Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

cletus

magicbastarder wrote: »

cycling to work more than halved in 30 years anyway - census figures showed 6.8% cycling to work in 1986, dropped to a low of 2% in 2006, back up to 3% in 2016. i suspect it's climbed a bit since.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp6ci/p6cii/p6mtw/

So, in 1991 5.5% cycled to work, fatalities at 40

In 2006, 2% cycled to work, a reduction of 63% from the '91 figure, fatalities at 9, a reduction of 77.5%

In 2016, 3% cycled to work, a reduction of 45% from the '91 figures, fatalities at 10, a reduction of 75%

The two figures have not dropped at the same rate.

A bigger caveat here, though, is that the percentage figures above only capture people commuting by bike. I would not be captured in this data, despite the fact that I cycle regularly

magicbastarder

yeah, i doubt they ever tried to capture leisure cycling in the census.

cletus

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i doubt they ever tried to capture leisure cycling in the census.

No, of course not. It just seems that no set of statistics or markers suggest the the roads have become more dangerous in the last 30 years

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Social media, and here on this forum is a prime example, does help in projecting an image of cycling being a dangerous activity.

possibly unintentionally, yes. people are often more likely to talk about a near miss on their commute than they are to talk about an uneventful commute. such is the nature of social media.

and we're back to the topic of perceived danger vs. actual danger. traffic levels have increased dramatically since i was cycling to school, and perhaps the sensation of being hemmed in by slow moving cars feels riskier to people than being on a less congested road with faster moving cars.

tomasrojo

Not only do fewer people overall compared with 30 y ago, the biggest drops are in the very young and very old, which rather flatters our stats compared with the Netherlands, who still come out better. However, you can overstate how dangerous cycling is. It's not nearly as dangerous as many people think.

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

possibly unintentionally, yes. people are often more likely to talk about a near miss on their commute than they are to talk about an uneventful commute. such is the nature of social media.

I'd say that there's also the fact that these days many people can record their journey and show the dangerous manoeuvre.

07Lapierre

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Have you any data to back that up in terms of roads being less safe for cyclists?

Nope. I've only 40 odd years of cycling and driving experience. The RSA certainly think cycling is lethal! He'll even kids walking on the pavement in daylight are encouraged to wear hi-vis!

The point I'm trying to make is that they are measuring road safety by comparing the no. of fatalities.

Is that an accurate way to measure how safe roads are? It's my opinion that I experience more close passes now (and they are vehicles that are bigger,heavier and travelling faster) than close passes from years past.

beauf

cletus wrote: »

T....
With respect to the study on road rage above, that was carried out in America. I'm sure I could use the data below to suggest that Ireland is safer to cycle in than ....

I was answering your suggestion that...

cletus wrote: »

I'm not sure if you could get a quantitative analysis of that.
...

..I did say it was indicative of a general trend. First thing I found on my phone.

I'm not sure why we would exclude the US experience, since we seem to have no problem looking on a range of stats, rules and laws across the world, indeed the incident that started this thread was in the UK. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd find stats in other countries.

Some here in Ireland (2011)
https://www.thejournal.ie/aa-irelands-road-rage-survey-the-figures-in-full-90593-Feb2011/

I was just curious about it thats all.

beauf

cletus wrote: »

No, of course not. It just seems that no set of statistics or markers suggest the the roads have become more dangerous in the last 30 years

People might be driving more dangerously, but technology improvements might have migrated the deaths caused by that. A 1990 car compared to 2020 in terms of safety there is a massive difference.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

possibly unintentionally, yes. people are often more likely to talk about a near miss on their commute than they are to talk about an uneventful commute. such is the nature of social media.

and we're back to the topic of perceived danger vs. actual danger. traffic levels have increased dramatically since i was cycling to school, and perhaps the sensation of being hemmed in by slow moving cars feels riskier to people than being on a less congested road with faster moving cars.

There's a lot of counter intuitive going on with cycling. I find it safer to cycle in heavy city center traffic. As soon as I hit the suburbs, it feels a lot more more unsafe, because cars are all basically speeding, and overtaking inappropriately. Its a lot trickier to cycle defensively in the suburbs than in the city center. I know that from long experience.

Its a lot harder to drive now than it was 30 yrs ago, cars are faster margins are slimmer, brakes are better so people drive closer and closer at speed than they used to. While appropriate speed on a motorway isn't dangerous in itself. In appropriate speed in suburbs and residential areas certainly is.

People without experience think cycling a lot more dangerous that it is. But I do think the skill level required to make it not dangerous is a lot higher than it was.
Really that the core issue here. Barrier to entry.
That's really what victim blaming and anti cycling media bias is doing. Its raising that barrier.

beauf

I'm aware that stats being captured and published are incomplete, often tweaked to tell a story and you have to have an open mind when interpreting them.

What you believe to be true today may be proved wrong tomorrow when some new information comes to light. Pulse etc.

Large bottle small glass

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nope. I've only 40 odd years of cycling and driving experience. The RSA certainly think cycling is lethal! He'll even kids walking on the pavement in daylight are encouraged to wear hi-vis!

The point I'm trying to make is that they are measuring road safety by comparing the no. of fatalities.

Is that an accurate way to measure how safe roads are? It's my opinion that I experience more close passes now (and they are vehicles that are bigger,heavier and travelling faster) than close passes from years past.

So no data only opinion in relation to risk of one person as they have aged 40 years? (people typically become more risk averse as they age).

https://irishcycle.com/counts/

The data above suggest a very significant increase (pre Covid) in cycling numbers in the Dublin area, what I previously posted showed a huge drop in cyclist's death over a 30 year period (a high of 48 to multiple years below 10).

If your contention is correct with increasing cyclists numbers on our even more dangerous roads why aren't there more deaths?

At the time of 40 plus death a year the following was the case
*drink driving was rampant and socially acceptable
*driving fast and boasting about it was acceptable
*Killing someone on our roads rarely if ever resulted in a custodial sentence.
*Death and very serious injury as a result of RTC, construction accidents, workplace was socially acceptable ( I met a man once who in the 1970/80 was losing a man a year on his sites)((Agriculture is still an outlier here)
*Cars with dangerously defective suspensions, brakes, steering weren't unusual.
*accidental deaths is more acceptable in poorer developing societies in general

You can have any opinion you like but when it flies in the face of the available data and the very significant societal changes its an opinion with very little backing and which hasn't controlled for your sample size of one getting older.

The social media posting around cycling safety, including here, leads to endless shouting matches which accomplish nothing only to project an image that cycling is a dangerous activity. Which is counter productive as more people on bikes will most likely actually lead to safer roads.

cletus

beauf wrote: »

People might be driving more dangerously, but technology improvements might have migrated the deaths caused by that. A 1990 car compared to 2020 in terms of safety there is a massive difference.

Yes, but it's not just driver deaths that have come down significantly in the last 30 years. In 1990 the fatality rate for cyclists was 46. Last year it was 8.

When comparisons like this are done for statistics such as birth rates over the last 30 years, or average life span, or whatever statistical analysis, we don't say, they might be the numbers, but it doesn't feel like that.

There is no metric I've seen that indicates that roads are more dangerous now than 30 years ago. This is not a stance I'm married to, and if anybody can post evidence that shows roads have become more dangerous, I'm more than happy to alter that stance

cletus

beauf wrote: »

I was answering your suggestion that...



..I did say it was indicative of a general trend. First thing I found on my phone.

I'm not sure why we would exclude the US experience, since we seem to have no problem looking on a range of stats, rules and laws across the world, indeed the incident that started this thread was in the UK. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd find stats in other countries.

Some here in Ireland (2011)
https://www.thejournal.ie/aa-irelands-road-rage-survey-the-figures-in-full-90593-Feb2011/

I was just curious about it thats all.

The reason I pointed out that it was an American study was because we don't cycle on American roads. If it were a comparison of the two countries, that's different.

I posted tables above of cyclist fatalities in the EU. The Belgian fatality rate is much higher than the Irish one. The Belgian rate on its own is not indicative of the Irish rate.

Not to dismiss the report you posted above, but it is qualitative, and I did say I didn't think road rage could be measured quantitatively

beauf

cletus wrote: »

Yes, but it's not just driver deaths that have come down significantly in the last 30 years. In 1990 the fatality rate for cyclists was 46. Last year it was 8.

When comparisons like this are done for statistics such as birth rates over the last 30 years, or average life span, or whatever statistical analysis, we don't say, they might be the numbers, but it doesn't feel like that.

There is no metric I've seen that indicates that roads are more dangerous now than 30 years ago. This is not a stance I'm married to, and if anybody can post evidence that shows roads have become more dangerous, I'm more than happy to alter that stance

Improvements in car safety have an effect on cyclists. Because it's cars causing a lot of the fatalities. There's been a lot of change in car design to improve outcomes for pedestrians they hit and by extension cyclists.

cletus

beauf wrote: »

Improvements in car safety have an effect on cyclists. Because it's cars causing a lot of the fatalities. There's been a lot of change in car design to improve outcomes for pedestrians they hit and by extension cyclists.

All of which has led to more, rather than less, safe roads, which is the point I have been making

MojoMaker

Counter balanced by riskier driving behaviour, no? No studies done of course, but like Alan earlier, it's my impression that cycling everywhere has become more stressful, even from 2010 to now. I have had more close passes and heart in mouth moments in the last 4 years than ever in my commuting life. This year has been a blessed relief with the reduction in traffic volumes thank God.

Love to see a study on cycling injuries/incidents rather than just fatalities, which doesn't really tell the story of cycling in Ireland, and definitely not in Irish cities.

beauf

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

...
The social media posting around cycling safety, including here, leads to endless shouting matches which accomplish nothing only to project an image that cycling is a dangerous activity. Which is counter productive as more people on bikes will most likely actually lead to safer roads...

It's interesting, that in general we weren't talking (in this thread) about it being dangerous to cycle or dangerous roads. But someone has turned it into that discussion by constantly referring to it.

Deliberate or not it shifts the focus away from the driver responsibility back to the cyclist in looking for solutions. Back to the idea that Ireland is somehow unique to cycle in than the rest of the world. So experience elsewhere is irrelevant to Ireland.

There's a real anti cycling mindset in Irish society and in the mechanisms of the state. Local authorities, policing, govt policies etc. We want to seen to pro cycling greenways etc. But our lack of action in infrastructure in cities and enforcement tells a very different story.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/genuinely-fearing-for-my-life-a-dutch-man-s-view-of-cycling-in-dublin-1.3946612

Large bottle small glass

beauf wrote: »

Improvements in car safety have an effect on cyclists. Because it's cars causing a lot of the fatalities. There's been a lot of change in car design to improve outcomes for pedestrians they hit and by extension cyclists.

The shape of the leading edge of bonnet is a key consideration on NCAP standards on pedestrian safety; they are specific to pedestrians.

An optimal design for pedestrians isn't necessarily a good design for cyclists. Unless you have information on that?

AEB cyclist( a detection system) is the only NCAP standard that I'm aware of for cyclist and was introduced in 2018

beauf

cletus wrote: »

All of which has led to more, rather than less, safe roads, which is the point I have been making

It means better outcomes primarily with fatalities.

But it's a very crude metric. It doesn't reflect life changing injuries for example. We seem to missing any detail on accidents and a large % go unreported. We see so many videos, especially where cyclists have been stuck deliberately, where there's has been no follow up action from the authorities.

I wonder how the PF incident that started this thread was followed up terms of enforcement and reported in stats.

beauf

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The shape of the leading edge of bonnet is a key consideration on NCAP standards on pedestrian safety; they are specific to pedestrians.

An optimal design for pedestrians isn't necessarily a good design for cyclists. Unless you have information on that?

AEB cyclist( a detection system) is the only NCAP standard that I'm aware of for cyclist and was introduced in 2018

I'd suggest it's very likely to be similar...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314069169_The_Influence_of_Vehicle_Design_on_Pedestrian_and_Cyclist_Injuries

There are probably others.

cletus

beauf wrote: »

It means better outcomes primarily with fatalities.

But it's a very crude metric. It doesn't reflect life changing injuries for example. We seem to missing any detail on accidents and a large % go unreported. We see so many videos, especially where cyclists have been stuck deliberately, where there's has been no follow up action from the authorities.

I wonder how the PF incident that started this thread was followed up terms of enforcement and reported in stats.

I would agree 100% with this. Those metrics would create a greater understanding of road safety, and the government should be tracking them.

Unfortunately, the only criterion we have that's useful for comparison is fatalities

beauf

cletus wrote: »

...Unfortunately, the only criterion we have that's useful for comparison is fatalities

It's too small a data set.

cletus

beauf wrote: »

It's too small a data set.

I wouldn't agree with this. If we were looking at fatalities of club cyclists while out on group spins, or commuting cyclists at rush hour, then the data set would be too small. The fatalities recorded are from all cyclists in the country for any given year

The results are not the same as the data set

Eamonnator

cletus wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this. If we were looking at fatalities of club cyclists while out on group spins, or commuting cyclists at rush hour, then the data set would be too small. The fatalities recorded are from all cyclists in the country for any given year

The results are not the same as the data set

Were many of these Penny Farthings?

cletus

Eamonnator wrote: »

Were many of these Penny Farthings?

Now that data set might be too small

07Lapierre

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

So no data only opinion in relation to risk of one person as they have aged 40 years?

Actually i'm 52, but i'm told i look a lot younger!

If you review what i said..you'll see i'm not disputing the figures presented. Maybe the roads are safer? As you say, less people are dying on our roads. But i am simply expressing an opinion that they certainly don't feel safer when you are on a bike and have a 2 tonne SUV passing your right elbow at 100kph with only a few mm's clearance.

And to be honest, I do think my opinion is shared by an awful lot of cyclists.

beauf

But more important. Since they are the big wheel in cycling circles.

cletus

07Lapierre wrote: »

Actually i'm 52, but i'm told i look a lot younger!

If you review what i said..you'll see i'm not disputing the figures presented. Maybe the roads are safer? As you say, less people are dying on our roads. But i am simply expressing an opinion that they certainly don't feel safer when you are on a bike and have a 2 tonne SUV passing your right elbow at 100kph with only a few mm's clearance.

And to be honest, I do think my opinion is shared by an awful lot of cyclists.

You're opinion is most definitely shared by many other cyclists, but recency bias is a real thing. Also, it has been shown that humans in general are poor at assessing risk (not suggesting you personally, but statistically speaking)

07Lapierre

cletus wrote: »

You're opinion is most definitely shared by many other cyclists, but recency bias is a real thing. Also, it has been shown that humans in general are poor at assessing risk (not suggesting you personally, but statistically speaking)

Agreed. Especially the Humans driving SUV's!