Dangerous - cycling in Dublin City Centre

Tombo2001

nee wrote: »

Thousands and thousands of cyclists go through Dublin city centre every single day without incident.
It's really not that dangerous.
That's not to say things can't be improved, or should be, drastically even (particularly when it comes to infrastructure). Close passes happen, but on my commutes and spins they're very much in the minority. I'm passed safely by innumerable cars daily. Close passes and other dangerous behaviours towards cyclists are very serious, definitely, but cycling around Dublin isn't inherently dangerous. That better education needs to happen is doubtless. Attitudes are hardening and this is obviously problematic.

Yes you will have incidents if you're on the road, as all road users will have. But it's a safe, free and very enjoyable activity the (vast) majority of the time.

The data I saw in recent days suggest that 4 cyclists are hospitalised every day. This was quoted by TOmmy Broughan in the Dail.

Lets assume 1/3rd are in Dublin. That would amount to circa 500 hospitalisations in Dublin every year.

You are saying thousands cycle 'without incident' every day. What is the ratio that distinguishes safe from unsafe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-12-000-cyclists-a-day-commute-into-dublin-city-1.2982547

If there are 12'000 commuting cyclists in Dublin everyday, and circa 500 are hospitalised each year...and many more have tumbles but dont go to hospital.....is that safe? I dont know. You tell me.

Are the figures right? I dont know, but I dont have any other figures. If you think the figures are wrong, the please show what the right figures are.

doozerie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Are the figures right? I dont know, but I dont have any other figures. If you think the figures are wrong, the please show what the right figures are.

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to pick a figure without providing convincing supporting evidence, and declare it valid unless someone can "show what the right figures are".

magicbastarder

or if you do take the figures at face value - 500 a year is two a day (based on commuting cyclists).
two out of 12,000 is a one in six thousand chance of being injured in any one day, or once every 30 years if you assume that the average commuter cycles on 200 days in one year.

or if you crunch the numbers slightly differently - one in 24 cyclists can expect to be injured in any one year if you use the raw '500 out of 12,000' figure (and all this is complicated by the fact that i guess it assumes it's the same 12,000 cycling in every day).

Tombo2001

doozerie wrote: »

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to pick a figure without providing convincing supporting evidence, and declare it valid unless someone can "show what the right figures are".

The figures ARE the supporting evidence.

That is - here is an opinion, and here is empirical data that provides supporting evidence.

Which is considered in most situations to be a stronger argument than - here is an opinion, and the supporting evidence is that its my opinion, and thats all anyone should need.

Jawgap

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The data I saw in recent days suggest that 4 cyclists are hospitalised every day. This was quoted by TOmmy Broughan in the Dail.

Lets assume 1/3rd are in Dublin. That would amount to circa 500 hospitalisations in Dublin every year.

You are saying thousands cycle 'without incident' every day. What is the ratio that distinguishes safe from unsafe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-12-000-cyclists-a-day-commute-into-dublin-city-1.2982547

If there are 12'000 commuting cyclists in Dublin everyday, and circa 500 are hospitalised each year...and many more have tumbles but dont go to hospital.....is that safe? I dont know. You tell me.

Are the figures right? I dont know, but I dont have any other figures. If you think the figures are wrong, the please show what the right figures are.

No let's not.

Let's start by finding out where Deputy Broughan got that statistic......it may come as a shock to some but TDs occasionally play it a bit fast and loose with facts and figures.

Tombo2001

Jawgap wrote: »

No let's not.

Let's start by finding out where Deputy Broughan got that statistic......it may come as a shock to some but TDs occasionally play it a bit fast and loose with facts and figures.

Ok work away - it seemed to be reasonably well backed up by data from individual hospitals.

He had very specific figures.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

or if you do take the figures at face value - 500 a year is two a day (based on commuting cyclists).
two out of 12,000 is a one in six thousand chance of being injured in any one day, or once every 30 years if you assume that the average commuter cycles on 200 days in one year.

or if you crunch the numbers slightly differently - one in 24 cyclists can expect to be injured in any one year if you use the raw '500 out of 12,000' figure (and all this is complicated by the fact that i guess it assumes it's the same 12,000 cycling in every day).

Do you consider that low risk?

Jawgap

magicbastarder wrote: »

or if you do take the figures at face value - 500 a year is two a day (based on commuting cyclists).
two out of 12,000 is a one in six thousand chance of being injured in any one day, or once every 30 years if you assume that the average commuter cycles on 200 days in one year.

or if you crunch the numbers slightly differently - one in 24 cyclists can expect to be injured in any one year if you use the raw '500 out of 12,000' figure (and all this is complicated by the fact that i guess it assumes it's the same 12,000 cycling in every day).

Or put it another way......every time I cycle 1 km in the city I have several dozen interactions with other road users, road infra-structure etc......

Scale that up and if (for the sake of simplicity), 10,000 cyclists are cycling 10km per day and having 10 inter-actions per km, that's roughly 1,000,000 interactions per day or about 250,000,000m interactions per year (counting only weekdays in Dublin). Of those daily 1,000,000 interactions, 'only' 4 result in an outcome with a cyclist being hospitalised - sounds pretty ok to me?

droidus

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Do you consider that low risk?

Risk is relative - what are you comparing it to?

Jawgap

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ok work away - it seemed to be reasonably well backed up by data from individual hospitals.

He had very specific figures.

Ok, post the data......I reckon there a 98.567% chance they're defective.....I presume you also accept that probability given it is quite specific?

doozerie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The figures ARE the supporting evidence.

That is - here is an opinion, and here is empirical data that provides supporting evidence.

Which is considered in most situations to be a stronger argument than - here is an opinion, and the supporting evidence is that its my opinion, and thats all anyone should need.

You have provided no supporting evidence. You say a figure was quoted by someone in the Dail but can you even point to where this was recorded? And that's before we even get to the question of whether he cited a figure based on real data or whether he simply rattled off a figure off the top of his head.

The dangers, or not (I'm in the "not" camp), of cycling is a topic that generates more than its fair share of hysteria. Chucking in figures as facts without evidence to support them simply feeds the hysteria and cripples real debate.

uphillonly

The press has been following this debate on Boards:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/01/30/suicidal-dublin-man-buys-bicycle/

Jawgap

Here's the Deputy's figures......

OVER 2,600 CYCLISTS ATTENDED HOSPITAL DUE TO ROAD ACCIDENTS IN 2015 & 2016 – BROUGHAN

....and as suspected they're a bit eggy......the figures relate to the “number of discharges with an external cause code of pedal cyclist injured in transport accident2 in acute hospitals, reported to HIPE for 2015 and 2016.” (my emphasis added).

He's assuming an external cause is always a motorist.

I'd be willing to bet I'm in there twice for the stitches I received following disagreements with potholes. Doubtless a good chunk of those figures are as a result of motorists' behaviour but not all of them will be, and it still doesn't show the whole picture because they lack context.

EDIT: Actually I'm probably only in their once for the time they had to keep me in to deal with one gash that needed some minor surgical cleaning out.

Chips Lovell

532 in Dublin. Of those, 152 were from the two children's hospitals.

Any time I've been treated in hospital it's been for a racing or training accident. I doubt they'd split them out from other pedal cyclist accidents.

Tombo2001

doozerie wrote: »

You have provided no supporting evidence. You say a figure was quoted by someone in the Dail but can you even point to where this was recorded? And that's before we even get to the question of whether he cited a figure based on real data or whether he simply rattled off a figure off the top of his head.

The dangers, or not (I'm in the "not" camp), of cycling is a topic that generates more than its fair share of hysteria. Chucking in figures as facts without evidence to support them simply feeds the hysteria and cripples real debate.

If I provided no supporting evidence then why is there an ongoing discussion regarding the validity of the evidence I cited.

Why do I even have to write that down.

So let me understand.

I provided evidence....to support the point I am making.......but no supporting evidence to support that evidence....



...if i provided supporting evidence to support that evidence.....would that be null and void because there was no supporting evidence to support the supporting evidence.....

eeeee

The worst injuries I have ever gotten on the bike is from a velodrome, which is purpose built for bikes and traffic free.
Other than that I have dislocated my shoulders a couple of times, once just going over a pothole (shoulders are fcuked).
I was hit by a car once in 13 years of almost daily cycling, he broke the lights and went straight into me.

I still regard commuting by bike extremely safe. Racing less so. If you take Jawgap's calculation, and counted every interaction you have on your daily commute, with every single driver, and every pedestrian, set of lights, every other cyclist, every bit of road furniture, kerb, piece of infrastructure - cycling in Dublin is incredibly safe. Describing it as anything else is hyperbole IMO. That is not to say it's completely safe, and no improvements can be made, or better education needed.

Education, education, education. Completely agree with Doozerie about understanding and empathy. There is a real binary 'them and us' opening up, which is awful. This is mirrored in attitudes more broadly. We are increasingly inhabiting an empathy dessert, and this is the most dangerous thing happening at the moment.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Do you consider that low risk?

i'd prefer it was lower, of course. but i suspect that my rough and ready figures would be completely at odds with what your average punter would guess at.

Plastik

Jesus this is rapidly descending into a Boards.ie thread.

1874

punisher5112 wrote: »

I see cyclists do mad things, pedestrians do bat sh1t crazy stuff cars, trucks etc etc.

One thing to remember is people don't see bikes that includes pedestrians.

People look through most cyclists and see the vehicle instead it's been well studied.....
I will say one thing though people are really getting dumber ....

I would say cyclists can be/are less visible even than motorbikes, and as someone that used to cycle to work all the time years ago, got clipped by a car off my bike once and other close calls, got driven into on a motorbike by a car, but have been a car driver for a longtime, a van driver and on a few occasions rigid trucks.
Cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, truck drivers, not different, all people and I think in a lot of cases can be individually selfish and annoying and do stupid things that disregards other road users or endangers others and themselves.
Mostly its about not understanding sharing the available road space, being aware of others and understanding their perspective. As a car driver, I take it easy around cyclists and give plenty of time and am conscious of the road surface in front of a bicycle if possible, like road damage or even puddles where a cyclist wont know whats under the water or may steer around it as I know what its like to hear someone in a car tearing up behind you or encroaching on you as (me at least) would wheeze along, while someone impatiently tries to get past you.

I see motorbikes doing stuff that I think is careless mainly for their own safety, like driving too fast/or down bus lanes approaching slip roads in the dark and wet especially, where it might mean a less observant driver might not see them.(I think bus lanes make sense for motorbikes to be in, but caution of cyclists, preferable for cyclists to have their own lane, but sharing the space makes better sense for use of a resource if people can respect each others use of it).

And car drivers, there are so many of them (me/us) relative to other road users, so there is more potential for incidents, you'd wonder how many of them passed a test, it seems like its just A-B means to an end, and too busy to pay attention and be damned with everyone else. Even simple things like indicating an intention to change lanes or turn or just buy a damn hands free bluetooth kit.

Cyclists, Ive seen do stupid stuff too, I think not using cycle lanes where they are provided does not make sense, doing things they may not realise increases the risk to them, for example going off the cycle lane to go straight on roads with that have slip roads, probably speeds things up instead of staying on the lane and crossing a slip road at a right angle(where the lane crosses). Also around junctions, breaking the lights, so much greater a risk to do so on a bike if a car crossing decides to do the same thing at the same time (and I see that a lot with cars) and not cycling in single file where it makes sense.

Layout of lanes and use, I think there should be dedicated cycle lanes/routes in and out of cities on all major routes, in practice its probably not likely that cycle lanes exist at all or will be dedicated, but even in shared lanes with buses there should be sufficient space in a joint lane for a bus to overtake cyclists without being right on top of them or for a cyclist to overtake a bus where it is stopped to pick up/drop off passengers. Like an extra wide bus lane with a red cycling portion on each side, where the cyclist can use up the entire width unless a bus approaches,and then be obliged to move to the red portion to allow overtaking by buses. It would be preferable for many reasons to not have to cordon this portion of road off from cars with a concrete kerb/other barrier, but in this country it is likely going to have to be done.

Cyclists being visible and correct road use, in the same way there are rules for other road users, I think cyclists need to be obliged to follow the rules themselves, its not a one size fits all solution, following the rules, a mixture of high viz and lights, for road use a mirror should be compulsory and a helmet. I noticed recently pulling out of a business, it was early, dark, raining, because I was tired I was taking my time, saw a cyclist approaching but barely, as the cars lights further back made it difficult to see the cyclist even with their own front light on. I could tell
it would have been better if they had a blinking light (but not a blinding light) and even some reflective bands on moving part of their body, I think that would be a good idea as cyclists need to make themselves highly visible, just putting a light on doesn't necessarily do that well or as well as a cyclist may think. Although I have a gripe about really bright (dazzling bike lights, the same as if a car driver has badly adjusted lights or drives with their beams in my face), I think a blinking light that is dipped at a slight angle to the road, instead of full on face out helps a cyclist be seen very well, maybe in conjunction with a non blinking light for their own visibility of the road. Cyclists that are on paths or lanes facing oncoming traffic need to be aware of that. Cyclists cycling aginst the flow of traffic on cycle lanes, where there is not a contra flow bus lane I think is mad, Ive come across cyclists doing that and in the dark, or where someone appears like that around a corner, someone doing that is putting themselves at a pointless risk, its even less understandable, when there is a lane on the other side of the road.

I think there really needs to be more motorbike traffic Gardai, motorbikes so they can get around easily and monitor things in heavy traffic, I think where anyone breaches the rules of the road but where it has not resulted in something serious, rather than just fining people and sending them on their way, they should maybe have a nominal fine and have to take some kind of road/traffic/other road user awareness class, maybe pay for their own attendance and have it recorded. If something like this had video clips showing other users perspective or what ifs like if this was your child, might make people think, any further or other breaches where the awareness class is the same, means they should retake the awareness class with a ban on driving until its completed and so on on an increasing sliding scale. Without education, just simply fining or banning people wont fix problems, but it should apply to all road users.

doozerie wrote: »

I completely agree that enforcement is necessary but at best it is a blunt instrument that gets applied after the fact so basically after someone has already done something potentially dangerous and which is covered by the Rules of the Road. Apart from the fact that the Rules of the Road don't cover all behaviour anyway, I'd prefer that fellow road users didn't endanger me and others in the first place.

So my preferred approach is education first, to encourage understanding and empathy. Far too many people (not just motorists but cyclists and pedestrians too) adopt an approach of not giving a toss about anyone else while using the roads. Education for all road users of their potential impact on others would address the unreasonable behaviour of some, and hopefully many, of those people I believe. And for the rest who simply choose to be ignorant and/or obnoxious regardless, effective and consistent enforcement is necessary.

Enforcement without education will never be an effective solution, in my opinion.

Agreed

doozerie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why do I even have to write that down.

Penance?

Grassey

Tombo2001 wrote:

If there are 12'000 commuting cyclists in Dublin everyday, and circa 500 are hospitalised each year...and many more have tumbles but dont go to hospital.....is that safe? I dont know. You tell me.

12,000 who cross the canal according to the figures in the Irish Times! It ignores those of us who commute across the city and don't cross the canals.

Yet if there was an accident outside the canal cordon then those would likely be included in the total Dublin Hospitalisation figures. So the hospitalised/commuter figures are skewed.

Thinkingaboutit

ED E wrote: »

85% of motorists admit texting and driving.

Nobody actually thinks its safe, or if they do they're too stupid to hold a drivers licence anyways. You're 23 x more likely to crash. People are selfish.


Until AGS are taking phones and crushing them beneath their boot or the monetary equivalent people won't cop the hell on.

Texting, phone call, Facetime, Youtube or another video service, together with make-up/shaving/breakfast. So many people don't care, and know zero will happen.

cython

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Texting, phone call, Facetime, Youtube or another video service, together with make-up/shaving/breakfast. So many people don't care, and know zero will happen.

Correction - they know zero enforcement will happen, unfortunately they only think that nothing will happen as a whole

Chiparus

doozerie wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-cyclists-risk-death-by-obeying-traffic-lights-fllj9w2b6fl

Lumen

Personal anecdotes noting lack of incidents aren't really very useful with very small risks.

For instance, people think motorcycles are incredibly dangerous but you have to ride for 1500 years to die once, on average. Plus dead people can't post on boards.

I do think that if you have numerous close calls you need to think about changing something, just because close calls are generally regarded as learning experiences in all fields of risky activity.

That said I regularly smash myself into the tarmac and have no intention of giving up cycling, but then none of those incidents are caused by third parties.

doozerie

Chiparus wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-cyclists-risk-death-by-obeying-traffic-lights-fllj9w2b6fl

I remember that from way back. I found the suggestion that those female cyclists died because they obeyed the traffic lights as a bizarre conclusion at the time, and still do now. Nothing I read at the time or since has convinced me otherwise.

ted1's post went further still and generalised that into "Sticking to the rules of the road ( written for cars) could get you killed" = hysteria feeding hysteria.

Here is a more considered and balanced discussion which references that report: LINK. It's worth a read as it actually stops to consider less hysterical explanations for the high numbers of female cyclists being killed by HGVs.

One theory discussed there is that female cyclists might be less confident and therefore less assertive on the road, and this places them in danger in terms of poor road positioning, etc. To me that's a topic/theory worth discussing.

...or, we could just parrot the idea that woman (and cyclists generally) should ignore the rules of the road, that we'll all be safer ignoring red lights and generally behaving on bikes exactly like those motorists we like to give out about. Because that is a logical conclusion, or something.

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

That said I regularly smash myself into the tarmac and have no intention of giving up cycling, but then none of those incidents are caused by third parties.

Tut, low marks for effort there. Clearly you wouldn't have smashed into the tarmac if it wasn't there in the first place, so you have to blame whoever laid it. With a bit of determination that could possibly be traced back to someone whoi was, or knew someone who was, foreign, and then you are on to a winning scapegoat. And because they were working with tar they'd have smelled strongly of it.

And on the basis that you have obeyed the rules of the road at least once you could squeeze in the idea that if you'd never obeyed those rules ever, you possibly certainly might not could not have been hurt.

In short then, you've been hurt while cycling because of stinky foreigners and the rules of the road. Tabloid gold! :pac:

1874

Lumen wrote: »

Personal anecdotes noting lack of incidents aren't really very useful with very small risks.

For instance, people think motorcycles are incredibly dangerous but you have to ride for 1500 years to die once, on average. Plus dead people can't post on boards.

I do think that if you have numerous close calls you need to think about changing something, just because close calls are generally regarded as learning experiences in all fields of risky activity.

That said I regularly smash myself into the tarmac and have no intention of giving up cycling, but then none of those incidents are caused by third parties.

tbh, if I took up cycling again, I think Id lean towards wearing body armour, suprised its not more common, I hit the ground plenty of times when I was younger and cant say I liked it, got a few painful but not serious injuries, hit the concrete after being taken out of it by a car while riding a motorbike and I have thought if I was not wearing all over gear I could have easily come out so much worse than I did, which was already not great, so Im surprised body armour isnt more common, sounds windy, but protect those body parts more susceptible to injury? Ive heard of people out of work for a long time with injury due to bicycle crashes.

piplip87

There are idiot cyclists who should not be on the road
There are idiot van drivers who should not be on the road
There are idiot bus/taxi/car/HGV drivers who should not be on the road.
There are idiot pedestrians who should not be on the road.

The thing is with all of the above, no matter how you get around don't be an idiot and expect each and every other person you meet to be one too

jimmycrackcorm

1874 wrote:

Cyclists, Ive seen do stupid stuff too, I think not using cycle lanes where they are provided does not make sense, doing things they may not realise increases the risk to them, for example going off the cycle lane to go straight on roads with that have slip roads, probably speeds things up instead of staying on the lane and crossing a slip road at a right angle(where the lane crosses). Also around junctions, breaking the lights, so much greater a risk to do so on a bike if a car crossing decides to do the same thing at the same time (and I see that a lot with cars) and not cycling in single file where it makes sense.

Cycle lanes are generally more dangerous than being on the road in most cases. This is because anywhere they interest with a road to the left gives you less right of way than being on the actual road.

Traffic coming from the left road doesn't treat you with the rule to give way to your right, while traffic on the main road assumes you're not part of the flow and if turning left will happily go through you.

So safer to stay on the road and be treated like normal traffic.