Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

Yep exactly the point i'm making, though some posters when presented with the facts don't seem to realise that they're exposing themselves as having a prejudiced view to begin with.

Do i think this view is only on one side? No.

You don’t have to right to overtake a cyclist without sufficient clearance. If you cannot safely pass cyclists travelling two abreast, you also cannot safely pass cyclists in single file.

Typical Single carriageway road is 3.65m, sometimes less, cyclist 1m, required clearance 1.5m, car 1.8m. Therefore you need to cross into oncoming carriageway to complete a safe overtaking manoeuvre on cyclists travelling in single file. No different that two abreast. Unless you propose overtaking providing insufficient clearance or only partially crossing the median into oncoming traffic/ around blind corners?

The judge was brought in on the well-defined remit of determining whether the series of decisions/errors which caused the driver to be at liberty in the first place were serious enough to warrant a full inquiry.

Seems strange that he thought it was within his remit to make those comments about the cyclist's clothing and lights...it had no connection with what he was brought in to do.

This would make a really really excellent example of the misuse of statistics for an Introduction to Statistics class. The statistics quoted say nothing at all about the relative behaviour of cyclists versus pedestrians or cars. All it tells us is who caused the most accidents.

To understand which category is most well-behaved, you would need to know the total interactions each day/week/month with LUAS. Let us take the figures in the post as referring to a week of behaviour. We will have to use some imaginary figures to make the point as real ones are not available, and it is those missing real ones that would tell the correct story.

226 incidents are down to cars breaking red lights. However, in any single week let us speculate that there are 100,000 times that a car interacts with a LUAS. The incidence of bad behaviour among cars is therefore 0.226%

223 incidents are due to pedestrians entering the tramway suddenly, but we speculate that there are 1,000,000 times that a pedestrian interacts with a LUAS. The incidence of bad behaviour among pedestrians is therefore 0.0223%

61 incidents are due to cyclists getting in the way of trams, but we speculate that there are 10,000 times that a cyclist interacts with a LUAS. The incidence of bad behaviour among cyclists is therefore 0.61%. That would make cyclists the worst.

So you can see therefore that the poster has completely failed to understand how statistics work, and has jumped to a conclusion - cyclists are by far the safer road users - that there is insufficient data to support. Furthermore, I have shown how some further figures, if available, could lead to a completely different conclusion.

Are there figures out there that would allow us to reach a conclusion about the relative safety of pedestrians, cyclists and cars? Unfortunately, not.

Are there proxies that we might rely on? No reliable count of pedestrians is done. They travel to the city centre by bus, train, car, LUAS, bicycle etc., so we would probably conclude that there are far more pedestrians interacting with the LUAS than cars. That means given the small difference between the absolute numbers of 223 and 226, that the average pedestrian is far far better behaved than either a car or a bicycle.

Are there statistics about cars and bicycles? Funny that you ask.

Let us look at some traffic counts. Download the Powerpoint on 2019 data (the most recent I could find, which shows traffic counts for 2018). Unfortunately, it only shows the numbers who enter between the canals, therefore traffic that meets the LUAS outside the canals isn't counted at all, and only a proportion of those who enter between the canals intersect with the LUAS. Nevertheless, it would give a proxy for the relative number of bicycles or cars around the city.

So what does the data say. From what I can read, it says that 198,027 cars entered the city centre in the 7:00 to 19:00 timeperiod while 21,717 bicycles entered the canals during the same period. Given those numbers, you would expect the number of incidents with the LUAS by cars to be nine times the number of those involving cyclists, if both were equally safe. OK, you say what about Dublin Bikes? Fair point, let us double the number of cyclists to allow for those using Dublin Bikes.

We have 226 car incidents for 198,027 cars, a rate of 0.11%.

We have 61 incidents for 43,434 bicycles, a rate of 0.14%.

Conclusion: Even when you make an extremely generous assumption about the use of Dublin Bikes, cyclists are more dangerous than car drivers in terms of incidents with the LUAS.

That's a lot of speculation (a word you use a lot) and an amazing "use some imaginary figures" as you say.

Imagine a few more stats & speculate there while you're at it.

So all drivers are texting on their phones all the time while driving? I suspect this is about as true as your claim that Ireland's 2.5/2.8 million drivers are collaboratively "killing 2 or 3 people every week"

I am not making definitive conclusions, I am just pointing out that the poster who did make definitive conclusions had zero basis for doing that because he completely misused or misunderstood the statistics he was quoting.

Perhaps, but that fact would maybe only reduce an excellent point to a great one instead.

On the plus side of cyclists in the statistics we would also know that a proportion of cyclists between the canals wouldn't necessarily be commuting to work either.

It wasn't a % of all road users. It was the % of the number of incidents with Trams.

There's a number of these studies, all broadly saying the same thing.

I'm sure the operator is considerably less interested in road users who don't hit their trams.

The tram operator might not be interested in road users who don't hit their trams, but if you're going to assert that one group is more dangerous than another, you should be. Your side have a knack for not including or dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your narrative. Like Andy below.

When last the RSA published statistics (2016) there were 2.8 million people with some kind of license or permit to drive in Ireland. Of those, 2.5 million were or included Full Category B (car) licenses. Plus there are drivers on our roads from other jurisdictions, including, as mentioned in another thread, a sudden influx of drivers (and their LHD cars) from Ukraine.

So the question again arises, which of Irelands 2.8 million+ "drivers" are you accusing with this statement? If you're trying to blame all 2.8 million + of us collectively, I'm sure you can explain the apparent accusation of collective guilt? Or otherwise you can explain your use of such broad terminology as it appears to be tarring all 2.8+ million with a broad brush?

I'm accusing the drivers who kill three or four people each week of killing three or four people each week.

I fully accept that more cars are involved in incidents with LUAS trams than cyclists are involved in incidents with LUAS trams. I am not disputing that fact so there is no point in putting up more links that say the same things. And of course, if cars are involved in more incidents with LUAS trams, it makes sense for the operator to direct their concerns there.

However, those links do not lead to a conclusion that cyclists are safer road users than car drivers in general, which is the assertion that the original poster was making and the argument which I demolished with my analysis. In fact, his evidence would point to pedestrians being much safer users than either car drivers or cyclists, and that is was a toss up between those two as to which was worst.

I wasn't making that argument, it was another poster who was claiming that cyclists were safer road users and misusing statistics in doing so.

I don't it is possible to draw such definitive conclusions using currently available statistics. For example, how many near misses with pedestrians were cyclists or car drivers involved with? How many red lights broken? None of that is available and there is no reliable evidence.

The thread title was about a cyclist with no lights. But it's also about the driver behaviour and the lack of enforcement of both road users. It's a systemic failure.

Theres a certain irony in certain posters selectively redrawing the frame of reference to narrow the frame of reference or broaden it at random. It's deliberately disingenuous.

1) How many hiviz panels do you have on your vehicle?

2) Why would you think it's acceptable to drive a vehicle with blindspots on a public road?

I already answered your question here.

How is an "inattentive" driver hitting a bright yellow stripped emergency vehicle with flashing lights a "different" problem.

Only skimmed the report. Theres a lot unpack in that. It's also hard to interpret.

That study has says the effect is of high Vis is lessened when in a groups so they didn't focus on that. Which seems odd if it causes everyone to wear hi-viz. Also said there were less single person accidents wearing a hi-viz. It also talks a lot about bias.

When I cycle I wear Hi-Viz. Never thought it made any difference. Still wore it, just for practical reasons. Getting better lights I could see a different reaction from drivers.

Though tbh I thought better routes and roadcraft made the most difference.