The state of comments online about road traffic deaths and cycling

magicbastarder

i've always been sceptical of the gardai's ability to properly investigate RTCs since that case where a driver struck a pedestrian on an N road; the driver told the gardai he was doing about 90km/h (IIRC), and the gardai concluded that he was actually doing - i think - 45-50km/h.

the fact that they trusted their own forensics (which reached a ludicrous conclusion) over the word of the driver himself was just *weird*. i'll see if i can dig out the details.

Seth Brundle

I think for a long time there was a no-blame attitude to fatalities where the driver was killed because they didn't want to cause offence to the deceased's family.

SeanW

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm not familiar with that case but one could argue that if a driver drives recklessly in full knowledge that they share the road with vulnerable road users, then surely they are carrying out their actions knowing a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.
One could also use the example of shooting randomly into a street. Chances are that you won't hit someone but there is still a risk of it happening.
On that basis and given the mantra over the years about "Speed Kills" and so on, a driver cannot say that they didn't set out to kill someone if they manage to do so. very few road traffic incidents are accidental. Most are the end result of a bad decision, usually by the driver.
So to murder someone requires intent. Surely driving dangerously, knowing there is a remote possibility of killing someone, also shows intent?

"Intent" to do what? In most jurisdictions, murder comes in two degrees. First degree murder is premeditated, i.e. planned in advance. Second degree need not have been planned (e.g. it can be a spur-of-the-moment thing), but the actual killing itself specifically must still have been deliberate. AFAIK Any other case of unlawful killing is specifically covered by manslaughter in most jurisdictions.

In the case of an accusation of vehicular murder, a second degree murder would still require the driver to have been aware of the pedestrian and actively decided to kill them. So far as I am aware, this has not been established in this case.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

No, 70% of pedestrian fatalities were caused by the pedestrians own actions. Joint culpability (error by both driver and pedestrian) was only established in 2% of cases. The methodology and sources for the data were clear. But just like the international context, the data and evidence contradicts your narrative. :rolleyes: I'm sorry you don't like facts, evidence,

The report doesn't say that deaths were caused by pedestrian's actions. The methodology is extremely unclear, as there is no definition of 'culpability' - the key factor in the report.

But sure jump on board and keep blaming pedestrians and cyclists. Better hope that no-one points out that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. See if you can find a way to blame pedestrians for those?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The report doesn't say that deaths were caused by pedestrian's actions. The methodology is extremely unclear, as there is no definition of 'culpability' - the key factor in the report.

But sure jump on board and keep blaming pedestrians and cyclists. Better hope that no-one points out that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. See if you can find a way to blame pedestrians for those?

Because it's motorists killing motorist, and dual carriageways and motorways are safer, should we not rip up the cycle lanes and put in more dual carriageways and motorways to save the majority of lives?

Or at the very least, have a rethink about making village centers CoVid friendly?

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/outdoor-drinking-blackrock-garda-crackdown-19271551.amp

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because it's motorists killing motorist, and dual carriageways and motorways are safer, should we not rip up the cycle lanes and put in more dual carriageways and motorways to save the majority of lives?

Or at the very least, have a rethink about making village centers CoVid friendly?

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/outdoor-drinking-blackrock-garda-crackdown-19271551.amp

And following your same logic, we should stop vaccinations for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis), Hib (Haemophilus influenzae, Polio (Inactivated poliomyelitis) and Hepatitis B because levels of infection are very low, right? You really should think things through.

We should definitely be rethinking the village centres scheme though, so many missed opportunities to make more of our villages safer.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And following your same logic, we should stop vaccinations for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis), Hib (Haemophilus influenzae, Polio (Inactivated poliomyelitis) and Hepatitis B because levels of infection are very low, right? You really should think things through.

We should definitely be rethinking the village centres scheme though, so many missed opportunities to make more of our villages safer.

No because your analolgy would be akin to ripping up all the dual carriageways and motorways and replacing them with single carriageways, you really DON'T think things through at all.

SeanW

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because it's motorists killing motorist, and dual carriageways and motorways are safer, should we not rip up the cycle lanes and put in more dual carriageways and motorways to save the majority of

The "rule" seems to be that you never build dual carriageways or motorways, force village main streets to double up as key national routes, and then act surprised when there are negative consequences associated with it. As the OP did. Oh and then, make sure you blame Irish drivers/people/"planning" or whatever specifically, for things that are general rules across the world. E.g. that routes trying to act as both streets and roads simultaneously (like Main St. Charleville a.k.a the Limerick-Cork road) will fail to function effectively as either and have a bad safety record.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The report doesn't say that deaths were caused by pedestrian's actions. The methodology is extremely unclear, as there is no definition of 'culpability' - the key factor in the report.

But sure jump on board and keep blaming pedestrians and cyclists. Better hope that no-one points out that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. See if you can find a way to blame pedestrians for those?

It was more of a slideshow detailing RSA research, and they addressed all of those issues. The first slides in Section 2 show where they got their data and the first slide in Section 3 outlines culpability. I suspect that these BS objections have more to do with the fact that this data and evidence (like others) contracts your narrative that "Irish drivers = horrible monsters killing everybody that need to be drowned in regulation". I'm sorry that the evidence does not support - indeed expressly contradicts - your prejudice and dogma :rolleyes: but your not liking the facts and evidence does not make them any less true.

As to blaming pedestrians for fatal collisions involving multiple vehicles, nice strawman. I don't blame them for it because I have no reason to do so nor evidence to back it up. But I do have evidence for the claims that I have actually made:

• That unless the poster who used the word "murder" has evidence not in the public domain, i.e. an awareness of the pedestrian and an explicit decision by the driver to kill them, then the claim of "murder" is unwarranted. Yet for some reason :rolleyes: neither that poster nor those who thanked their inane post, have provided any evidence of murder vs. manslaughter.
• That the OPs claims about Journal comments are bizarre. The comments in the hit-and-run arrest article (RIP, scum who hit and run should have 5/10 year minimum prison sentences, good work by the Gardai) are entirely appropriate.
• That the inherent risks associated with road/motor usage are well managed in this country.
• That in general (obviously this case being a likely exception) a pedestrian is going to be perfectly fine if they have an ounce of cop-on.

Atlantic Dawn

Garda Traffic on Twitter should photograph bikes they see with no lights and apply a fine to, I'd say compliance is not even 30%.

Thelonious Monk

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Garda Traffic on Twitter should photograph bikes they see with no lights and apply a fine to, I'd say compliance is not even 30%.

They dont even fine cars for breaking lights and speeding and illegally parking and its endemic everywhere. Bicycles with no lights is at worst only going to be a problem for the person on the bike. There are much higher priorities if its safety on the roads that is your concern.
Also how would they identify people on bikes??

magicbastarder

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Also how would they identify people on bikes??

by asking them? if they've stopped them to fine them - as is implicit in the comment you're replying to.

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

by asking them? if they've stopped them to fine them - as is implicit in the comment you're replying to.

well he's saying they should photograph them, not stop them. Anyway I doubt he really cares about cyclist safety.

breezy1985

Ah lads why did ye bite. It's clear he just another motorist who thinks he's the first genius to think up coming ove rtho the cycling forum with this crap

magicbastarder

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

well he's saying they should photograph them, not stop them.

he's saying they should photograph the ones they've fined, which implies they've been stopped.
anyway, there are loads of people cycling bikes without lights. i've no sympathy for them if they're stopped and fined.

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

he's saying they should photograph the ones they've fined, which implies they've been stopped.
anyway, there are loads of people cycling bikes without lights. i've no sympathy for them if they're stopped and fined.

Photograph the cyclists? Wtf? Why would they do that? Like mug shots?

magicbastarder

i wasn't the one suggesting it happen, but i suspect it's a comment that since garda twitter put photos of cars they stop and fine, why not take photos of bikes after stopping them. would be a little dull though.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wasn't the one suggesting it happen, but i suspect it's a comment that since garda twitter put photos of cars they stop and fine, why not take photos of bikes after stopping them. would be a little dull though.

Surely the bikes would be completely invisible without lights? How can you photograph something invisible?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

It was more of a slideshow detailing RSA research, and they addressed all of those issues. The first slides in Section 2 show where they got their data and the first slide in Section 3 outlines culpability. I suspect that these BS objections have more to do with the fact that this data and evidence (like others) contracts your narrative that "Irish drivers = horrible monsters killing everybody that need to be drowned in regulation". I'm sorry that the evidence does not support - indeed expressly contradicts - your prejudice and dogma :rolleyes: but your not liking the facts and evidence does not make them any less true.

As to blaming pedestrians for fatal collisions involving multiple vehicles, nice strawman. I don't blame them for it because I have no reason to do so nor evidence to back it up. But I do have evidence for the claims that I have actually made:

• That unless the poster who used the word "murder" has evidence not in the public domain, i.e. an awareness of the pedestrian and an explicit decision by the driver to kill them, then the claim of "murder" is unwarranted. Yet for some reason :rolleyes: neither that poster nor those who thanked their inane post, have provided any evidence of murder vs. manslaughter.
• That the OPs claims about Journal comments are bizarre. The comments in the hit-and-run arrest article (RIP, scum who hit and run should have 5/10 year minimum prison sentences, good work by the Gardai) are entirely appropriate.
• That the inherent risks associated with road/motor usage are well managed in this country.
• That in general (obviously this case being a likely exception) a pedestrian is going to be perfectly fine if they have an ounce of cop-on.

That's not how professional research works. First comes the research paper, with sources, definitions, footnotes, ideally in a peer reviewed journal, then AFTER that comes the presentations and slideshows - when you have a solid base for those presentations.

You can keep spinning as much as you like, but there is no definition in that presentation for 'culpable'. The 'outline' you mention talks about culpability, but doesn't define it.

Culpability in this context does not refer to judicial or criminal culpability.
• We examine culpability because we need to identify the actions that played a role in the lead
up to a collision. We can then target those actions in interventions.
• Anyone can make an error while using the roads. For VRUs in particular, such as pedestrians,
these can have tragic consequences.
• The culpability of the parties involved in pedestrian fatalities was based on the body of work
completed using the Garda Investigation Files (2008-2012).
• In some instances, no culpability may be determined (e.g. hit and run), and in others, multiple
road users can be partially culpable.

It certainly doesn't say what you said it says.

You can suspect anything you look, but that facts are clear. This presentation doesn't define culpability. It says nothing about the majority of road deaths.

So jumping in with your 'nothing to see here' approach while Irish drivers continue to kill 2 or 3 people each week does not have a sound foundation.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because your analolgy would be akin to ripping up all the dual carriageways and motorways and replacing them with single carriageways, you really DON'T think things through at all.

I'd confess to being a bit confused by the stretched analogies now. The idea that we should reward dangerous drivers with more motorways, regardless of expense, environmental damage, public health damage doesn't sound like great public policy to me.

07Lapierre

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I'd say compliance is not even 30%.

Id say light usage by cyclists is more like 60-70%. I rarely see commuter cyclists without lights,helmets and even the dreaded hi-viz vest! Last week I passed a guy wearing a hi-viz helmet cover! It looked like a shower hat!

Thelonious Monk

The road safety enthusiasts who worry about cyclists going through red lights or not wearing high vis should really focus on the likes of the below, which actually kills and mains people. Imagine all the lives that could be saved if they were just as concerned about motorists' behaviour.

https://twitter.com/BrianShannon123/status/1327579592631136256

AndrewJRenko

07Lapierre wrote: »

Id say light usage by cyclists is more like 60-70%. I rarely see commuter cyclists without lights,helmets and even the dreaded hi-viz vest! Last week I passed a guy wearing a hi-viz helmet cover! It looked like a shower hat!

No idea about the numbers, but it is certainly much improved over 5-10 years ago, probably because of the availability of decent quality, easily charged lights in Lidl and Aldi.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

....Facebook page is doing his best to stir it up.

Yeah, you already know it's against the rules to be naming people.

-- moderator

SeanW

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The road safety enthusiasts who worry about cyclists going through red lights or not wearing high vis should really focus on the likes of the below, which actually kills and mains people. Imagine all the lives that could be saved if they were just as concerned about motorists' behaviour.

https://twitter.com/BrianShannon123/status/1327579592631136256

Please point out where anyone defended drivers driving like maniacs, racing through red lights and crashing into things. Like your claim of murder in an earlier post, I suspect it will be difficult.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd confess to being a bit confused by the stretched analogies now. The idea that we should reward dangerous drivers with more motorways, regardless of expense, environmental damage, public health damage doesn't sound like great public policy to me.

Well, if you care about human life, motorway construction is one of the most effective ways of saving lives that is available to us. ANY group of drivers, whether they be good drivers like the Irish, or bad drivers like those who fare worse in world rankings, will encounter fewer accidents on road types that are suited to the task at hand. For example, long distance traffic can most safely be accommodated on controlled-access highways (or motorways in Ireland). Irish road deaths have fallen dramatically in recent history and one of the big changes over the last few decades that has caused this, has been the construction of a large scale motorway system. This has had the effect of segregating long distance movements from town streets, crossing traffic, eliminated the risk of head-on collisions etc. Of course, there are still places (like Charleville, Co. Cork) where lots of long distance traffic is forced through town streets, and as the OP showed, even in a country like Ireland where drivers are good, that can have tragic consequences.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not how professional research works. First comes the research paper, with sources, definitions, footnotes, ideally in a peer reviewed journal, then AFTER that comes the presentations and slideshows - when you have a solid base for those presentations.

Meh, you have a long history of dismissing data and evidence that refutes your narrative. Accusing the RSA of covering for bad drivers or insinuating that they are doing so (by calling their 70% figure into question) would be consistent with your long standing practice in that regard.

So jumping in with your 'nothing to see here' approach while Irish drivers continue to kill 2 or 3 people each week does not have a sound foundation.

Actually, it was just an aside. I was asking the poster what was their evidence of murder in a collision case they posted. I am of course, still waiting for evidence that the driver in that case set out to kill the pedestrian.

Thelonious Monk

SeanW wrote: »

Please point out where anyone defended drivers driving like maniacs, racing through red lights and crashing into things. Like your claim of murder in an earlier post, I suspect it will be difficult.

No one is defending that, the point of this thread was to discuss why there is so much outrage on radio shows, message boards, journal comments etc about bikes breaking red lights or being on footpaths, and being the scourge of the streets, whereas people die in horrific circumstances in motor accidents nearly every day, and it doesn't seem to annoy the public at all, or even warrant any discussion.

I mean can you imagine a hit and run by a cyclist, if a cyclist hit an old lady cycled off and left her to die. I think it would be national news and heated debates about what can be done to change cyclist behaviour and there would be discussions on the radio and news about it.
It happens regularly enough with cars and it barely gets in the news these days and no one cares. It's kind of crazy.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Meh, you have a long history of dismissing data and evidence that refutes your narrative. Accusing the RSA of covering for bad drivers or insinuating that they are doing so (by calling their 70% figure into question) would be consistent with your long standing practice in that regard.

So what is the definition of 'culpable' in this research? If a pedestrian wasn't wearing hi-vis in a daylight incident, are they considered culpable?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what is the definition of 'culpable' in this research? If a pedestrian wasn't wearing hi-vis in a daylight incident, are they considered culpable?

Considering that the explicitly refer to hi-vis as a night time issue, I'm guessing no. But they did identify some risk factors. Pedestrians lying down on the road ... apparently that's a thing that happens. Pedestrians standing in the road. Failure to observe was another common theme, as was alcohol consumption. In general, night time and behaviour associated with the night was found to be a considerable factor.

Now, you can split hairs all you want about whether the figure is as high as 70%, but it's clear that the narrative of "motorists killing people" is at best a gross oversimplification. And that's being generous.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No one is defending that, the point of this thread was to discuss why there is so much outrage on radio shows, message boards, journal comments etc about bikes breaking red lights or being on footpaths, and being the scourge of the streets, whereas people die in horrific circumstances in motor accidents nearly every day, and it doesn't seem to annoy the public at all, or even warrant any discussion.

I'm not sure what you expect considering that:

1. Road fatalities are generally reported on by our national media.
2. Road traffic accidents occur all over the world.
3. Fatalities in Ireland are relatively rare.

I mean can you imagine a hit and run by a cyclist, if a cyclist hit an old lady cycled off and left her to die. I think it would be national news and heated debates about what can be done to change cyclist behaviour and there would be discussions on the radio and news about it.
It happens regularly enough with cars and it barely gets in the news these days and no one cares. It's kind of crazy.

I can't speak for Irish society as a whole but my impressions of cyclists (both as a pedestrian and a motorist) are almost universally negative. As a pedestrian, I regularly get bulldozed out of the way of some two-wheeled lawbreaker. As a motorist, I find it tiresome to be constantly demonised out of all proportion to reality by that same cohort.

Spook_ie

https://dublingazette.com/news/dundrum-cycle-34999/

Just out of interest, especially to those whose main argument is that being hit by a bicycle on the footpath doesn't cause any harm. How would falling after being hit by a bicycle be any different From falling after a trip?

I cant see any reason why the injuries wouldn't be very similar.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://dublingazette.com/news/dundrum-cycle-34999/

Just out of interest, especially to those whose main argument is that being hit by a bicycle on the footpath doesn't cause any harm.

Has anyone actually said this? Falling off a bike hurts. Falling off a bike while travelling at speed can cause injury...even serious injury. The article you link to highlights how elderly people in particular are prone to serious injury in the event of a fall or impact of any kind.

Cycling on the pavement is illegal.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Has anyone actually said this? Falling off a bike hurts. Falling off a bike while travelling at speed can cause injury...even serious injury. The article you link to highlights how elderly people in particular are prone to serious injury in the event of a fall or impact of any kind.

Cycling on the pavement is illegal.

I seem to recall someone saying that being hit by cyclists on the footpath doesn't hurt and so there can't be a problem with them being on the footpath, or something like that.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

I seem to recall someone saying that being hit by cyclists on the footpath doesn't hurt and so there can't be a problem with them being on the footpath, or something like that.

I seriously doubt that! Post a link to the comment.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

I seriously doubt that! Post a link to the comment.

Well hidden among the posts are things like this

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114450902&postcount=3516

Cycle lanes would be great but anyone who has a problem with kids cycling to school on footpaths just has a chip on their shoulder. For all the talk of kinetic energy and weight, bicycles are not harming anyone, except for the one or two posters here which cyclists are clearly targeting.

So as the question I posed wasn't answered I'll ask it again

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://dublingazette.com/news/dundrum-cycle-34999/

Just out of interest, especially to those whose main argument is that being hit by a bicycle on the footpath doesn't cause any harm. How would falling after being hit by a bicycle be any different From falling after a trip?

I cant see any reason why the injuries wouldn't be very similar.

Thelonious Monk

You're just making sh*t up about something that hasn't even happened. When I cycle on the pavement I go very slow, and it's usually because there's no room on the road for me. I'm afraid cyclists on pavements are not a threat and are not harming anyone, otherwise there'd be stories in the papers. Go and get some rest or something.

Spook_ie

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You're just making sh*t up about something that hasn't even happened. When I cycle on the pavement I go very slow, and it's usually because there's no room on the road for me. I'm afraid cyclists on pavements are not a threat and are not harming anyone, otherwise there'd be stories in the papers. Go and get some rest or something.

What hasn't happened, that the women didn't trip and seriously injure herself?

The fact that you counter with I'm afraid cyclists on pavements are not a threat and are not harming anyone, shows that you're still delusional about the possibility of pedestrians getting hurt

For the record, it's an illustration that the mass & speed of a collision isn't necessarily related to the outcome, something people who argue that cycling on footpaths isn't detrimental to pedestrian safety can't seem to grasp when talking about the dangers of cyclists on footpaths.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Considering that the explicitly refer to hi-vis as a night time issue, I'm guessing no. But they did identify some risk factors. Pedestrians lying down on the road ... apparently that's a thing that happens. Pedestrians standing in the road. Failure to observe was another common theme, as was alcohol consumption. In general, night time and behaviour associated with the night was found to be a considerable factor.

Now, you can split hairs all you want about whether the figure is as high as 70%, but it's clear that the narrative of "motorists killing people" is at best a gross oversimplification. And that's being generous.

It's kinda important when it comes to quantitative statistical analysis that we're not left guessing either way. That's why quality research would be based on a clear definition, so you wouldn't have to guess anything and I wouldn't have to guess anything.

But again, you continue to overplay the significance of this research. Even it if WERE 100% valid, it doesn't cover the majority of road deaths, which are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. It's a niche.

SeanW wrote: »

I can't speak for Irish society as a whole but my impressions of cyclists (both as a pedestrian and a motorist) are almost universally negative. As a pedestrian, I regularly get bulldozed out of the way of some two-wheeled lawbreaker. As a motorist, I find it tiresome to be constantly demonised out of all proportion to reality by that same cohort.

Pot - please meet Mr Black Kettle.

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://dublingazette.com/news/dundrum-cycle-34999/

Just imagine if Dublin Live did an article like this for every minor injury relating to motor vehicles? Their website would be flooded in a week.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just imagine if Dublin Live did an article like this for every minor injury relating to motor vehicles? Their website would be flooded in a week.

That's kind of the point, they don't report on every incident involving pedestrians who might get bruised shins or other less serious injuries from collisions with cyclists riding on footpaths, something that people here seem to think that just because it isn't hitting the news it isn't happening.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's kind of the point, they don't report on every incident involving pedestrians who might get bruised shins or other less serious injuries from collisions with cyclists riding on footpaths, something that people here seem to think that just because it isn't hitting the news it isn't happening.

How often do they report on pedestrians getting bruised shins off car bumpers or other quite serious injuries from collisions with motorists, including the ones who drive and park on footpaths routinely, something people here seem to thing that just because it isn't hitting the news isn't happening?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How often do they report on pedestrians getting bruised shins off car bumpers or other quite serious injuries from collisions with motorists, including the ones who drive and park on footpaths routinely, something people here seem to thing that just because it isn't hitting the news isn't happening?

They don't which again doesn't mean that it isn't happening, especially that cyclists are injuring pedestrians when they collide with them on footpaths.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

They don't which again doesn't mean that it isn't happening, especially that cyclists are injuring pedestrians when they collide with them on footpaths.

So to summarise, incidents of cyclists injuring pedestrians are:

- very rarely reported in the press
- never come up in Garda appeals for information
- never come from health insurance companies as a particular cause
- never come up as significant in various rounds of medical research looking at injuries treated by doctors

Meanwhile, drivers are killing 2 or 3 people each week (including 30-40 pedestrians each year), and seriously injuring about 10 people each week.

I can see why 'deflection' would be to the fore of your mind.

Thelonious Monk

Bruised shins! Extra extra read all about it!
People also walk into one another and knock each other over, joggers knock people over, it isn't reported or given much thought because it isn't dangerous and isn't worthy of mentioning.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So to summarise, incidents of cyclists injuring pedestrians are:

- very rarely reported in the press
- never come up in Garda appeals for information
- never come from health insurance companies as a particular cause
- never come up as significant in various rounds of medical research looking at injuries treated by doctors

Meanwhile, drivers are killing 2 or 3 people each week (including 30-40 pedestrians each year), and seriously injuring about 10 people each week.

I can see why 'deflection' would be to the fore of your mind.

Talk about deflection, are you among those trying to say that if it isn't in the news it isn't happening?

Stark

We've had people feel the need to come on here and start threads because a cyclist came within a metre of them and stopped. Or passed within a couple of metres without using a bell. Yes, I'm very certain that if we're not hearing about it then it isn't happening. It's like air traffic control, every "near miss" is news.

Thelonious Monk

Yes it's always the same, "The amount of times I've nearly been hit by cyclists on the footpath!".

breezy1985

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes it's always the same, "The amount of times I've nearly been hit by cyclists on the footpath!".

I've had people scream this at me as I pass them while they are walking down a cycle lane

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Talk about deflection, are you among those trying to say that if it isn't in the news it isn't happening?

What I'm saying is what I've actually said - that as a public health or public safety issue, it is a negligible issue. More people are killed by wasps than by cyclists.

The much vaunted 'granny got nearly murdered by a cyclist on the footpath' doesn't appear in any medical research or Garda report or other credible source.

Do some people get hit and actually injured by cyclists on footpath? Yes, I'm sure they do.

Is this a public health or public safety issue that deserves any significant attention, while we have drivers killing 2 or 3 people each week on our roads?

No. No, it's not.

breezy1985

If the granny tripped over the curb of a normal path would we be talking about it on the newspapers?

No is the answer

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well hidden among the posts are things like this

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114450902&postcount=3516



So as the question I posed wasn't answered I'll ask it again

Ok so falling off a bike hurts. Tripping over a pavement and falling hurts. Not sure what the point is? Should all pavements wear hi-viz? If walking and cycling is so deadly, should people who drive cars have to wear helmets?

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Ok so falling off a bike hurts. Tripping over a pavement and falling hurts. Not sure what the point is? Should all pavements wear hi-viz? If walking and cycling is so deadly, should people who drive cars have to wear helmets?

So does being ridden into by someone on a bicycle hurt, according to some then
a No it doesn't
and
b If it does we're cyclists and it doesn't happen often enough for us to care

Phil.x

https://mol.im/a/8973709

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

So does being ridden into by someone on a bicycle hurt, according to some then
a No it doesn't
and
b If it does we're cyclists and it doesn't happen often enough for us to care

Yep that’s right. Thousands of people are being injured and killed every week! It’s such a huge problem, the left wing media cover it up by blaming all these injuries on motorists and Covid-19! Ask Trump he’ll tell you the truth.