City just crazy

AndrewJRenko

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Except that's not what I meant. I'd be in favour of discouraging any of the child bike trailers etc though as they are awkward and dangerous. They are also a silly thing to see people going around with and I always think of the hardship the person is putting themselves and their kids through as I cruise past but that's just my opinion of course.

Cycling is only for a very small minority of people, cycling with kids in tow for an even smaller minority any talk of reducing vehicular traffic or parking in favour of suiting a tiny minority should be stamped out at the first suggestion. Cycling is never going to be suitable for most people, there is then the smaller group who it may be suitable at times but who have zero interest in it and then there are the tiny minority who cycle regularly. Now I'm not saying they (adult cyclists) should be discouraged not to nor some infrastructure put in place for them (once it's not robbing road or parking space) but in no way should it be given any serious standing ahead of cars and other vehicles.

When/if I have a child I'll be moving from a car to a large SUV not to a bike with a trailer.

Brilliant parody - are you the one behind https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1 ?

I presume you know that the 'small minority' cycling into Dublin exceeds the numbers on the Luas and the DART combined, right?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

flazio wrote: »

Authorising car pooling vehicles to use the bus lanes would be great.

No it wouldn't. People can't see how this is such a poor idea. It renders buses useless. It's still car-centric. The car should be the last option for transport in any city. Keep the bus lane clear and start removing cars from cities altogether.

jjpep

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Brilliant parody - are you the one behind https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1 ?

I presume you know that the 'small minority' cycling into Dublin exceeds the numbers on the Luas and the DART combined, right?

NOx is one of my favourite posters actually. Real shades of pat short when he used to do d'unbeliveables

Mrs OBumble

zell12 wrote: »

I dare not ask your feelings about dark coloured cars

The first time I read that post, I was standing in a bus shelter in the rain but still very much daylight hours, watching a stream of vehicles existing an industrial estate. Most of the cars were dark-coloured. But I had no difficulty seeing them, because they're wide and because all but one of them (in the 10 minutes I observed) of them had their headlights.

There were a good number of bicycles too. Most riders had helmets, bright clothes, and lights fitted. But only one actually had the light turned on - and of course he was easiest to see.

It was an interesting contrast.

John_Rambo wrote: »

I did too. Home - school, after school - Home & various recreational runs. I see a good few of them on my commute, cargo bikes, tag alongs, carriers & trailers.


In real life.

Nice one, I'm well impressed.

Was it three under-fives who you had, or a smaller number of children? Personally with a group of under fives, I'd be petrified that one would try to get out while in motion. That's why cars have kiddie locks. Do bicycle carriers have similar?

xckjoo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The first time I read that post, I was standing in a bus shelter in the rain but still very much daylight hours, watching a stream of vehicles existing an industrial estate. Most of the cars were dark-coloured. But I had no difficulty seeing them, because they're wide and because all but one of them (in the 10 minutes I observed) of them had their headlights.

There were a good number of bicycles too. Most riders had helmets, bright clothes, and lights fitted. But only one actually had the light turned on - and of course he was easiest to see.

It was an interesting contrast.

I never understand this high-viz rhetoric. In what situation could this make the difference between hitting someone while driving and not hitting someone? If you can't see someone in all black, you probably shouldn't be driving at all. If you don't spot them in time to react, then you're driving too fast and/or not paying sufficient attention. It's the drivers responsibility to safely navigate from A to B, not everyone else's responsibility.

Mrs OBumble

jjpep wrote: »

Some reading on the topic:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
Slightly different topic but interesting anyway: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9729218/Driving-is-five-times-more-dangerous-than-cycling-for-young-men.html

Thank you.


http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full
This one only looks at
"the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists"
- ignoring sole bicycle, bicycle to bicycle or bicycle to pedestrian collisions. It focuses on accident numbers, and doesn't appear to standardise for distance travelled or travel time (time is a better measure than distance because its the unit of exposure to the method).


https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers
Has no statistics, or links to any. It does acknowledge the need to standarise and not just count raw numbers. (why are there so few cycling injuries - it's because there are so few people using bicycles!)


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
Again, only looking at injuries caused by large-motorised vehicles (cars and above).




It's a a complex topic. Very hard to get good data on, since there are no ways of measuring distance cycled or walked (Hmmm ... I wonder what Google knows from our phones). Technically any injury-causing bicycle accident should be reported to the guards - but I'll bet that if you try, they'll die laughing rather than register it.

But as a pedestrian, I continue to feel more at risk from bicycles than from cars. Driver behaviour in the latter is just far more predictable.

John_Rambo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Nice one, I'm well impressed.

Was it three under-fives who you had, or a smaller number of children? Personally with a group of under fives, I'd be petrified that one would try to get out while in motion. That's why cars have kiddie locks. Do bicycle carriers have similar?

The children are strapped in. There are no door locks because there’s no doors.

John_Rambo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But as a pedestrian, I continue to feel more at risk from bicycles than from cars. Driver behaviour in the latter is just far more predictable.

Believe me, the car drivers kill and injure pedestrians, particularly in Galway. Just google “pedestrian deaths Galway., The cyclists are the safe ones.

what_traffic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But as a pedestrian, I continue to feel more at risk from bicycles than from cars. Driver behavior in the latter is just far more predictable.

Feelings eh?
Could this be because of the culture you come from? US/Canada/Australia?
Which are dominated by Car Cultures.
If you were from Northern Europe you would probably have a different feeling on the risk perspective.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

That's why cars have kiddie locks. Do bicycle carriers have similar?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But as a pedestrian, I continue to feel more at risk from bicycles than from cars. Driver behaviour in the latter is just far more predictable.

You're welcome to your feelings, of course. But the evidence shows clearly that it is drivers who kill one pedestrian nearly each week, about 40 a year. By contrast, it is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian here.

That's a pretty good model to help you to understand who you are actually at risk from.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

I never understand this high-viz rhetoric. In what situation could this make the difference between hitting someone while driving and not hitting someone? If you can't see someone in all black, you probably shouldn't be driving at all. If you don't spot them in time to react, then you're driving too fast and/or not paying sufficient attention. It's the drivers responsibility to safely navigate from A to B, not everyone else's responsibility.

You have obviously never met someone walking or cycling on a dark road at night wearing all black, it's very very heard to see them even with headlights and that's from someone with near perfect vision. Hence there's is a major campaign to get people to ware highviz, do you seriously think it's just being advised for the sake of it??

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're welcome to your feelings, of course. But the evidence shows clearly that it is drivers who kill one pedestrian nearly each week, about 40 a year. By contrast, it is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian here.

That's a pretty good model to help you to understand who you are actually at risk from.

Pedestrians are at most risk from themselves and their own stupidity rather than from drivers. You can be sure most pedestrians killed are at fault themselves, you just have to see how they behave around cars to see that it's not surprising that lots get killed.

benjamin d

John_Rambo wrote: »

Believe me, the car drivers kill and injure pedestrians, particularly in Galway. Just google “pedestrian deaths Galway., The cyclists are the safe ones.

In the UK you are 60 times more likely to be killed on a footpath by a car. On the road it's probably hundreds of times more likely.

AndrewJRenko

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Hence there's is a major campaign to get people to ware highviz, do you seriously think it's just being advised for the sake of it??

No, not just for the sake of it - the purpose of the campaign is to make it look like the RSA is doing something, despite a complete lack of evidence that these work as a public health measure. A secondary purpose is to make it look like their sponsor ESB Networks are doing something 'nice', while their drivers continue to speed and drive on the phone.

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Pedestrians are at most risk from themselves and their own stupidity rather than from drivers. You can be sure most pedestrians killed are at fault themselves, you just have to see how they behave around cars to see that it's not surprising that lots get killed.

That's an interesting conclusion - smells like victim-blaming to me. Do you have any facts or research to support your conclusions here? Do you not see the kind of dangerous behaviour by motorists that others see - speeding, using the phone, drink driving, failing to look before moving etc?

ben.schlomo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Hence there's is a major campaign to get people to ware highviz, do you seriously think it's just being advised for the sake of it??

No, not just for the sake of it - the purpose of the campaign is to make it look like the RSA is doing something, despite a complete lack of evidence that these work as a public health measure. A secondary purpose is to make it look like their sponsor ESB Networks are doing something 'nice', while their drivers continue to speed and drive on the phone.

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Pedestrians are at most risk from themselves and their own stupidity rather than from drivers. You can be sure most pedestrians killed are at fault themselves, you just have to see how they behave around cars to see that it's not surprising that lots get killed.

That's an interesting conclusion - smells like victim-blaming to me. Do you have any facts or research to support your conclusions here? Do you not see the kind of dangerous behaviour by motorists that others see - speeding, using the phone, drink driving, failing to look before moving etc?

Nox has years of 'nox research', it's used to back up everything he says no matter what your so called facts or studies or reports say. It's short reaching, biased, based on very little and of no real use or standing. But you know yourself.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, not just for the sake of it - the purpose of the campaign is to make it look like the RSA is doing something, despite a complete lack of evidence that these work as a public health measure. A secondary purpose is to make it look like their sponsor ESB Networks are doing something 'nice', while their drivers continue to speed and drive on the phone.

You completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out how hard it is to see pedestrains or cyclists who wear dark clothes. Don't even try to claim it isn't, it's a danger I'm hearing since I was a kid from drivers almost hitting idiots walking on narrow dark roads in black clothes.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's an interesting conclusion - smells like victim-blaming to me. Do you have any facts or research to support your conclusions here? Do you not see the kind of dangerous behaviour by motorists that others see - speeding, using the phone, drink driving, failing to look before moving etc?

Just look at the behaviour of pedestrians, every singe day I see them walk in front of cars, walk behind reversing cars, walk on the road in traffic, cross the road without looking, cross when cars have green and they have red etc etc. If you deny this I know you are lying as all you have to do is open your eyes to see it.

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Nox has years of 'nox research', it's used to back up everything he says no matter what your so called facts or studies or reports say. It's short reaching, biased, based on very little and of no real use or standing. But you know yourself.

The nonsense rambling of someone who has nothing better to say, not surprised given your posts in general.. It's not based on any research it's based on what I and many many people see happening on the streets. Of couse many pedestrians are also at fault for their own death or injury but that's never going to be reported as such as it has to be blamed on the big bad drivers.

what_traffic

Emberly Bitter Bulldog wrote: »

Of couse many pedestrians are also at fault for their own death or injury but that's never going to be reported as such as it has to be blamed on the big bad drivers.

I wish that was true - but the RSA(Road Safety Authority) have the kind of Radio Ad campaign that seems to be right out of your playbook at the minute. Basically it says that if you knock down and kill a pedestrian - 50-50 chance they had drink taken so not really your fault at all.

xckjoo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

You have obviously never met someone walking or cycling on a dark road at night wearing all black, it's very very heard to see them even with headlights and that's from someone with near perfect vision.

No no. I drive regularly so of course I have. If you drive at a safe speed you have sufficient time to spot things ahead of you. It's not like they appear out of nowhere. If there was a black wall in front of you would you crash into it?

ben.schlomo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, not just for the sake of it - the purpose of the campaign is to make it look like the RSA is doing something, despite a complete lack of evidence that these work as a public health measure. A secondary purpose is to make it look like their sponsor ESB Networks are doing something 'nice', while their drivers continue to speed and drive on the phone.

You completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out how hard it is to see pedestrains or cyclists who wear dark clothes. Don't even try to claim it isn't, it's a danger I'm hearing since I was a kid from drivers almost hitting idiots walking on narrow dark roads in black clothes.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's an interesting conclusion - smells like victim-blaming to me. Do you have any facts or research to support your conclusions here? Do you not see the kind of dangerous behaviour by motorists that others see - speeding, using the phone, drink driving, failing to look before moving etc?

Just look at the behaviour of pedestrians, every singe day I see them walk in front of cars, walk behind reversing cars, walk on the road in traffic, cross the road without looking, cross when cars have green and they have red etc etc. If you deny this I know you are lying as all you have to do is open your eyes to see it.

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Nox has years of 'nox research', it's used to back up everything he says no matter what your so called facts or studies or reports say. It's short reaching, biased, based on very little and of no real use or standing. But you know yourself.

The nonsense rambling of someone who has nothing better to say, not surprised given your posts in general.. It's not based on any research it's based on what I and many many people see happening on the streets. Of couse many pedestrians are also at fault for their own death or injury but that's never going to be reported as such as it has to be blamed on the big bad drivers.

You're priceless.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

No no. I drive regularly so of course I have. If you drive at a safe speed you have sufficient time to spot things ahead of you. It's not like they appear out of nowhere. If there was a black wall in front of you would you crash into it?

I give up, you can't have a conversation with someone who can't acknowledge one of the most fundamental dangers for pedestrians, wearing dark clothes. They blend in with the sides of the road, they are in the shadows and are very very hard to see. You can't drive around on an 80 or 100kmh road at 20kmh to enable you to try to guess if that's person walking or a shadow if you can even see anything at all until you are on top of them.

It's astounding to hear someone say it's not exceptionally difficult to see someone with back clothes, it's literally one of the biggest complaints I hear from drivers about pedestrians.

JupiterKid

..

JupiterKid

Why is it always posters with odious right wing views who seem to champion unhealthy eating and drinking habits who also think that sustainable forms of urban transport are for "losers?"

Practically every single time...:rolleyes:

Cycling is a very realistic proposition for many if not most urban dwellers. Galway is a very small city and, barring the weather, is quite suitable for cycling as a means to get around. Better to cycle than sit in traffic jams stuffing jam doughnuts and Big Macs into your gob and going online giving out about cycling. Look at how well the Dublin bikes and Cork bikes schemes are doing.

xckjoo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

I give up, you can't have a conversation with someone who can't acknowledge one of the most fundamental dangers for pedestrians, wearing dark clothes. They blend in with the sides of the road, they are in the shadows and are very very hard to see. You can't drive around on an 80 or 100kmh road at 20kmh to enable you to try to guess if that's person walking or a shadow if you can even see anything at all until you are on top of them.

It's astounding to hear someone say it's not exceptionally difficult to see someone with back clothes, it's literally one of the biggest complaints I hear from drivers about pedestrians.

The difficulty in seeing people is related to how fast you're going and where your attention is. How many times have you walked into someone wearing all black? Of those, how many times were you not paying attention?

People complain about all kinds of things that they don't want to accept personal responsibility for. Doesn't mean they're right.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

The difficulty in seeing people is related to how fast you're going and where your attention is. How many times have you walked into someone wearing all black? Of those, how many times were you not paying attention?

People complain about all kinds of things that they don't want to accept personal responsibility for. Doesn't mean they're right.

You do realise I'm talking about dark county roads not well lit footpaths in town. Roads where you are going to be travelling quite fast as you are fully entitled to do so and where pedestrians should ensure that they are well lit up and highly visible.

I suppose bikes shouldn't bother with lights either as that would be the very same argument you are making.

You are one of the only people in the county clueless enough to think it's on to walk around at night and not make yourself as visible as possible. It's mind boggling stuff.

JupiterKid

Wearing dark clothes at night on dark unlit country roads is just courting disaster. It can be very hard for motorists to spot someone in dark clothing until they are too close for comfort.

So I thought that is why the RSA basically gives out reflective jackets/waistcoats for free?

bloodless_coup

JupiterKid wrote: »

Why is it always posters with odious right wing views who seem to champion unhealthy eating and drinking habits who also think that sustainable forms of urban transport are for "losers?"

Practically every single time...:rolleyes:

On the other hand, those who proclaim to be part to the cyclist or public transport masterrace always seem to be the obnoxious left.

AndrewJRenko

JupiterKid wrote: »

So I thought that is why the RSA basically gives out reflective jackets/waistcoats for free?

No, the reason the RSA gives out hi-vis is because it is easy. It doesn't require them to change the culture of dangerous driving. It is just a handy way to blame victims and spend some money.

doylefe wrote: »

On the other hand, those who proclaim to be part to the cyclist or public transport masterrace always seem to be the obnoxious left.

Well, you're half right: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/06/peter-hitchens-like-a-rattlesnake-the-eu-can-bite-us-long-after-it-gets-the-chop.html

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

You completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out how hard it is to see pedestrains or cyclists who wear dark clothes. Don't even try to claim it isn't, it's a danger I'm hearing since I was a kid from drivers almost hitting idiots walking on narrow dark roads in black clothes.

You asked a question and I answered it. Don't blame me if you don't like the answer.

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

Just look at the behaviour of pedestrians, every singe day I see them walk in front of cars, walk behind reversing cars, walk on the road in traffic, cross the road without looking, cross when cars have green and they have red etc etc. If you deny this I know you are lying as all you have to do is open your eyes to see it.

You seem to have missed a few questions from my response:

Do you have any facts or research to support your conclusions here? Do you not see the kind of dangerous behaviour by motorists that others see - speeding, using the phone, drink driving, failing to look before moving etc?

xckjoo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

You do realise I'm talking about dark county roads not well lit footpaths in town. Roads where you are going to be travelling quite fast as you are fully entitled to do so and where pedestrians should ensure that they are well lit up and highly visible.

I suppose bikes shouldn't bother with lights either as that would be the very same argument you are making.

You are one of the only people in the county clueless enough to think it's on to walk around at night and not make yourself as visible as possible. It's mind boggling stuff.

Lol. You realise you're in the City forum and not the County one ya?

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

I give up, you can't have a conversation with someone who can't acknowledge one of the most fundamental dangers for pedestrians, wearing dark clothes. They blend in with the sides of the road, they are in the shadows and are very very hard to see. You can't drive around on an 80 or 100kmh road at 20kmh to enable you to try to guess if that's person walking or a shadow if you can even see anything at all until you are on top of them.

It's astounding to hear someone say it's not exceptionally difficult to see someone with back clothes, it's literally one of the biggest complaints I hear from drivers about pedestrians.

I'm sure people recognise the risk - I definitely do but it is mostly a country problem, not a city one.

Only the dual carriageway has speed limits like that.

It isn't as relevant to street lit, lower speed limit urban streets.

John_Rambo

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

It's astounding to hear someone say it's not exceptionally difficult to see someone with back clothes, it's literally one of the biggest complaints I hear from drivers about pedestrians.

Most cyclists that are killed by drivers are on rural roads, but in daylight hours. This follows previous RSA data showing visibility conditions to be limited factors in cycling collisions resulting in death.

So, clearly, you do have a good point about a serious rural driving issue. Fatigue, drunkenness, speeding and plain bad driving are issues that need to be dealt with. But not very relevant to this thread.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Most cyclists that are killed by drivers are on rural roads, but in daylight hours. This follows previous RSA data showing visibility conditions to be limited factors in cycling collisions resulting in death.

So, clearly, you do have a good point about a serious rural driving issue. Fatigue, drunkenness, speeding and plain bad driving are issues that need to be dealt with. But not very relevant to this thread.

Rural roads simply aren't suitable for cyclists, either the roads need to be improved or Cyclists should stay off them for their own sake.