Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

The doctor said they'd fallen from their bikes. Seems clear.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?"

The implications were clear. The truck driver did not stop fast enough. Yet it was clear from the video that the driver had almost no time to respond. Ergo, the only option available was an emergency avoidance move.

Anyone who does not understand this has no business commenting on road safety, or frankly, even being on the road.

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

And yet, when you want to show the consequences of all those horrible Irish drivers doing Irish driver things, you had to go to that great Irish county of Lancashire.

07Lapierre

Kid shouldn’t have been cycling on the path right?

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437

SeanW

Bickerstaffe, Lancashire and now Neston in Chesire.

It's almost like there's broad agreement that Irish drivers can only be fairly judged against international standards. As has been pointed out,
they compare very favourably. As do drivers in the UK, it must be said.

Pinch Flat

Ah stop lads. I was at an away hurling game this morning with pinch flat junior. We drive over- it's about 25km door to door so didn't want to inflict that cycle on him:). Anyway with the day that was in it, we packed the togs for a post match swim. Well suffering Jesus. The traffic. Cars abandoned left and right on all approach roads around killiney. Double yellows, paths didn't matter just plonk it there. Not even paths to cycle on. . People forced into using the roads as all the paths were blocked by parked cars. Pedestrians. People with prams. The roads were so constricted that we had to inch past parked cars left and right. Any ambulance trying to get to an emergency on the beach tough. On the plus side loads of cars ticketed and the new cycling lanes around dun Laoghaire are class.

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

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.


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 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.

Link works for me.

I hadnt seen the video when it came up previously in the thread, but looking at it now I've no problem saying the truck driver did a great job saving the cyclist and the cyclist should have had the cop on not to pull out in front of a truck with so little distance between them.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

The doctor said they'd fallen from their bikes. Seems clear.

Doesn't seem clear to me at all. Was there any reason for the fall? Wind or debris or health issue or what. People don't just fall from their bikes and die for no reason.

SeanW wrote: »

The implications were clear. The truck driver did not stop fast enough. Yet it was clear from the video that the driver had almost no time to respond. Ergo, the only option available was an emergency avoidance move.

Anyone who does not understand this has no business commenting on road safety, or frankly, even being on the road.

Is it not generally possible with motor vehicles to steer and brake at the same time? It's not usually an either/or choice in my experience.
Yes, you might have issues with skidding, though ABS has minimised this greatly.
The driver in question appeared to swerve, but didn't appear to slow his speed at all. Would your natural reaction not be to swerve and brake?

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, when you want to show the consequences of all those horrible Irish drivers doing Irish driver things, you had to go to that great Irish county of Lancashire.

You'd prefer to focus on the road deaths in Ireland then? Sure, are all these deaths unavoidable;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/two-people-die-after-car-plunges-off-road-and-overturns-in-river-1.4320514

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-killed-in-single-vehicle-crash-in-co-monaghan-were-polish-nationals-1.4316809

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/male-motorcyclist-killed-following-collision-with-truck-in-dublin-1.4259599

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doesn't seem clear to me at all. Was there any reason for the fall? Wind or debris or health issue or what. People don't just fall from their bikes and die for no reason.

They were unavoidable in the sense that you can't blame Irish motorists for them. And your hypothetical scenarios are also unavoidable.

• Wind - mother nature determines that.
• Debris - cyclist may not have been expecting debris on their path and thus not seen it in time. Some human error is unavoidable.
• health issue - if the cyclist had a heart attack or stroke or something in the bicycle seat, it would seem logical to regard such as unavoidable.

I don't see anything that could have helped any of these cyclists except perhaps a helmet.

Is it not generally possible with motor vehicles to steer and brake at the same time? It's not usually an either/or choice in my experience.
Yes, you might have issues with skidding, though ABS has minimised this greatly.
The driver in question appeared to swerve, but didn't appear to slow his speed at all. Would your natural reaction not be to swerve and brake?

My natural reaction would be to try to avoid hitting the cyclist. At the distance at which they pulled out, it would be impossible to do this by braking.

Have a read about braking distance and its effect on total stopping distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

According to that, the distance from the brakes being fully engaged to the vehicle being stopped (on an EU40 truck) should be on average around 35 metres, assuming a speed of 80kph. But if you include distance traveled between the appearance of the threat and the activation of the brakes, at 80 kph that would add 22.222 meters for every second of response time.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=convert+from+kilometers+per+hour+to+meters+per+second&t=hk&ia=answer

Assuming one second response time, that gives a total stopping distance of (in the absolute best-case scenario) 57.22 metres, which is close to the UK highway code's estimate of 53 metres at 50MPH (though that might be for a car, not a truck). I don't think the driver had 60+ metres to respond, and it looks like they tried to slow down at least a little.

Still, given the extremely short time in which the driver had to do *something* it is clear that they made the correct split-second decision to take emergency evasive action. I find it absolutely incredible that this needs to be explained.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/two-people-die-after-car-plunges-off-road-and-overturns-in-river-1.4320514

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-men-killed-in-single-vehicle-crash-in-co-monaghan-were-polish-nationals-1.4316809

Well the first two were single vehicle collisions, so it's impossible to say for sure what happened.

But it's very likely that at least one of the drivers encountered some unexpected issue or another, e.g. loss of grip/traction with the road, or tried to avoid an animal on the road or something. Given that both single vehicle collisions involved cars with two occupants, they were probably not vehicular suicides. Though if either were, those too would have been unavoidable.

Wishbone Ash

SeanW wrote: »

The doctor said they'd fallen from their bikes. Seems clear...

The doctor is correct but context is everything. If I'm shot through the heart, I'd more than likely fall from my bike. Hopefully I'll be wearing a helmet at the time.

Yes, I'm being facetious but some cycling related deaths/injuries are the result of non-cycling related incidents - heart attacks, strokes etc.

A few years ago I came across a cyclist on the ground with a distraught motorist at the scene. I incorrectly assumed that a collision had taken place and that the motorist was involved, However, it transpired that the motorist had came across the cyclist on the road shortly before I arrived. He'd had a heart attack.

kenmm

We still on about that truck/cyclist clip?
If I remember the truck took evasive action, the cyclist didn't do a look behind, we don't know what the truck was carrying, we don't really know the conditions, its one video and represents f. all. I don't know how so much time been be spent arguing the toss out of that one tbh

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

They were unavoidable in the sense that you can't blame Irish motorists for them. And your hypothetical scenarios are also unavoidable.

• Wind - mother nature determines that.
• Debris - cyclist may not have been expecting debris on their path and thus not seen it in time. Some human error is unavoidable.
• health issue - if the cyclist had a heart attack or stroke or something in the bicycle seat, it would seem logical to regard such as unavoidable.

I don't see anything that could have helped any of these cyclists except perhaps a helmet.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The examples of wind, debris and health issue were just that - examples of possible causes. While I disagree with your interpretation of these as unavoidable, it's a moot point here, as we have no information about the actual causes. Cyclists don't generally fall over and die, so something caused these deaths. Unless we know what caused these deaths, any comment about them being avoidable or unavoidable is pure fantasy.

SeanW wrote: »

My natural reaction would be to try to avoid hitting the cyclist. At the distance at which they pulled out, it would be impossible to do this by braking.

Have a read about braking distance and its effect on total stopping distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

According to that, the distance from the brakes being fully engaged to the vehicle being stopped (on an EU40 truck) should be on average around 35 metres, assuming a speed of 80kph. But if you include distance traveled between the appearance of the threat and the activation of the brakes, at 80 kph that would add 22.222 meters for every second of response time.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=convert+from+kilometers+per+hour+to+meters+per+second&t=hk&ia=answer

Assuming one second response time, that gives a total stopping distance of (in the absolute best-case scenario) 57.22 metres, which is close to the UK highway code's estimate of 53 metres at 50MPH (though that might be for a car, not a truck). I don't think the driver had 60+ metres to respond, and it looks like they tried to slow down at least a little.

Still, given the extremely short time in which the driver had to do *something* it is clear that they made the correct split-second decision to take emergency evasive action. I find it absolutely incredible that this needs to be explained.

So if a sudden obstruction appears in your path, or moving into your path, you're saying that drivers shouldn't brake, but should just steer away - is this actually your advice on dealing with emergencies like this?

SeanW wrote: »

Well the first two were single vehicle collisions, so it's impossible to say for sure what happened.

But it's very likely that at least one of the drivers encountered some unexpected issue or another, e.g. loss of grip/traction with the road, or tried to avoid an animal on the road or something. Given that both single vehicle collisions involved cars with two occupants, they were probably not vehicular suicides. Though if either were, those too would have been unavoidable.

Fascinating how with single vehicle collisions, it is impossible to say for sure what happened - but for single vehicle deaths involving cyclists, you're able to say with absolute certainty that they were unavoidable.

Why the difference in your conclusions about two sets of situations that we know very little about?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The examples of wind, debris and health issue were just that - examples of possible causes. While I disagree with your interpretation of these as unavoidable, it's a moot point here, as we have no information about the actual causes. Cyclists don't generally fall over and die, so something caused these deaths. Unless we know what caused these deaths, any comment about them being avoidable or unavoidable is pure fantasy.

I'd imagine they just hit something. And since they were presumably not suicidal, it was likely not something they expected. And I'm not sure in what alternate reality heart attacks, strokes, inclement weather and human error (beyond a certain point) are avoidable.

So if a sudden obstruction appears in your path, or moving into your path, you're saying that drivers shouldn't brake, but should just steer away - is this actually your advice on dealing with emergencies like this?

No. First of all you didn't establish that the driver did not attempt to use the brakes at any point. You just said it didn't look like it to you, which means nothing except a questionable attempt to detract blame from the cyclist and bring unwarranted question to the actions of the driver. Second, my advice is that in an emergency, a driver should take any action they can to avoid the loss of life and secondarily minimise other forms of damage. Further, in judging a drivers' actions ex post facto, it must also be understood that it's a little different sitting safely behind a keyboard judging a video as actually being there and having to do something in a split-second.

By any reasonable standard, the driver acted correctly. In that particular circumstance, at that place, at that time, the drivers' actions were the only actions that could possibly have avoided a fatality, and in so doing, not cause any others. Whether the driver used the brake or not (and you didn't show that they didn't) made no difference whatsoever to this accident. The driver's only option was immediate evasive action and that's what they did.

I find it incredible that this has to be explained.

Fascinating how with single vehicle collisions, it is impossible to say for sure what happened - but for single vehicle deaths involving cyclists, you're able to say with absolute certainty that they were unavoidable.

Your own hypothetical scenarios suggested they were unavoidable.

micar

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A few years ago I came across a cyclist on the ground with a distraught motorist at the scene. I incorrectly assumed that a collision had taken place and that the motorist was involved, However, it transpired that the motorist had came across the cyclist on the road shortly before I arrived. He'd had a heart attack.

I know of an incident exactly like this ...... near Kentstown Co Meath

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

I'd imagine they just hit something. And since they were presumably not suicidal, it was likely not something they expected. And I'm not sure in what alternate reality heart attacks, strokes, inclement weather and human error (beyond a certain point) are avoidable.

Given that you imagine that every oul wan mooching on the pavement on her bike is 'menacing with intent', I'm not too sure that your imagination is a sound basic for proceeding here.

It may well be that they just hit something, but given that it rarely happens that cyclists hit something and die, there is likely to be a bit more to the story.

Again, it's worth pointing out the contrast to the things you imagine for cyclists and the things you imagine for motorists. Is there any vague possibility that there might be just a hint of some personal bias involved here?

SeanW wrote: »

No. First of all you didn't establish that the driver did not attempt to use the brakes at any point. You just said it didn't look like it to you, which means nothing except a questionable attempt to detract blame from the cyclist and bring unwarranted question to the actions of the driver. Second, my advice is that in an emergency, a driver should take any action they can to avoid the loss of life and secondarily minimise other forms of damage. Further, in judging a drivers' actions ex post facto, it must also be understood that it's a little different sitting safely behind a keyboard judging a video as actually being there and having to do something in a split-second.

By any reasonable standard, the driver acted correctly. In that particular circumstance, at that place, at that time, the drivers' actions were the only actions that could possibly have avoided a fatality, and in so doing, not cause any others. Whether the driver used the brake or not (and you didn't show that they didn't) made no difference whatsoever to this accident. The driver's only option was immediate evasive action and that's what they did.

I find it incredible that this has to be explained.

You're right that I haven't established anything. I'm far from expert in these things. To me, the cyclist was incredibly foolish, and the driver did indeed probably save their life by steering away from the incident.

The question of braking probably didn't have a huge impact on the cyclist. It did have an impact on the further risk to the trucker and the risk of damage to the vehicle. It seemed to me that the driver swerved away, but pretty much kept going at a similar speed, resulting in them driving off the road.

There's a reason why brakes and steering have different controls, brakes with the feet, steering with the hands - to allow the drive to brake and steer simultaenously.

It looked to me like this driver didn't brake as they swerved.

SeanW wrote: »

Your own hypothetical scenarios suggested they were unavoidable.

Not really. You'd really need more information to come to that conclusion.

For example, if the cyclist was out cycling in a red weather warning (or a driver was driving in a red weather warning) and wind or debris was a result of the storm, then that is very avoidable.

We don't have anything near enough information to conclude that these deaths were unavoidable.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

The doctor said they'd fallen from their bikes. Seems clear.

Saying 'they fell off the bike' is about as clear as saying 'they crashed the car'.
Did they topple off the bike while waiting at lights and hit their head on a kerb? Did they fall off their bike coming down from the Sally gap at 70km/h? Did they fall off their bike while avoiding an unexpected obstacle or hitting a greasy patch on a wet day?

All 'they fell off their bike' tells us is that there was no impact with a car.

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

Saying 'they fell off the bike' is about as clear as saying 'they crashed the car'.
Did they topple off the bike while waiting at lights and hit their head on a kerb? Did they fall off their bike coming down from the Sally gap at 70km/h? Did they fall off their bike while avoiding an unexpected obstacle or hitting a greasy patch on a wet day?

All 'they fell off their bike' tells us is that there was no impact with a car.

Did they fall off their bike after a near miss with a car or pedestrian but with no contact made.

I have fallen 3 times I can think of without an impact 1. Was wet leaves on the turn of a concrete road 2. Was to avoid rear ending a car that stopped suddenly going down hill in the wet to turn without indicating 3. I wasn't paying attention on a really long straight road and tramlined myself to the curb

Wishbone Ash

micar wrote: »

I know of an incident exactly like this ...... near Kentstown Co Meath

....and by an extraordinary co-incidence, I was also cycling on that very road (R153) with the club on the day that gentleman passed away. We passed the spot where he fell about 30 minutes beforehand (going in the opposite direction).

micar

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

....and by an extraordinary co-incidence, I was also cycling on that very road (R153) with the club on the day that gentleman passed away. We passed the spot where he fell about 30 minutes beforehand (going in the opposite direction).

I knew only to see that gentleman to died. Went to school with his nephew. He's buried in the grave behind my mam and one grave over.

Across from him is the grave of a boy of 13 who was knocked off his bike and died.

Just so sad to have 2 people who died out cyclibg facing each other.

jackofalltrades

The S2S route from the Bull Island Causeway to Sutton is in bad need of a redesign.
Plenty of cyclists seem to be happy to cycle two a breast on it heading southbound.
One in the cycle lane and the other on the path.
And if that wasn't bad enough given the current circumstances, you also have to contend with Mamils and electric scooters dangerously overtaking the above.

kenmm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The S2S route from the Bull Island Causeway to Sutton is in bad need of a redesign.
Plenty of cyclists seem to be happy to cycle two a breast on it heading southbound.
One in the cycle lane and the other on the path.
And if that wasn't bad enough given the current circumstances, you also have to contend with Mamils and electric scooters dangerously overtaking the above.

That area is a sh!tshow for mixture of walkers, cyclists etc. The cycle track is no where near wide enough for the volume of traffic.

Interesting to see a subdivision of cyclists now. Too 'non MVP' for road, too 'Mamil' for cycle track

I suppose it gets us nearer to cyclists being individuals and not one giant group

donvito99

07Lapierre wrote: »

Kid shouldn’t have been cycling on the path right?

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437

Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909

Duckjob

Mandatory hi-vis for houses would surely have prevented this from happening

kenmm

Duckjob wrote: »

Mandatory hi-vis for houses would surely have prevented this from happening :pac:

It wasn't even using the house lane ffs

07Lapierre

donvito99 wrote: »

Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909

We need to be realistic. The house must accept some responsibility here! I mean a big house on a narrow road? who ever thought that was a good idea?

TaurenDruid

donvito99 wrote: »

Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play Deflection too, please?

Hmm, lemme see...

Has anyone gone with "Look, at the end of the day, nobody was killed by the house!" yet? I'll go with that, so!

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play Deflection too, please?

Hmm, lemme see...

Has anyone gone with "Look, at the end of the day, nobody was killed by the house!" yet? I'll go with that, so!

Fun innit?

Stark

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play Deflection too, please?

Hmm, lemme see...

Has anyone gone with "Look, at the end of the day, nobody was killed by the house!" yet? I'll go with that, so!

Yup, almost like the house wasn't the problem in this picture!

breezy1985

kenmm wrote: »

That area is a sh!tshow for mixture of walkers, cyclists etc. The cycle track is no where near wide enough for the volume of traffic.

Interesting to see a subdivision of cyclists now. Too 'non MVP' for road, too 'Mamil' for cycle track

I suppose it gets us nearer to cyclists being individuals and not one giant group

I dont know that route but in general everybody needs to start treating cycle lanes like roads and not be goin down em the wrong way, walking in them or not looking for traffic before crossing

breezy1985

07Lapierre wrote: »

We need to be realistic. The house must accept some responsibility here! I mean a big house on a narrow road? who ever thought that was a good idea?

And sure everyone knows that all them houses do be breaking the red lights all the time

SeanW

kenmm wrote: »

It wasn't even using the house lane ffs

Actually it was. It's called "off the road". Though the comparison between bicycles and houses in this regard is interesting :P

07Lapierre wrote: »

We need to be realistic. The house must accept some responsibility here! I mean a big house on a narrow road? who ever thought that was a good idea?

Last I checked, houses did not travel and they remain off the road most of the time.

Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au7gmWjhfR8

donvito99 wrote: »

Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909

If sitting in your living room was as dangerous as some cyclists claim their cycle trips are, then that might not be a bad idea.

magicbastarder

Help help the irony is killing me

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1292788147026354177