by the RSA, and dark clothes and red light jumping by the commentariat?

You'd probably need to ask the RSA?

GreeBo

Beasty wrote: »

I think they could start to become statistically significant if they were run on, say, a cumulative 5 year basis. The problem then though is it could never properly reflect any small changes that are introduced (or even occur naturally) part way through the period

I think the general message remains that over an extended period deaths have reduced, but that applies over all modes of road use

The only reasonable stats for some of the factors mentioned would need to come from other larger countries, and in particular the UK, although there remain a number of differences, including road traffic legislation, state of road repair and the like which would be difficult to adjust for

Possibly world wide stats could contain some meaningful information, despite the differences, but any analytical findings would have more asterisks than anything else!


Even analysis on all of the cyclist deaths in Ireland since records began might give something, but without all the facts it's a dangerous guessing game.

If the numbers of deaths per 1,000 cyclist continue to drop, I guess most people won't care why.

Beasty

Interestingly this is a thread started in June, just less than half way through the year

"11 deaths this year , will we get the facts?"

That indicates there were 4 fatalities in the second half of the year. That's entirely in line with the lowest ever annual figure in 2012 when 8 cyclists died on Ireland's roads.

I don't see any headlines indicating a 56% drop in cycling fatalities in the second half of the year

But as I and others have repeatedly indicated, the figures are too low to have any statistical meaning certainly when comparing one period to another

GreeBo

Beasty wrote: »

I don't see any headlines indicating a 56% drop in cycling fatalities in the second half of the year

But as I and others have repeatedly indicated, the figures are too low to have any statistical meaning certainly when comparing one period to another

I don't think it fits with the cars are evil agenda that some seem to display.

The Dublin Cycling poster is much more newsworthy when it highlights 50% increase YOY.