An Garda Siochana tweets ....

GreeBo

1bryan wrote: »

it was the 'other humans' that I was specifically thinking of. In the current example, pedestrians. Now please explain how a situation where a car can drive into a bunch of pedestrians following a RLJ can be considered equally as dangerous as a cyclist doing likewise.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately avoiding my point or not, but I will try one last time.

If a cyclist or a pedestrian breaks a red light they are putting themselves at risk of being hit by a car.
If a car breaks a red light they are putting cyclists at risk of being hit by a car.

In both cases the risk is identical.

You are focusing on assigning risk/danger *only* to the person breaking the light and using a single scenario of the cyclist braking the light and hitting pedestrians, ignoring the the cyclist who breaks a red is putting *themselves* at risk of being hit by a car.

1bryan

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are deliberately avoiding my point or not, but I will try one last time.

If a cyclist or a pedestrian breaks a red light they are putting themselves at risk of being hit by a car.
If a car breaks a red light they are putting cyclists at risk of being hit by a car.

In both cases the risk is identical.

You are focusing on assigning risk/danger *only* to the person breaking the light and using a single scenario of the cyclist braking the light and hitting pedestrians, ignoring the the cyclist who breaks a red is putting *themselves* at risk of being hit by a car.

I am not ignoring it. In fact I acknowledged it by stating that both cases were dangerous. What I don't accept is equating the levels of danger. And the example of hitting pedestrians is the best example to display this.

Maybe our definitions of 'dangerous', or the scales we use to determine when one thing is more dangerous than another, are different.

a) Car hits pedestrians => potential for multiple injuries/fatalities
b) Cyclist hits pedestrians => potential for injuries/fatalities on a smaller scale than a)

Thus, a) is more dangerous than b), due to the potential scale of injuries/fatalities.

GreeBo

1bryan wrote: »

I am not ignoring it. In fact I acknowledged it by stating that both cases were dangerous. What I don't accept is equating the levels of danger. And the example of hitting pedestrians is the best example to display this.

Maybe our definitions of 'dangerous', or the scales we use to determine when one thing is more dangerous than another, are different.

a) Car hits pedestrians => potential for multiple injuries/fatalities
b) Cyclist hits pedestrians => potential for injuries/fatalities on a smaller scale than a)

Thus, a) is more dangerous than b), due to the potential scale of injuries/fatalities.

Yes, in your *specific* example above then a) is more dangerous than b).

That does not mean that a cyclist breaking a red light is *always* less dangerous than a car doing it.

Chips Lovell

terrydel wrote: »

Its now willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption.

Less of the Garda bashing please.

Be nice.

1bryan

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, in your *specific* example above then a) is more dangerous than b).

That does not mean that a cyclist breaking a red light is *always* less dangerous than a car doing it.

ah, ok, so we're qualifying the statement now?

"Cyclists breaking red lights is more dangerous than motorist doing likewise, sometimes."

fair enough.

NuMarvel

GreeBo wrote: »

So you see a difference between a crash involving a cyclist and a car depending on which one of them broke the light?

I see a difference in the risk of injury or death to others, yes. That's my whole point. Surely you can see why another road user is at greater risk from a vehicle weighing 1500 kgs than one weighing 15kg?

GreeBo wrote: »

Liability has nothing to do with the outcome or the risk involved.

It also has nothing to do with my posts, because I never mentioned or even hinted at liability. Solely risks to other road users.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why are you solely focusing on the cyclist hitting a pedestrian, what about the collisions the cyclist is exposing themselves to?

I think you need planning permission to move the goal posts that far.

I'm focussing on risks to other road users. Your first response to me berated me for seemingly not doing just that, so let's stick to that.

AndrewJRenko

For those who don't see anything wrong with the Garda approach, check out the ever so slightly more enlightened approach of the West Midlands Police traffic unit in the UK

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/climbing-mountains/

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/830497596087099392

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/830921374625570818

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/885550801606914049

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/861535690248650752


https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/831425572802850816

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/887074238640906243

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/895146876642525184

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, in your *specific* example above then a) is more dangerous than b).

That does not mean that a cyclist breaking a red light is *always* less dangerous than a car doing it.

If you need help to understand the relative dangers, have a look at the death statistics. Motorists have killed over 4,000 people on the roads in the past 15 years here. Cyclists have killed zero people over the same period.

In the UK, cyclists kill one or two people a year. Motorists kill 4 or 5 people each day.

GreeBo

NuMarvel wrote: »

I see a difference in the risk of injury or death to others, yes. That's my whole point. Surely you can see why another road user is at greater risk from a vehicle weighing 1500 kgs than one weighing 15kg?

A car hits a bike (or if you like, a car and a bicycle are involved in a collision)
Does the outcome depend in any way on who was at fault?

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think you need planning permission to move the goal posts that far.

I'm focussing on risks to other road users. Your first response to me berated me for seemingly not doing just that, so let's stick to that.

Why *other* road users?
Why not *all* road users, unless you discount the cyclists deaths when they are in the wrong?

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

Why not *all* road users, unless you discount the cyclists deaths when they are in the wrong?

Which particular cyclist deaths in recent years resulted in cyclists being in the wrong?

GreeBo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which particular cyclist deaths in recent years resulted in cyclists being in the wrong?

So its only dangerous if you die now?

Tell that to this guy
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/deliveroo-cyclist-taxi-dublin/

tomasrojo

It's important not to engage in bull**** debates. The subtext of this poll is: <wink>Which one of these do you think we should spend more time enforcing? </wink>

Most of the time you hear people justify divisive framing by saying they're just trying to raise awareness, they're not trying to raise awareness.

begbysback

Macy0161 wrote: »

It was divisive, and further propagates the false equivalence between motoring offences and cycling offences. That's why.

False equivalence is hardly a sound argument, both are road users and are requested to obey road traffic laws.

Cyclists and motorists are responsible for their actions on the road, this is equivalent.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's important not to engage in bull**** debates. The context of this poll is: <wink>Which one of these do you think we should spend more time enforcing? </wink>

Most of the time you hear people justify divisive framing by saying they're just trying to raise awareness, they're not trying to raise awareness.

+1
Anything that tries to differentiate and thus excuse breaking red lights is bull****.

When did a parked car run a red light?

It IS a parked car in the tweet.

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

So its only dangerous if you die now?

Tell that to this guy
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/deliveroo-cyclist-taxi-dublin/

So that's a No then - you're not aware of any cyclist deaths resulting from their own law-breaking, but you don't have a problem with suggesting that this happens .

begbysback wrote: »

False equivalence is hardly a sound argument, both are road users and are requested to obey road traffic laws.

Cyclists and motorists are responsible for their actions on the road, this is equivalent.

4,000 deaths in 15 years vs zero deaths in 15 years is a long way from equivalent.

tomasrojo

It's either a really stupid question or pretty neat trolling.

GreeBo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So that's a No then - you're not aware of any cyclist deaths resulting from their own law-breaking, but you don't have a problem with suggesting that this happens .

So a thing is only dangerous if you die now?

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

So a thing is only dangerous if you die now?

I was just waiting for you to withdraw your suggestion that cyclists caused their own deaths by breaking the law. Should I keep waiting, or just move on to the broader debate?

tomasrojo

Given that that twitter account is effectively a conduit for public statements by official law enforcement, this is correct:
https://twitter.com/bourdieudivine/status/949172549014949888

NuMarvel

GreeBo wrote: »

A car hits a bike (or if you like, a car and a bicycle are involved in a collision)
Does the outcome depend in any way on who was at fault?

Again, I've said absolutely nothing about fault, liability, or anything else like that. I am talking about risk.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why *other* road users?
Why not *all* road users, unless you discount the cyclists deaths when they are in the wrong?

Whether looking solely at other road users, or all road users including those who break the light, it is still the case that the dangers posed are not equal or identical.

AndrewJRenko

It's worth keeping in mind the approach taken in more enlightened countries around the heinous sin of cyclists breaking red lights;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brh9Dv_5NaA

eclipsechaser

GreeBo wrote: »

So a thing is only dangerous if you die now?

No.

But when one thing kills 4,000 people and the other kills none in the same time period, it's a fair indication of which one causes more harm.

NeedMoreGears

I find it dispiriting that the Gardaí would even bother putting up something like that. What were they hoping to achieve? I would have liked to think that they were aiming at some improvement in road safety or general manners on the road, but it seems to me they are well off the mark. Their tweet actively encourages comparisons and makes people focus on the other behaviour rather than their own. Naturally drivers will be thinking of cyclists breaking red lights rather than focussing on parking correctly and the converse will apply to cyclists. Neither camp (and this tweet puts people into camps) will think about what they are doing themselves. It really is a spectacularly dumb and tweet.

GreeBo

eclipsechaser wrote: »

No.

But when one thing kills 4,000 people and the other kills none in the same time period, it's a fair indication of which one causes more harm.

You are relying on 1 scenario to prove a point.

Pedestrians & cyclists get hit all the time when they run red lights.
Motorists hit pedestrians & cyclists all the time when they run red lights.

Running red lights is dangerous.

It doesnt matter which party ran the red light if there is a collision and someone gets hurt. Why anyone would argue the contrary is beyond me.

1bryan

GreeBo wrote: »

+1
Anything that tries to differentiate and thus excuse breaking red lights is bull****.

where has anyone tried to excuse breaking a red light?

GardaTraffic tweeted last week about cyclists pleading for leniency around RLJ'ing. They were called out on this by one of the cycling lobby groups. Needless to say they were met with silence because the initial claim was fabricated.

Again, where has anyone excused breaking a red light?

GreeBo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I was just waiting for you to withdraw your suggestion that cyclists caused their own deaths by breaking the law. Should I keep waiting, or just move on to the broader debate?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan-teen-bicyclist-fatally-struck-running-red-light-article-1.3287298

But I guess running red lights in a different country somehow changes the risk.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

It doesnt matter which party ran the red light if there is a collision and someone gets hurt. Why anyone would argue the contrary is beyond me.

This is very much arguing the point on the bogus terms set out by the Gardaí, but one difference is that the cyclist or pedestrian is largely imposing risk on themselves, while the motorist is largely (at least in cities) imposing risk on others.

Not that cyclists, or indeed pedestrians, can't hit other cyclists or pedestrians, but the consequences of a resulting collision is seldom serious. But red light jumping makes life unpleasant for everyone, so the Gardaí should stop it where they see it, regardless of how "dangerous" it is.

Lusk_Doyle

I think that the term risk is being misused here. The risk is the likelihood of a hazard ocurring. The hazard being the crash, injury, death, etc. It strikes me that some of the debate here using the term above is going in circles due to the very use of the term incorrectly.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is very much arguing the point on the bogus terms set out by the Gardaí, but one difference is that the cyclist or pedestrian is largely imposing risk on themselves, while the motorist is largely (at least in cities) imposing risk on others.

And this, in my opinion, is the flaw with this argument.

If you are only quantifying risk by looking at risk to the person who breaks the light you are completely misrepresenting the actual risk.

Me shooting an AK47 down Grafton Street doesnt pose any risk to me (other than being arrested, but thats unrelated), but I think it would be a dangerous thing to do.