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

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

The only reasonable stats for some of the factors mentioned would need to come from other larger countries, and in particular the UK

The chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum blogged about how many fatal motor vehicle/bike collisions were potentially attributable to darkness a while ago, based on London statistics.

1. How likely are cyclists to be injured during the hours of darkness?

According to the latest figures compiled by Transport for London (for 2012), about 28% of London’s casualties arise from incidents occurring during the hours of darkness, the same as in 2011. In 2010 , which one can assume was roughly similar to 2011, 22% of pedal cycle casualties occurred during hours of darkness. In other words, using the usual “road safety” conventions, collisions for cyclists are less of a problem in hors of darkness than for other road users. Now, I am not saying we should follow this convention. All the differential indicates to us is what we know already – cyclists are less likely to tarvel in hours of darkness compared to hours of light compared to other types of road user. It just suggests that there may be no reason for looking specifically at these kinds of collision in particular.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/

I can say that in a Borough with just under the average number of cycling casualties for a London Borough for 2012 (at just over 100), the total number where 506 was included as a contributory factor was – one, or under 1%.

506 is a contributory factor code in the Met's stats: "Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility Poor visibility includes twilight or other poor light conditions and/or weather related conditions (e.g. rain or fog). Includes cyclists riding at night without lights as well as motor vehicle driver/riders who have failed to turn on their lights (whether intentionally or not)."

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

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

Yes, I remember there was an awful lot of deaths in quick succession and then none for a while. But, as you say, that's the nature of small numbers again. You get weird clumping, possibly for no reason at all.

tomasrojo

(The official attitude here is, implicitly, that cyclists and pedestrians are hard to see at all times, regardless of how good general visibility is; so in that sense, the authorities are probably impervious to the idea that perpetual emphasis on conspicuity aids isn't that much help because relatively few collisions happen when visibility is bad; if you're a cyclist, they think that visibility is always bad.)

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

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

The cycling Ireland poster is much more newsworthy when it highlights 50% increase YOY.

Cars don't have personalities. And what Cycling Ireland poster - the one on this thread is from a campaign group, not Cycling Ireland.

GreeBo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Cars don't have personalities. And what Cycling Ireland poster - the one on this thread is from a campaign group, not Cycling Ireland.

I ment Dublin cycling, apologies for my mistake.

1bryan

Beasty wrote: »

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

are the month-on-month figures available? I'd like to see the spread per-month. Off the top of my head I recall quite a few from spring-time onwards. That would, obviously, be the time period when the numbers cycling would be greatest. And, ironically, when we have maximum numbers of daylight hours.

Some excellent points in this thread. Almost all traditional/generalised notions of what the causes of cyclist fatalities are (hi-viz, etc), have been dispelled, and the true causes (poor road design, driver behaviour, etc) clearly shown.

GreeBo

1bryan wrote: »

Almost all traditional/generalised notions of what the causes of cyclist fatalities are (hi-viz, etc), have been dispelled, and the true causes (poor road design, driver behaviour, etc) clearly shown.

Sorry, where were these "true causes" clearly shown?
Are you referring to the Blue Bike Deathtraps again?

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you referring to the Blue Bike Deathtraps again?

What are these?

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

What are these?

These.

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

ford2600

The one statistic that stands out is 186 to 158 despite an increase in car numbers and probably kms travelled.

I'm driving circa 50k km a year for 20 years, in that time the roads have got significantly busier yet road death have continued to tank. As an example in 1998/99 I regularly drove from home 55km to Kilkenny in the early morning meeting less than 2-3 cars sometime none; now I struggle to emerge onto main road without having to yield. (CSO figures on car numbers and revenue figure on fuel sales would confirm all that).

The primary issues which lead to conflict between motorists and vulnerable road users imo are
* a deeply ingrained entitlement from a lot of motorists to use of the road and for it to be free of all obstructions; be they slow moving vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, horses, roadworks. The car industry sells a mirage which is a long way of most commuters daily experience. that leads to frustration and poor decision making
* we live in a hectic, stressed world where due to non existent planning and developer led building lots of people live pretty horrid lives; 9hr plus workdays, 3hr plus commutting, sedentary lifestyle with crap dies and poor sleep make up a lot of the workforce. A good friend is a mental health professional, he says he could fill his diary 3 times over and could fill it completely with children. This won't be changing anytime soon and these make up a lot of the people we share the road with.

I've investigated a lot of fatal and serious accidents, in the vast majority the vulnerable road user is blameless. In civil matters we have decided to pay for death/serious injury; bar a cyclist/pedestrian does something really reckless they normally get full value. Criminal prosecutions and way lower than they should be but they are way better than they used to be.

In spite of the above, to suggest or to frame a suggestion of improving road craft, route selection etc as victim blaming is unhelpful.

For example this man here was completely blameless
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-irish-club-riders-very-close-brush-on-training-spin/
but I wouldn't have dreamed of using that road(I've used than road 100's of times per year for nearly 40 years), especially at that time of evening; the probability of meeting an inattentive/tired/cnutish driver is way too high. There are alternative roads in same direction which I regularly ride 30-50km rides day and night without meeting more than 2-3 cars and sometimes none.

The distinction between urban areas being safer than rural is completely useless without a definition of what you mean by either. That road featured above would be one I would consider relatively high risk; busy fast regional road with no hard shoulder. Most rural roads are not like than yet most local cyclists use that road rather than any other.

Macy0161

ford2600 wrote: »

In spite of the above, to suggest or to frame a suggestion of improving road craft, route selection etc as victim blaming is unhelpful.

I haven't seen improving road craft or route selection be pinned as victim blaming? Most threads and comments on other social media normally make points about taking the lane/ riding defensively, not riding in the gutter, not going up the side of large vehicles* etc. Any commuter threads will say look at options, that longer may be better.

*that doesn't mean that drivers of large vehicles shouldn't be reminded to be more aware, or that the design of such vehicles shouldn't be such that the blind spot issues are minimised even if that is a cost to industry and manufacturers. Has any other obvious design fault been allowed to continue without being addressed for as long as it has with HGV cabs?

magicbastarder

ford2600 wrote: »

I'm driving circa 50k km a year for 20 years, in that time the roads have got significantly busier yet road death have continued to tank.

how much of that is due to the cars themselves being much safer for the occupants?

1bryan

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, where were these "true causes" clearly shown?
Are you referring to the Blue Bike Deathtraps again?

from the infographic where it says all deaths involved a motorised vehicle.

GreeBo

1bryan wrote: »

from the infographic where it says all deaths involved a motorised vehicle.

I think pretty much everyone else is in agreement that the sample size is far too small to draw any worthwhile conclusions from.

Though I for one will be certainly avoiding any blue bikes.

ford2600

magicbastarder wrote: »

how much of that is due to the cars themselves being much safer for the occupants?

hard to put numbers on it given how much has changed that matters other than car features that protect occupants
*reduction in drink driving and a seismic shift on attitudes to it over that time
*better road design and surfaces
*systematic changing of known accident locations with specialist unit within NRA(or whatever they are called now)
*more (while not near enough) enforcement and penalty points. I worked for a man who used to pay about 15-20 speeding fines a year. Cost of doing business was his take
*Better tyres being used on a newer fleet (while I still feel a significant number of tyres being sold shouldn't be)
* improved seat belt use
*better braking systems
*culture change in relation to speed; when I started playing with adult age group as a teenager it was the norm to meet at car park and have a 10-15min chat and then to race to pitch like lunatics. A load of pints on way home to. Neither of those would be acceptable now
*the knowledge that if you a re responsible for a road death you could end up in jail (again rate is way too low but things have changed in 20 years)
*culture changed on the way we accepted very high road deaths as unavoidable; something that was preordained and that we were helpless to change or reduce. That attitude can be common in undeveloped economies. Ryszard Kapuściński, the great Polish writer has some interesting comments on that element of African culture

There are probably more factors to

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

I think pretty much everyone else is in agreement that the sample size is far too small to draw any worthwhile conclusions from.

I would say the clear trend over several years is that the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve a motorised vehicle. Since I was paying attention (so maybe 3 years), I can only think of two that didn't.

check_six

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say the clear trend over several years is that the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve a motorised vehicle. Since I was paying attention (so maybe 3 years), I can only think of two that didn't.

There was a number of them where the cyclist and the car were travelling in the same direction on a straight road too. With such small numbers nothing is 'statistically significant' either way, but I'd like to think that the recognised danger spots of junctions and the inside of turning trucks wouldn't have to be joined by going straight on a straight road too.

GreeBo

check_six wrote: »

There was a number of them where the cyclist and the car were travelling in the same direction on a straight road too. With such small numbers nothing is 'statistically significant' either way, but I'd like to think that the recognised danger spots of junctions and the inside of turning trucks wouldn't have to be joined by going straight on a straight road too.

At this
spot in Churchtown they have since put in flexible bollards to separate the bike lane from the driving lane for about 3M just before the turn.
I'd like to think it helps drivers remember that they are potentially crossing a cyclists path, however I do wonder if it makes cyclists less attentive since they have the "protection" of the barrier.

GreeBo

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say the clear trend over several years is that the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve a motorised vehicle. Since I was paying attention (so maybe 3 years), I can only think of two that didn't.

Sure they mostly involved a vehicle, but dont see how that proves what you posted?

(hi-viz, etc), have been dispelled, and the true causes (poor road design, driver behaviour, etc) clearly shown

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

how much of that is due to the cars themselves being much safer for the occupants?

People are also less likely to bleed to death at the side of the road, due to better medical treatment and better emergency call-out systems.

Well, I read that somewhere. I don't have any particular knowledge of that.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say the clear trend over several years is that the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve a motorised vehicle. Since I was paying attention (so maybe 3 years), I can only think of two that didn't.

Yeah, we have a much clearer idea of general trends when you look at more than single years. The majority of fatalities are during daylight pretty much every single year, and majority also on 80+km/h roads. Would have to check that, but I'm pretty certain of the first.

If you look at urban roads, trucks and buses are usually the top cause of death.

We actually have a pretty good albeit broad idea of what causes cyclist deaths. The only way you can convince yourself that more hi-viz would improve things greatly is to also convince yourself that the daylight deaths are substantially due to the driver not being able to see the cyclist even in good conditions (and don't check whether the cyclists were wearing hi-viz). Of course, the RSA do appear to believe this.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say the clear trend over several years is that the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve a motorised vehicle. Since I was paying attention (so maybe 3 years), I can only think of two that didn't.

Same here, although both of them involved alcohol, one I think was a fall so uneventful that it could not have been foreseen the guy would have died, in the middle of town, I have fallen far harder myself. The other, the cyclist was in a public house for a bit, then cycled home, on a footpath, downhill, without lights, and hit a bollard. Several commentators blamed the lack of a helmet at the time which was incredible. If he had lights he might have seen the bollard, if he had not been drinking his reactions may have been better, and so on. All the media took from the story was a helmet would have saved him, but lets be honest about it, the media were and are reluctant to talk about the other great Irish issue.

check_six wrote: »

There was a number of them where the cyclist and the car were travelling in the same direction on a straight road too. With such small numbers nothing is 'statistically significant' either way, but I'd like to think that the recognised danger spots of junctions and the inside of turning trucks wouldn't have to be joined by going straight on a straight road too.

While I remember some involving cyclists on the inside of HGVs at junctions in town, I think this was a few years ago. most cyclists deaths in Dublin involving HGVs, came from said HGV overtaking and pulling across mid overtake. That is, the driver who should have been able to see the cyclist before the maneuvre, put the cyclist in a position involuntarily that they could not get out of. Interestingly, you find the gardai don't seem to think this is enough in some cases to prosecute at a minimum dangerous driving and in my eyes what should be manslaughter.

GreeBo wrote: »

At this
spot in Churchtown they have since put in flexible bollards to separate the bike lane from the driving lane for about 3M just before the turn.
I'd like to think it helps drivers remember that they are potentially crossing a cyclists path, however I do wonder if it makes cyclists less attentive since they have the "protection" of the barrier.

I always switch over to either, take the lane before the bollards of even move into the right hand lane. Those bollards remind no one about cyclists, most motorists either ignore the lane or presume the cyclists have a yield/stop sign while they are mid overtake.

tomasrojo wrote: »

People are also less likely to bleed to death at the side of the road, due to better medical treatment and better emergency call-out systems.

Well, I read that somewhere. I don't have any particular knowledge of that.

Mobile phones would also be a huge factor (I imagine), years ago if you crashed on a rural road, that was it.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, we have a much clearer idea of general trends when you look at more than single years. The majority of fatalities are during daylight pretty much every single year, and majority also on 80+km/h roads. Would have to check that, but I'm pretty certain of the first.

If you look at urban roads, trucks and buses are usually the top cause of death.

We actually have a pretty good albeit broad idea of what causes cyclist deaths. The only way you can convince yourself that more hi-viz would improve things greatly is to also convince yourself that the daylight deaths are substantially due to the driver not being able to see the cyclist even in good conditions (and don't check whether the cyclists were wearing hi-viz). Of course, the RSA do appear to believe this.

Interesting question would be how many were wearing Hi Vis, I know the answer is not zero but they never seem to report it in the media. I know it is not 100% either but would be interesting to see.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The majority of fatalities are during daylight pretty much every single year, and majority also on 80+km/h roads. Would have to check that, but I'm pretty certain of the first.

If you look at urban roads, trucks and buses are usually the top cause of death.

Would you not agree that the majority of cycling also happens during daylight hours?

Most commuting happens in daylight (thanks to the clocks changing) and most leisure rides are also during the day.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

I always switch over to either, take the lane before the bollards of even move into the right hand lane. Those bollards remind no one about cyclists, most motorists either ignore the lane or presume the cyclists have a yield/stop sign while they are mid overtake.

That layout is pretty crappy for cars and bikes tbf.

If cycling straight I would try to get into the RH lane as early as possible. Its usually not an issue due to the lights.

The bollards remind me, but then again Im already checking my blind spot when turning left...

Unfortunately the majority of cyclists I pass at this junction have poor road awareness and roadcraft and are somewhat oblivious to the fact that a car will be turning across them. Many of them are kids cycling to/from school

jimmycrackcorm

P_1 wrote:

The fact that 7 deaths took place on a Sunday is rather concerning given that that would suggest that Sunday spins could be the most dangerous type of cycling to undertake.

dense wrote:

There appears to have been a number of avoidable deaths where (HGV) drivers have not seen cyclists beside them.

I would say that at the very minimum the RSA should be focusing safety campaigns on these two factors alone.

Seat belts were specifically targeted in campaigns to widely acclaimed success. But any cycling campaigns are very general.

GreeBo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I would say that at the very minimum the RSA should be focusing safety campaigns on these two factors alone.

Seat belts were specifically targeted in campaigns to widely acclaimed success. But any cycling campaigns are very general.

+1 on HGV awareness.

But its *far* easier to draw a meaningful conclusion about seatbelts saving lives.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

Would you not agree that the majority of cycling also happens during daylight hours?

Oh yeah, definitely. I wouldn't argue on the basis of these high-level statistics that cycling at night is safer (say, based on, death or serious injury per million km travelled or per million hours spent on the road).

But there just aren't that many deaths at night, so pushing hi-viz with ever greater force isn't likely to bring down totals very much, because that's not where you find the deaths. Even if you regard hi-viz as greatly increasing the chances of being seen in the case of a cyclist who is also using lights.

Unless, as I said, you regard cyclists as very difficult to see in times of good visibility too. Which is implicitly, at least, the official line these days.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

+1 on HGV awareness.

But its *far* easier to draw a meaningful conclusion about seatbelts saving lives.

The funny thing is even with seatbelts, there seems to have been a bit of wishful thinking with regard to the numbers of lives saved(*), at least in the UK.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/

(I have my doubts about John Adams, but Mayer Hillman I've always found reliable.)

(*) The totals saved, not the fact that that in net terms they save lives.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Unless, as I said, you regard cyclists as very difficult to see in times of good visibility too. Which is implicitly, at least, the official line these days.

I suspect its an issue of "distinguish-ability" rather than visibility, but I take the point.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

The funny thing is even with seatbelts, there seems to have been a bit of wishful thinking with regard to the numbers of lives saved(*), at least in the UK.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/

(I have my doubts about John Adams, but Mayer Hillman I've always found reliable.)

(*) The totals saved, not the fact that that in net terms they save lives.

Even with the that nice graph, I think it is missing the number of road users, number of cars on the road and other such figures that would expand upon the data. I think the author says this in reply to a comment further down. Seat belts look like they do nothing to death rates, and may in fact be a hindrance to lowering death rates. This may also be explainable by an increase in the number of drivers, the much loved one of drivers felt safe therefore drove more dangerously, although I think the first option is the most plausible, or a mix of the two.

A far more interesting stat, maybe its there and I missed it, but would indicate for or against the second suggestion is the number of pedestrian and cyclist road deaths from this point on.