Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Wishbone Ash

TaurenDruid wrote: »

...Under no interpretation of the rules does something following behind me have right of way. In fact, as their onward progress would be blocked by me waiting in the box, they shouldn't enter the junction box at all....

It may have been a T junction.

For example, a driver approaches a main road and wishes to turn right. There is a yellow box and motorised traffic on the main road is backed up yet the cycle track is free flowing.

The driver enters the yellow box and positions his vehicle at an angle waiting to complete the turn but in doing so he also blocks what would otherwise be a clear cycle track. Cyclists who would have been free to proceed must wait unnecessarily. It's no big deal but it happens to me occasionally.

Perhaps this is the scenario being referred to earlier?

meeeeh

shootermacg wrote: »

hey bro.... they were all wearing helmets..go figure eh...

Hey pal they mighr know it could be worse if they don't. That's like saying you don't need a seat belt in car because you could have terrible injuries anyway. What else are your suggestions, no helmets on motorbikes?

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

if not, why are you bringing up cycle racing in the same way?

From the death of Ayrton Senna safety measures in Formula 1 improved significantly and a lot of the technology actually did make cars a lot safer. Just because it is not visible to the naked eye it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Life in Formula 1 is more expensive so I would say there is a lot more initiative to make things safer than in cycling or some other sports and drivers in newer cars benefit from that. That's if you want to compare influence of sports into our lives.

However my point was something else. Possibility that something could happen is built into cycling as sport and shrugged off. In similar way injuries and falls are just shrugged off in every day cycling when other activities actually require helmets and other protections.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most studies of cycling injuries, including the Irish one you quoted earlier, fail to distinguish between sports cycling, training and competing at high speeds in groups, and utility cycling, heading to work or the shops, surrounded by iItdiots in tonnes of metal playing with their phones.

The numbers on both sides are overstated.

Exactly. The idiots in their tonnes of metal on the phones still kill a lot less people than they did 20 years ago. That just tells you where progress was made and where no progress was made. People playing on their phones are still safer today than they were 20 years ago without phones. Aren't the safety changes in motoring amazing. If only such a jump was done in cycling.

TaurenDruid

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It may have been a T junction.

For example, a driver approaches a main road and wishes to turn right. There is a yellow box and motorised traffic on the main road is backed up yet the cycle track is free flowing.

The driver enters the yellow box and positions his vehicle at an angle waiting to complete the turn but in doing so he also blocks what would otherwise be a clear cycle track. Cyclists who would have been free to proceed must wait unnecessarily. It's no big deal but it happens to me occasionally.

Perhaps this is the scenario being referred to earlier?

Yep, that's plausible. Maybe the OP will confirm.

Wishbone Ash

meeeeh wrote: »

From the death of Ayrton Senna safety measures in Formula 1 improved significantly...

And don't forget Roland Ratzenberger who was killed in practice the day before. A black weekend in F1.

It also has to be said that a lot of F1 drivers have died in subsequent fires as opposed to the actual impact of the crash. A lot of improvements were made following the gruesome deaths in Tom Pryce's accident in '77. It's staggering now to think that fire marshals then didn't wear any fire retardant clothing.

meeeeh wrote: »

Exactly. The idiots in their tonnes of metal on the phones still kill a lot less people than they did 20 years ago. That just tells you where progress was made and where no progress was made. People playing on their phones are still safer today than they were 20 years ago without phones. Aren't the safety changes in motoring amazing. If only such a jump was done in cycling.

It's been 25 years since there was a death (Casartelli) in the biggest event in pro-cycling. The previous death (Simpson) was 54 years ago (and that wasn't accident related). Hardly dangerous!

magicbastarder

i'm curious as to *what* safety changes there could be in pro cycling that could trickle down to ordinary punters, in the way there has been trickle down from motorsports. bikes are bikes; the trickle down has been performance related, not safety related.

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's been 25 years since there was a death (Casartelli) in the biggest event in pro-cycling. The previous death (Simpson) was 54 years ago (and that wasn't accident related). Hardly dangerous!

yeah, meeeh decided to compare deaths in just one exceptionally narrow motorsport event (F1) against *all* of professional cycling.
it might have been a more reasonable comparison if she'd actually compared *all* of professional motorsports to professional cycling.

Wishbone Ash

meeeeh wrote: »

.. People playing on their phones are still safer today than they were 20 years ago without phones...

The people playing with their phones may be safer surrounded by their safety features but still pose a risk to pedestrians and cyclists.

shootermacg

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm curious as to *what* safety changes there could be in pro cycling that could trickle down to ordinary punters, in the way there has been trickle down from motorsports. bikes are bikes; the trickle down has been performance related, not safety related.

Maybe use cars?

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah, but no. https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

Under no interpretation of the rules does something following behind me have right of way. In fact, as their onward progress would be blocked by me waiting in the box, they shouldn't enter the junction box at all.

Here, have a video. https://youtu.be/nILHzsDznR4?t=349

The junction in Clonskeagh has two lanes on the main road, so there is a right turn lane for traffic turning right into Beech Hill Road, and a straight on lane for traffic heading to Ranelagh. Frequently, cars pull out of Whitebeam Road, heading for Beech Hill Road, and block both lanes of traffic, including traffic that has right of way to head for Ranelagh.

Here's what's in the ROTR.

"However, don’t enter the box if to do so would block other traffic that
has the right of way"

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Exactly. The idiots in their tonnes of metal on the phones still kill a lot less people than they did 20 years ago. That just tells you where progress was made and where no progress was made. People playing on their phones are still safer today than they were 20 years ago without phones. Aren't the safety changes in motoring amazing. If only such a jump was done in cycling.

Do you mean this kind of jump?


Source: http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cycling-deaths-ireland-2019/

People playing on their phones would be much safer if they weren't playing on their phones. Here's what happens when people play on their phones - one student dead, one school worker dead.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40028402.html

"Five minutes later he replied to a text message from his mother while still travelling at the same speed, and then launched the Hustle Castle strategy game app moments later.

He went on to engage in a six-minute hands-free phone conversation with his partner before Majury unlocked his phone again a minute before the crash and sent another message to his mother before opening the Facebook app.

Majury slammed on his brakes just half a second before hitting the minibus, the court heard."

A Strategy game.

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm curious as to *what* safety changes there could be in pro cycling that could trickle down to ordinary punters, in the way there has been trickle down from motorsports. bikes are bikes; the trickle down has been performance related, not safety related.

Helmets?

BTW plus points for actually not misgendering me like the pal above.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you mean this kind of jump?


Source: http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cycling-deaths-ireland-2019/

People playing on their phones would be much safer if they weren't playing on their phones. Here's what happens when people play on their phones - one student dead, one school worker dead.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40028402.html


A Strategy game.

The post you were replying to was pure sarcasm, I don't actually seriously engage with you and that's not going to change.

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

Helmets?

BTW plus points for actually not misgendering me like the pal above.

I know it’s purely anecdotal, but when I’m out cycling, I’d say the vast, majority of cyclists that I see are wearing helmets! I also see a lot of cyclists wearing hi-viz. neither of which are legally required! Again, I’ve no proof, but I’d bet that all the cyclists killed on our roads in 2019, were probably wearing helmets and possibly hi viz too!

And as for comparing cyclists to F1 drivers? WTF???

breezy1985

shootermacg wrote: »

Maybe use cars?

Do we apply the same rules to skiing and ski jumping cause that could be alot of fun to watch

shootermacg

breezy1985 wrote: »

Do we apply the same rules to skiing and ski jumping cause that could be alot of fun to watch

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

The post you were replying to was pure sarcasm

You might need to use sarcasm tags or something. It was fairly indistinguishable from a lot of the usual oul guff that we're hearing around here.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you mean this kind of jump?

Source: http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cycling-deaths-ireland-2019/

So, your own data shows that Irish drivers are not a statistically significant threat to cyclists, and that the record has improved dramatically over the years. :rolleyes:

BTW at least some cycling fatalities don't even involve motor vehicles. From the article above:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409

Two of the dead cyclists are recorded as having fallen off their bicycle, while the other two were knocked off.

Since motorists were not even involved (no drivers actions to even consider), and helmets are no use (apparently), I think we can safely say that these road deaths were unavoidable.

People playing on their phones would be much safer if they weren't playing on their phones. Here's what happens when people play on their phones - one student dead, one school worker dead.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40028402.html


A Strategy game.

Maybe that lorry driver did not understand the concept of braking distances? He certainly would not be the first. You have people who think that lorries can stop on a penny, and who think they should be taken seriously on matters of road safety.

But yeah, 99.9% of strawmen agree that driving a lorry at speed on the motorway is the best time to be playing games on your mobile :rolleyes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

SeanW

Remind me also, which part of Ireland is the M58 in? Did the crowd in Kildare Street pull a fast one and annex Lancashire to the Republic of Ireland while everyone was asleep?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Remind me also, which part of Ireland is the M58 in? Did the crowd in Kildare Street pull a fast one and annex Lancashire to the Republic of Ireland while everyone was asleep?

From the man who keeps banging the 'international comparisons' drum, this is just a little rich.

SeanW

Like I said, maybe this truck driver was under the misapprehension that he could stop his truck on a penny? Like some posters here think lorry drivers can do?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Like I said, maybe this truck driver was under the misapprehension that he could stop his truck on a penny? Like some posters here think lorry drivers can do?

Really? Can you point out where any posters here said that ?

Wishbone Ash

SeanW wrote: »

Like I said, maybe this truck driver was under the misapprehension that he could stop his truck on a penny? Like some posters here think lorry drivers can do?

Sweet Jesus!

Are you seriously suggesting that he braked half a second before impact because he believed that that would be adequate to prevent impact? And the phone distraction had nothing to do with it?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The junction in Clonskeagh has two lanes on the main road, so there is a right turn lane for traffic turning right into Beech Hill Road, and a straight on lane for traffic heading to Ranelagh. Frequently, cars pull out of Whitebeam Road, heading for Beech Hill Road, and block both lanes of traffic, including traffic that has right of way to head for Ranelagh.

Here's what's in the ROTR.

"However, don’t enter the box if to do so would block other traffic that
has the right of way"

Yeah, I know what's in the RotR, thanks. You may remember I linked them for you, above. Glad you finally read them.

Not sure what relevance your example has. The OP described a valid and legal right-turn, stopping-in-box manoeuvre, IIRC. What you describe above, isn't.

SeanW

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Sweet Jesus!

Are you seriously suggesting that he braked one second before impact because he believed that that would be adequate to prevent impact? And the phone distraction had nothing to do with it?

Absolutely not! but when cyclists do crazy stuff to truck drivers, Andrew suggests that truckers should have both super-human reflexes and their trucks should be able to stop in a few metres from full speed.

See this exchange from earlier in the thread.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Another lucky cyclist saved from being murderised by a bastard truck driver, turning, oh wait no that's not what happened!
https://www.dumpert.nl/item/7953955_d793c23c

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure, they were both on the wrong side of the road! Oh wait, no, we're trawling the world to drag in anecdotal 'evidence' to try to distract attention from the actual facts of what's happening on Irish roads.

Did the trucker not have any brakes though?

To be clear, the driver in England was fully responsible and deserves everything he's got coming.

But it's interesting that according to Andy, when a cyclist cuts in front of a truck with 5 metres warning, the truck driver is supposed to be able to stop in fractions of seconds. He still hasn't explained why, of course.

Wishbone Ash

Sorry - Spook's link won't open for me so I can't comment. I used to be a truck and bus driver and saw cyclists do very stupid things but I also saw my colleagues do stupid things which put cyclists in danger.

kenmm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Sorry - Spook's link won't open for me so I can't comment. I used to be a truck and bus driver and saw cyclists do very stupid things but I also saw my colleagues do stupid things which put cyclists in danger.

It's almost like everyone is different and (unts exist in all walk of life (and all modes of transport).

You wouldn't know that from reading boards tho..

AndrewJRenko

Can anyone see the difference between:

1) "trucks should be able to stop in a few metres from full speed" and "truckers should have both super-human reflexes and their trucks should be able to stop in a few metres from full speed" and "truck driver is supposed to be able to stop in fractions of seconds" and
2) "Did the trucker not have any brakes though?"

Sean seems to need some help in comprehending the difference between these two positions on a spectrum.

kenmm wrote: »

It's almost like everyone is different and (unts exist in all walk of life (and all modes of transport).

That's true, though the (unts on bikes don't kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

BTW at least some cycling fatalities don't even involve motor vehicles. From the article above:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409
Since motorists were not even involved (no drivers actions to even consider), and helmets are no use (apparently), I think we can safely say that these road deaths were unavoidable.

How can we say anything about the avoidability or otherwise without knowing the circumstances of these collisions?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah, I know what's in the RotR, thanks. You may remember I linked them for you, above. Glad you finally read them.

Not sure what relevance your example has. The OP described a valid and legal right-turn, stopping-in-box manoeuvre, IIRC. What you describe above, isn't.

The OP gave no details about the position of the motorist in the yellow box. At the right turn to Beech Hill, it isn't unusual at all for motorists to pull out in front of cyclists descending the incline from Goatstown at considerable speed, and/or block the inside lane of traffic to hold their place in the queue in the outside lane of traffic. They are the most likely circumstances that may lead to a cyclist signalling the issue to a driver.