# Why a helmet, lights and hi-vis clothing don't necessarily make you a safe cyclist...



## Brendan Burgess (3 Feb 2018)

https://twitter.com/IrishRail/status/959477564686393345

A great video of idiotic cycling behaviour from Iarnrod Eireann.

I thought at first, it might have been me, as it's just down the road from where I live,  but I don't wear a helmet.

Oh, and I have very good brakes.

Brendan


----------



## Fella (3 Feb 2018)

Brendan you should consider wearing a helmet , I know there are some statistics that say it makes little difference to safety there are also other statistics that say it reduces head injuries by 70% ignoring all statistics (which I would ) because I think there is too much to skew the statistics like almost all faster riders wearing helmets and more likely to do damage at high speed. 
I've come off my bike twice and landed directly on my head once and the helmet without a doubt saved me a serious head injury , the helmet was cracked in half at the end . I've rode with someone who came off a bike without a helmet and it wasn't pretty. I've also seen people fall off bikes without helmets and be fine , either way its not going to do you any harm wearing a helmet worst case is you statistically are as likely to still get injured best case is it saves your life. And you can be the safest cyclist in the world but we are all dependant on what others do on the roads unfortunately.


----------



## AlbacoreA (3 Feb 2018)

I don't understand the point of this thread. 

You might drive all your life and never need to rely on a  seat belt. That doesn't mean its not a good idea to wear one.

However cycling is different to driving a car. As is walking. You shouldn't have to wear a helmet walking to the shops. So while you might not need to wear a helmet popping around the corner. If you are going to cycle on a busy road to work every day then that's entirely different.  

Its a not a situation where sweeping generalizations are not useful. As theres lot of different types of cycling.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> I don't understand the point of this thread.



Did you look at the video clip? That is the point of the thread.


----------



## AlbacoreA (3 Feb 2018)

People doing stupid stuff does not mean anything other than they've done something stupid. 

Its got very little to do with cycling. 

I wonder will they do another ad with ABS, Seat Belts, having a full Driving licence, a phone kits, and a car or van driving through it. Its very often a car or van damages the gates and blocks the line for ages.


----------



## Cervelo (4 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> https://twitter.com/IrishRail/status/959477564686393345
> 
> A great video of idiotic cycling behaviour from Iarnrod Eireann.
> 
> ...



Brendan are you admitting that you are an "idiot" here


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Feb 2018)

Cervelo said:


> Brendan are you admitting that you are an "idiot" here



I cycle over the level crossing most days. 

As I approach, I speed up in case they come down. 

I have never been as stupid as this guy, but it's a good warning for me not to treat it as a game.  Which is the point of the video.

It's a good warning for others as well. I have seen cars being hit by the barriers on the way down. I hope that they were badly scratched. 

Brendan


----------



## DeclanDublin (5 Feb 2018)

I'm a life-long cyclist and love my bike. I'm also a driver and a pedestrian, and frankly I'm gobsmacked at the antics of some cyclists. More seem to derogate their safety at night to other road users by not wearing appropriate lighting or Hi-Viz jackets. Many don't bother with helmets which, imo are essential kit to save your life. Many cyclists take chances (like in the video) that they wouldn't dream  of doing in a car.

I was recently run down on Parliament st by a cyclist speeding the WRONG way down a one way street, who then had the temerity to tell me I should look where I'm going. And as for cyclists breaking lights or booting down pathways,  these are simply too numerous to mention. I make a point now of not getting out of the way and forcing the cyclist to dismount. They usually aren't best pleased.   Regarding helmets,  I would say that I was knocked off my bike by a car (middle of the day in July) by someone distracted by  young kids in the car. She apologized profusely and I was left with a badly fractured shoulder, but no head injury thanks to the helmet. 

The sooner the better on-the-spot fines come into regular use the better.  Cyclists should also have to have some level of insurance, particularly given the speed some of the newer bikes are capable of.


----------



## MrEarl (5 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> ....but I don't wear a helmet.
> 
> Brendan




Mind me asking why you do not wear a helmet ?


----------



## Jazz01 (5 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> Cyclists should also have to have some level of insurance, particularly given the speed some of the newer bikes are capable of


So what will this insurance be for - for cycling on the roads ? Will kids need to get insurance too if they cycling to school or out with friends?


----------



## Páid (5 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> Cyclists should also have to have some level of insurance, particularly given the speed some of the newer bikes are capable of.


Some of them do - [broken link removed]


----------



## newirishman (5 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Mind me asking why you do not wear a helmet ?



Nothing worse than "helmet-hair".


----------



## DeclanDublin (5 Feb 2018)

I think we can set out some criteria for insurance purposes and hammer out a fair deal. I know cycling is cheap and used by many young people and school children, but the fact remains that some cyclists cause accidents  (like any other road users) and there's surely an argument for them being insured, like other road users.  

I was standing at the bus stop the other day, and a teenage kid from the local secondary school whipped past  on the footpath as I stood out to get the bus. If he had hit me it would have been serious injuries.  There was a case in London a month or so ago, where a bike courier killed a pedestrian. It needs to be regulated.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> And as for cyclists breaking lights or booting down pathways, these are simply too numerous to mention.



Sadly, that is true, but of course the number of motorists breaking lights and driving on footpaths far exceeds the number of cyclists doing the same. The problem is there is little to no enforcement of any traffic legislation. When something is done about it, like introducing more speed cameras or clamping, all we hear is people moaning about how unfair it is that they should be expected to obey the law. 



DeclanDublin said:


> The sooner the better on-the-spot fines come into regular use the better.



You know we already have on-the-spot fines? Unfortunately they are enforced for errant cyclists about as much as they are for drivers in the wrong. 



DeclanDublin said:


> here was a case in London a month or so ago, where a bike courier killed a pedestrian. It needs to be regulated.



What about the case here where a pedestrian killed a cyclist. Does that need to be regulated too?


----------



## MrEarl (6 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> .... And as for cyclists.... booting down pathways.....



I decided quite some time ago that I would start making a point of getting in the way of cyclists who cycle on the footpath.  If they persist in trying to go past me at speed on their bikes, I'll take appropriate (minimal) defensive action, as I will consider them a threat to my personal safety, while I walk on the footpath.  If they hit me, I will take legal action against them.

While I don't like being put in such a position, I also won't be bullied by cyclists who are deliberately doing wrong, while the legislators and law enforcers do little or nothing to keep me safe, as I walk on the footpath.

I immediately acknowledge that some drivers break the law, but the key differences are that (a) there are appropriate laws enforced against motorists and (b) motorists are compelled to have insurance that an injured party can claim against.


----------



## DeclanDublin (6 Feb 2018)

I know that the spot fines are there, burt as u say no enforcement makes them  practically useless. As for the pedestrian killing a cyclist, I didn't hear about this, but would suggest that bikes, (by their nature of being generally faster,  harder and  heavier than people, and used on the public roads), should be treated differently. and regulated, as we do with other vehicular traffic.


----------



## MrEarl (6 Feb 2018)

Hi,

Here are just a few relevant articles or reports on accidents caused by cyclists.  I think it supports the need for tough laws and for those laws to be enforced.

Roger Handy killed by a cyclist going the wrong way, on a one way street

Cyclist jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian caused by 'furious driving' (in London)

Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics

The number of pedestrians fatally or seriously injured in collisions with cyclists has doubled since 2006


Just to be clear, I am not saying that all cyclists are bad, or that all pedestrians are good, there are good and bad in both groups, but we need to be fair to all and protect all.  Cyclists are well protected, by virtue of existing and or intended legislation etc, but I do not believe that pedestrians are.


----------



## Leo (6 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> but would suggest that bikes, (by their nature of being generally faster, harder and heavier than people, and used on the public roads), should be treated differently. and regulated, as we do with other vehicular traffic.



Bikes are classed as vehicles under the road traffic legislation, so they are regulated in the same manner as cars, etc.. Further regulation isn't required, enforcement is. 

Debates like this always just turn into motorists versus cyclists, private motorists versus versus taxi drivers, cyclists versus pedestrians, etc., with each side claiming to just have people's best interests at heart. All it serves to do is divide the population into groups to have a go at each other and distract from coming together and forcing the government to actually do something about it. As a population, our adherence to road traffic legislation is poor, and many seem blind to their own transgressions while being acutely aware of others (not calling out anyone in particular here, just always how these threads go.)

To focus on injury or damage caused by cyclists or pedestrians is to ignore the cause of the vast majority of such damage and injury on our roads. So we get stats like the 111 people killed or injured by cyclists across the whole of the UK (a pro-rata rate in Ireland would be 8 per annum), yet the reports showing 3 cyclists a day being hospitalised in Dublin are largely ignored. Likewise, when Dublin Council release figures showing ~90% of drivers in residential areas break the speed limits, no one bats an eyelid.

The insurance argument is also somewhat misunderstood as well. How many motorists don't end up out of pocket dealing with damage caused by another insured driver? It's more than 10 years since I commuted by bike, but last time I was knocked off I was told I'd have to take a civil case against the driver if I wanted to claim for any damage to my bike. 

As someone who commutes by car, I'm glad of the cyclists on our roads, because I know on the wet days where their numbers fall, my commute will be a lot longer. That said, I do wish they would obey the law, but I know that focusing on them as a group isn't going to do much for our overall road injury or death rates.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Here are just a few relevant articles or reports on accidents caused by cyclists.



All from the UK. 

Do you want to check with the Road Safety Authority how many people have been injured or killed by cyclists in Ireland in the last ten years? 

I am sure that there must have been some. I just don't remember hearing about them. 

Brendan


----------



## Firefly (6 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> As someone who commutes by car, I'm glad of the cyclists on our roads, because I know on the wet days where their numbers fall, my commute will be a lot longer.



I wouldn't dream of cycling to work as I consider it way to dangerous. I see some parents with kids cycling along city roads and footpaths and whilst I applaud them in some ways, in other ways I honestly think they are mad. It's a real pity we don't have better infrastructure. I was in Amsterdam recently and it's a cycling utopia with everyone from students, to the elderly to professionals in suits all cycling around the place...it just looked like such an efficient way to get around. On a canal cruise we even say a multistory for bikes!

If more people cycled we'd all get to where we needed to go a lot quicker.


----------



## Firefly (6 Feb 2018)

Just to add and pardon the pun, but I think wearing a helmet when cycling is a no-brainer..


----------



## DeclanDublin (6 Feb 2018)

I agree enforcement is a glaring issue. When I was run over by a cyclist, I emailed:
1. RSA
2.Garda Traffic,
3. DOJ. 

I got pro forma responses from almost all of them, and I noticed a cop on bike tucked into Essex st who caught a few people breaking lights. I saw them  there once and never since!  We need proper enforcement, I think cyclists should be obliged to have some insurance, (having insurance tends to increase compliance with RTA legislation I would suggest), and finally I think cyclists need to take some personal responsibility for thier own safety, including wearing appropriate  hi-viz gear, having a bike in good repair, and lights. I'm a cyclist, and I think these are simply common-sense and necessary precautions. In an argument between  a vehicle and a cyclist only one comes away uninjured, and the balance of injuries likely favour the bike when an accident happens between a bike and a pedestrian. There seems to me to be a clear case for a zero tolerance attitude for bikes breaking  essenttially common-sense codes, and to do it in a highly visible way so as to enforce compliance more widely.   As it happens, I was driving up the Malahide rod t'other day and, very unusally, a motoriat was pulled in by Gardai for driving in the bus lane. I bet eveyone who saw that won't risk the bus lane on the Malahide road, at least for a while.


----------



## Leo (6 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> . When I was run over by a cyclist, I emailed:
> 1. RSA
> 2.Garda Traffic,
> 3. DOJ.



So it's the same situation as a cyclist or pedestrian being hit by a car, unless the Gardai / DPP want to take it further, it's a civil matter you have to pursue yourself.



DeclanDublin said:


> having insurance tends to increase compliance with RTA legislation I would suggest



There is no evidence whatsoever to support that. When Dublin council do covert speed recording, 90% of drivers break the speed limit. Does it follow that it's only the 10% who have insurance? Around any of the housing estates across the country, how many cars park with wheels on the pavement? Is insurance playing a role there?



DeclanDublin said:


> and the balance of injuries likely favour the bike when an accident happens between a bike and a pedestrian.



It's actually the other way around due to the greater speed the cyclist is travelling at and as a result hit the ground at.



DeclanDublin said:


> There seems to me to be a clear case for a zero tolerance attitude for bikes breaking  essenttially common-sense codes, and to do it in a highly visible way so as to enforce compliance more widely.



There is? I certainly don't see it. What is the justification for a zero tolerance approach for cyclists when we as drivers get away with far more and are the cause of the vast majority of injury and death on our roads? How could such an approach be anything other than a waste of money?



DeclanDublin said:


> As it happens, I was driving up the Malahide rod t'other day and, very unusally, a motoriat was pulled in by Gardai for driving in the bus lane. I bet eveyone who saw that won't risk the bus lane on the Malahide road, at least for a while.



You'll see that now and again alright, but 100m further down the road you'll see the usual culprits pulling back into the bus lane as soon as the Gardai are out of sight.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> (having insurance tends to increase compliance with RTA legislation I would suggest),



I would say that people who drive without insurance are more likely to be the types of people who don't care about complying with legislation generally. 

But requiring people to take out insurance would be unlikely to improve cyclist behaviour.  There is a possibility that it might backfire "So what if I knock someone down, I'm insured".

But as I asked Mr Earl - are there any statistics for deaths or injuries by cyclists. I would say that they are very rare. 

Brendan


----------



## Cervelo (6 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> Just to add and pardon the pun, but I think wearing a helmet when cycling is a no-brainer..



When you where in Amsterdam did you happen to notice how many cyclists were wearing helmets because any time I've been there the majority dont were helmets
I must admit it's been about five years since I've been there so things might have changed


----------



## MrEarl (6 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> All from the UK.....



Sorry to have to contradict you Mr. Burgess, but Roger Handy (formerly of McNally Handy) was Irish and the incident occurred in Dublin.

You are obviously correct that the other articles relate to the UK.  Perhaps we can learn from what has happened there though and try to implement some corrective measures, before things get worse here (which I fear they will, given the notable increase in the amount of people cycling and sadly, the bad behaviour that we see from some of them).



Brendan Burgess said:


> ....But requiring people to take out insurance would be unlikely to improve cyclist behaviour.  There is a possibility that it might backfire "So what if I knock someone down, I'm insured"....



I am not so sure that would be the case.  I don't think it's the case with most private car or motorcycle drivers for example, unless you want to correct me.  There is an obvious risk that the cost of insurance would increase, as more claims went against policies so that might possibly act as a deterrent to cyclists behaving badly.  However, this would only be one part of the overall solution.

Cyclists also need to be compelled to obey the laws, just as other road users are. Breaking traffic lights, traveling on footpaths, or traveling the wrong way down a one way street is wrong, no matter which party offends. However, in reality, the cyclist is the least likely to ever be punished for any of these offenses and that only fuels the bad behaviour imho. 

I also think certain safety gear should be compulsory for cyclists, just as a helmet is for a motorcyclist.  Cyclists are extremely vulnerable, given they have no protection from their bicycles, unlike say the protection that a car with airbags etc. might offer a driver.

With the rapid increase in the number of cyclists, we have a genuine chance to try and start off on the right foot here, by enforcing good behaviour now, rather than just let it go from bad to worse, under the excuse that everyone else does it.

Clearly, far more needs to be done to improve our infrastructure for cyclists and while that also needs to be pressed him with the government and councils, it doesn't justify not acting now to get people to obey the laws, and commute safely.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2018)

I hadn't heard of Roger Handy, so in Googling him

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/12/17/cyclists-244-motorists-112/

244 cyclists got on the spot fines, so the Gardai are enforcing the laws.

Another interesting article
*Stop The Cycle of Hate*

15 Cyclists killed in 2017.

How many drivers or pedestrians were killed by cyclists this year? 


I was surprised I had not heard of Roger Handy.  He was killed 15 years ago. Was that the last pedestrian killed by a cyclist? 

““On a winter’s afternoon in 2002, he was cycling up a one-way street in Dublin 4 on the wrong side of the road, when he hit a pedestrian who had stepped out in front of him. Roger Handy (56), a respected auctioneer, had looked in the direction of oncoming traffic, but never saw O’Hegarty who was coming the opposite way.




Brendan


----------



## cremeegg (6 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> ““On a winter’s afternoon in 2002, he was cycling up a one-way street in Dublin 4 on the wrong side of the road, when he hit a pedestrian who had stepped out in front of him. Roger Handy (56), a respected auctioneer, had looked in the direction of oncoming traffic, but never saw O’Hegarty who was coming the opposite way.



I hate to make light of somebody's tragedy, but it has to be said. That is the first time the words respected and auctioneer have appeared in there same paragraph on AAM.


----------



## MrEarl (6 Feb 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I hadn't heard of Roger Handy, so in Googling him
> 
> http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/12/17/cyclists-244-motorists-112/
> 
> ...



Hello Mr. Burgess,

To be honest, I was a little surprised that you had not heard of Roger Handy myself.

I have no idea if he was the last person to be killed in Ireland as a result of a cyclist.  I might drop the RSA a line at some stage, unless you or someone else here has already sent the email ?  Regardless of whether it was the last one or not, I'm sure that everyone would agree that it's one too many deaths to have occurred.

I would love to see some more detail on how many on the spot fines the Gardai have handed out to cyclists.  The figure from the article that you have quoted covers a 2 month period and was the first two months after the "on the spot fines" were introduced, from what I can gather.  The number of fines seems very low (circa 4 per day, across the entire country).

I wonder how many adult cyclists there are using the public infrastructure on a regular basis. Anyone know, or care to hazard a guess ?

I must admit, I can't help but wonder what level of fines there might be for cyclists, if they had to contend with the private operators who operate the mobile speed camera vans, or the clamping service in Dublin ?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> To be honest, I was a little surprised that you had not heard of Roger Handy myself.



That I had not heard, or if I had heard, remembered about a pedestrian who was killed by a cyclist 15 years ago? 

OK, it appears to be a very rare occurrence that cyclists kill pedestrians.  But even still I don't keep a file on them. 

Nor do I remember the names of all these: 




Brendan


----------



## Leo (7 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Cyclists also need to be compelled to obey the laws, just as other road users are.



They already are, and the stats suggest enforcement levels for cycling offences are broadly in line with those for other categories of road users. The number of cycling offenses versus those of motorists is very, very low.



MrEarl said:


> Breaking traffic lights, traveling on footpaths



It absolutely is, but motorists also do it all the time. Add to that, crossing a continuous white line to pass a line of traffic just to get to a right turn lane ahead. It's the rare exception that waits in the line of traffic to move into the right turn lane correctly at times finding themselves being blown out of it by those overtaking illegally.

So what's the justification for a focus on cyclists? For the most part, when involved in a collision, they come off worst and by and large they cause minimal injury or damage. If there is to be increased enforcement or a focus on better standards from any class of road users, should we not be spending that money where it might actually save some lives? 



MrEarl said:


> With the rapid increase in the number of cyclists, we have a genuine chance to try and start off on the right foot here, by enforcing good behaviour now, rather than just let it go from bad to worse, under the excuse that everyone else does it.



Are we saying it's too late to hope for the same thing with motorists? With the 2016 census showing more people in Dublin commute by bike than take the Luas, Dart & trains combined, the start happened a long time ago.


----------



## Leper (7 Feb 2018)

We can have discussions here until the cows come home Cyclists -V- Motorists -V- Pedestrians. We can even bring in the Gardaí, Senior Counsel, Cycling Clubs and argue more. But, really all we need is Common Sense and a recognition that all of us must share the roads/paths.


----------



## SparkRite (7 Feb 2018)

Why, oh why, oh why (note the standard "Letters to the Editor" etc. start  ) does it happen EVERYTIME we have a discussion here about cyclists, even like this thread, with the word "cyclist" in the title that once someone says that they observed a cyclist(s) breaking one or more of the ROTR, the most common reply is along the lines of "Well what about motorists.." ?

Why not stick to the thread topic and discuss the merits or failings of cyclists without the apparent "knee jerk" reaction of taking umbridge and retorting with "Sure that's nothing compared to a motorist I saw ...."etc..

Sure, motorists break the ROTR and indeed there have been many threads over the years, discussing this. However if memory serves me right, I do not think that these threads have degenerated into a tit for tat and at times, tantamount, to a puerile slanging match to the same degree as threads started to debate the safety/behaviour of cyclists.

I am aware that we all share the same roads and that the behaviour of one sector may, from time to time, impact on the other, however notwithstanding this fact, I still think my observations are valid.

My own opinion of why the above occurs, is that most cyclists know, *in their heart of hearts*, that an appreciable amount of cyclists, on occasion, tend not to pay as much attention to the ROTR as maybe they should and when this is brought to attention they react by bringing motorists into the equation in an attempt to shift the spotlight and thus attempting to lessen the blame.

Shame on you.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Feb 2018)

The issue is that cyclists do virtually no harm to anyone else through breaking the rules of the road. 

Of course, they are wrong to cycle without lights and to cycle on footpaths.

But drivers stuck in their cars or driving in bus and bicycle lanes get very jealous of the freedom of cyclists and want the Gardai to come down heavy on them when they do nothing dangerous. It would be much better use of limited resources if the Gardai confiscated the cars from drivers in bike lanes. 

I started this thread with a video of a really stupid guy. If the Gardai were able to identify him, his bike should be confiscated and he should be fined heavily.

Brendan


----------



## Leo (8 Feb 2018)

SparkRite said:


> Why, oh why, oh why (note the standard "Letters to the Editor" etc. start  ) does it happen EVERYTIME we have a discussion here about cyclists, even like this thread, with the word "cyclist" in the title that once someone says that they observed a cyclist(s) breaking one or more of the ROTR, the most common reply is along the lines of "Well what about motorists.." ?
> 
> Why not stick to the thread topic and discuss the merits or failings of cyclists without the apparent "knee jerk" reaction of taking umbridge and retorting with "Sure that's nothing compared to a motorist I saw ...."etc..



If we stick to the topic of this thread, we can all agree the cyclist in that video is an idiot and move on. Thread over after the first post. 

If people just want to have a one sided go at cyclists or motorists without interference from 'the other side', there are threads all over the motoring and cycling forums where like-minded souls get together to agree that the others are at fault and they themselves are model citizens. A thread of anecdotes of what one class of road users have observed others doing without any balance would be equally tedious in my view. We'd all be far better served if we could acknowledge there are failings on every side, and no one class of road user is much better or worse than the other.

I write as a motorist who used to commute by bike in Dublin, even if that was 10+ year ago now.


----------



## Buddyboy (8 Feb 2018)

One of the best (to me) trains of thought that I read went like this.
There are two types of cyclists. Those, like me, who are car and motorbike riders who use a bicycle instead (for whatever reason).  I therefore apply all the safety measures I use on my car or motorbike. I wear a fluorescent jacket, helmet, have multiple rear lights and use rear view mirror.  I am coming from a more protected environment (my car anyway) to a less protected environment (my bicycle), combined with the fact that  I am going slower than most other forms of transport (hence the rear view mirror).  I am adopting the measures I already use, and  I don't find this onerous or in any way difficult to do.  In fact, I would feel less safe if I did not do so.  My mindset is coming from a car/motorbike to another form of road transport.

The other type of cyclist is the pedestrian who uses a bicycle instead (again for whatever reason).  They adopt their pedestrian measures when riding their bike. Hence, dark jacket, no helmet, no attempt at making themselves conspicuous, probably no lights and definitely no rear view mirror. It's just not in their mind-set.  They are coming from a relatively protected environment (the footpath) and carrying that mind-set over.

I meet both types daily on my commute.

This is not a hard and fast rule of course, but I find it useful and seems to fit my general observations.


----------



## Leo (8 Feb 2018)

Buddyboy said:


> Hence, dark jacket, no helmet, no attempt at making themselves conspicuous, probably no lights



I see Simon Delaney is hosting a new series putting drivers through a series of tests. It'd be interesting to put a few of those ninjas behind the wheel of a car on a dark wet night and see how they get on.


----------



## MrEarl (8 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> They already are, and the stats suggest enforcement levels for cycling offences are broadly in line with those for other categories of road users. The number of cycling offenses versus those of motorists is very, very low.



Hi Leo,

The figures for the on the spot cycling fines, were only for the first two months after it was implemented, as I understood it.  That's far too short a period of time to be used as comparison with enforcement levels for other categories of road users.

Also, let us not forget, motorists are also "kept in check" by the private companies who do the speed cameras for example. I do not think the speed tickets (and associated penalty points) are included in enforcement figures, do you know if they are ?   Assuming they are not, they should be as it's part of enforcement and I suspect, would show a very different figure for the level of enforcement against motorists.



Leo said:


> It absolutely is, but motorists also do it all the time. Add to that, crossing a continuous white line to pass a line of traffic just to get to a right turn lane ahead. It's the rare exception that waits in the line of traffic to move into the right turn lane correctly at times finding themselves being blown out of it by those overtaking illegally.



Sure, and lets also include all of the cyclists that insist on trying to get to the front of a queue of traffic on a road, while stopped at red lights.  The list of things that are wrong is endless, but lets not use one wrong action to try and justify another here.  It's long past time we started putting things right and perhaps even more importantly, prohibited new bad habits from becoming "the accepted norm" so as to stop things going from bad to worse.



Leo said:


> So what's the justification for a focus on cyclists?



Simple, cycling is on the up and being encouraged as a principal method of transport (particularly in Dublin city).

You have referenced the 2016 Census and with the ongoing development of bike lanes, the increase in the number of publicly available bikes for hire / short term use around the city, the continued tax break for biking to work etc. those numbers are likely to rise further.  As such, the cyclist is becoming one of the main commuters around the city and by default, as that number rises so will the number of accidents associated with that form of transport.

Why not try and do it right, rather than just replicate the numerous mistakes that have been made previously (with cars, motorbikes etc.) ?



Leo said:


> Are we saying it's too late to hope for the same thing with motorists?



Not quite, but it's far harder to change established bad habits than prevent new ones from bedding in.



Brendan Burgess said:


> The issue is that cyclists do virtually no harm to anyone else through breaking the rules of the road.



I don't think it's that simple, Mr. Burgess.

Why should cyclists be permitted to even put themselves in harms way ?  We don't allow suicide in this country and while that's an extreme example to reference, cyclists have little or no protection so in reality, they are putting their lives at risk on regular occasion when they made bad decisions.

A bad cyclist breaking the laws can increase the risk of harm to other road users.  Think about the possible implications for another road user such as the driver of a car, who swerves to try and avoid hitting a cyclist (who endangered himself) and risks colliding with someone / something else, as a result.  Not to mention the stress and fear that comes with thinking you are about to hit someone on a bike, while driving your car - that can have a long term effect and turn a good driver into a less confident and perhaps more dangerous driver.

Last, but not least, we've all seen plenty of examples of road rage from cyclists, just like we have from motorists driving their cars.



> Of course, they are wrong to cycle without lights and to cycle on footpaths.



Yes, just as we also acknowledge the many wrong doings of other road users.

My principal point is that cycling is on the up, so we should be trying to encourage more good habits with this mode of transport as it's becoming more and more popular.



> But drivers stuck in their cars or driving in bus and bicycle lanes get very jealous of the freedom of cyclists and want the Gardai to come down heavy on them when they do nothing dangerous.



I'm sure that point about the "freedom" that cyclists have is true, to a degree.

But I think you are forgetting that a cyclist causes danger to more than just themselves, so it's a case of having to consider all road users here and think in terms of some of the dangers that cyclists can cause, either directly or indirectly.



> It would be much better use of limited resources if the Gardai confiscated the cars from drivers in bike lanes.



I agree that a car should not be driving in a bike lane, unless the road layout is so badly designed that the motorist is compelled to cross over a bike lane (and then, obviously they need to get in and out of it quickly, and safely).

But, I actually think we'd be better off putting our limited resources to more serious crimes. Clearly, the real issue here is the need for more resources, but that's a conversation for another thread.



> I started this thread with a video of a really stupid guy. If the Gardai were able to identify him, his bike should be confiscated and he should be fined heavily.
> 
> Brendan



Agreed, I'd even take it a step further and look for a (short) jail term.


----------



## MrEarl (8 Feb 2018)

Hi,

Sorry one question that someone here might know the answer to....

Are there more strict rules / laws for users of electric bikes ?

I see delivery staff from JustEat using these electric bikes and to give them credit, they all wear helmets and what looks like very heavy padded jackets etc. on.  I have also noticed a few electric bike users in the bicycle lanes and doing significantly faster speeds than those being achieved by peddle powered bikes (so are the electric bikes actually putting the users of peddle powered bikes at risk here ?).


----------



## Leo (8 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> The figures for the on the spot cycling fines, were only for the first two months after it was implemented, as I understood it.  That's far too short a period of time to be used as comparison with enforcement levels for other categories of road users.



On the spot fines for cyclists were introduced in July 2015, they're running at around 800 penalties applied per annum. I'd argue that's far too low, but alas that is te case across all road traffic offences.



MrEarl said:


> Also, let us not forget, motorists are also "kept in check" by the private companies who do the speed cameras for example. I do not think the speed tickets (and associated penalty points) are included in enforcement figures, do you know if they are ?



They are included. There's just one company, GoSafe, they just gather the evidence, the prosecution of offences follows the same process, as offences detected by the Gardai and these are captured in the published stats.



MrEarl said:


> Sure, and lets also include all of the cyclists that insist on trying to get to the front of a queue of traffic on a road, while stopped at red lights.



Cyclists are perfectly entitled, and actually encouraged to do that as it is safer for them. They are the only category of road used that are explicitly allowed to overtake on the left for the purposes of doing so. The subsequent introduction of Advance Stop Lines was to make this easier, other vehicles are prohibited from advancing into these spaces on a red light.



MrEarl said:


> ... those numbers are likely to rise further.  As such, the cyclist is becoming one of the main commuters around the city and by default, as that number rises so will the number of accidents associated with that form of transport.



The number overall might, but multiple studies have shown that increasing numbers of cyclists in a city lowers the changes of incidents as drivers become more aware of their presence and pay more attention. 



MrEarl said:


> Not quite, but it's far harder to change established bad habits than prevent new ones from bedding in.



Cycling has been around since before cars were, we can't pretend it's something new. All new road users need to be educated equally.


----------



## Leo (8 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Are there more strict rules / laws for users of electric bikes ?



Legislation here restricts motor power to 250W, and the motor must cut out at a top speed of 25kmph, or when you stop peddling. Anything outside those criteria, including all the bikes with the small petrol engines attached, are classed as mechanically propelled vehicles and must be taxed and insured accordingly.



MrEarl said:


> I have also noticed a few electric bike users in the bicycle lanes and doing significantly faster speeds than those being achieved by peddle powered bikes



The compliant pedal assist bikes are allowed in cycle lanes, any others are not.


----------



## Firefly (8 Feb 2018)

Cervelo said:


> When you where in Amsterdam did you happen to notice how many cyclists were wearing helmets because any time I've been there the majority dont were helmets
> I must admit it's been about five years since I've been there so things might have changed



I didn't see anyone wearing a helmet to be fair, but there are so many cycling, anyone driving was well aware. Also, where we were staying, I didn't see any buses, lorries or anything else that could kill a cyclist. The city is just so safe for cyclists, that there really isn't a need to wear a helmet. Here however, our infrastructure is completely inadequate for cyclists, hence my comment about wearing a helmet.


----------



## Firefly (8 Feb 2018)

Leper said:


> We can have discussions here until the cows come home Cyclists -V- Motorists -V- Pedestrians. We can even bring in the Gardaí, Senior Counsel, Cycling Clubs and argue more. But, really all we need is Common Sense and a recognition that *all of us must share the roads/paths.*



Just on this.

Pedestrians have no business on the road, except when crossing.
Cyclists and cars (obviously) have no business on Footpaths.
Motorists and Cyclists should share roads and obey the laws.


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> I...It's a real pity we don't have better infrastructure. I was in Amsterdam recently and it's a cycling utopia with everyone from students, to the elderly to professionals in suits all cycling around the place...it just looked like such an efficient way to get around. On a canal cruise we even say a multistory for bikes!...



I read a comment about the lack of cycling infrastructure in Ireland from a Dutch person. That they started with no infrastructure same as everywhere else. 

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> I didn't see anyone wearing a helmet to be fair, but there are so many cycling, anyone driving was well aware. Also, where we were staying, I didn't see any buses, lorries or anything else that could kill a cyclist. The city is just so safe for cyclists, that there really isn't a need to wear a helmet. Here however, our infrastructure is completely inadequate for cyclists, hence my comment about wearing a helmet.



A helmet won't save you from a bus or a truck. And Hi Viz won't save from the blind spot of a large vehicle. 

A helmet saves you from injuries from a fall, or a low impact strike. They are useful for that. You'll find a lot of head injury stats are not related to collisions in traffic at all. 

Helmets are useful in limited situations as is Hi Viz and lights. (Lights are more useful).  But they aren't the magic cloak you are suggesting. 

I say that as someone who split my helmet open after being knocked off my bike..


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> Helmets are useful in limited situations as is Hi Viz and lights. (Lights are more useful). But they aren't the magic cloak you are suggesting.


Lights are critical.
I bought a front light with a separate battery pack that is as powerful as a motorbike light. My back light is also very strong.
I have as additional red light on my helmet.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Feb 2018)

Lights are a legal requirement. 

While there are limits to what is a dipped light on a car/motorbike, there doesn't seem to be any for a bicycle. 
You can usually run these more powerful  bicycles in different brightness modes . 
Cyclists should be aware if they run that too bright they are actually blinding other traffic.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> You can usually run these more powerful bicycles in different brightness modes .
> Cyclists should be aware if they run that too bright they are actually blinding other traffic


True, but just point them down.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Feb 2018)

Which is what dims on Cars and Bikes do. There not much awareness of it for bicycles though.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> A helmet won't save you from a bus or a truck. And Hi Viz won't save from the blind spot of a large vehicle.
> 
> A helmet saves you from injuries from a fall, or a low impact strike. They are useful for that. You'll find a lot of head injury stats are not related to collisions in traffic at all.
> 
> Helmets are useful in limited situations as is Hi Viz and lights. (Lights are more useful).  But they aren't the magic cloak you are suggesting.



I agree with all of that except the underlined bit - I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that helmets provide safety for the head in some situations and in these situations wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet. If I am driving my car and have a head on collision with a lorry at speed, my seatbelt won't be much use to me...it doesn't mean I should stop wearing my seatbelt every time I get into the car though..


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Feb 2018)

Actually you are saying that where the cyclists mix with traffic they need helmet. That a helmet in some mitigates for infrastructure, or pro cycling laws and policies. But there is no evidence to support this.  Why is a helmet or hi viz more important, than focusing on other stuff. Why ignore decades of experience in other countries and just bang on about helmets and Viz  as a priority when there is no experience to support that it should be the priority.

Also a seatbelt does not equate to a helmet on a bicycle. It more equates to wearing a helmet in a car or as a pedestrian.
Is wearing a helmet in a car more important than a seat belt. Is wearing a helmet as a pedestrian so important it needs to made law?
Because that's what commonly implied for cyclists.

Helmets are a good idea. However you risk throwing out the baby with the bath water if you over emphasis their importance.
The baby in this case is that we need to encourage cycling and reduce car use. That is the bigger picture.

Do I force my kids to wear helmets, if it that means they stop cycling to school (on a cycle path in my case) and look for lifts everywhere. Especially if the person, or kids needs exercise.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> Actually you are saying that where the cyclists mix with traffic they need helmet. That a helmet in some mitigates for infrastructure, or pro cycling laws and policies. But there is no evidence to support this.  Why is a helmet or hi viz more important, than focusing on other stuff. Why ignore decades of experience in other countries and just bang on about helmets and Viz  as a priority when there is no experience to support that it should be the priority.



I think you have me all wrong. I totally accept there are cases where helmets provide little or no safety (say in a collision with a lorry). However I do think helmets provide safety in other areas (such as falling off you bike) and therefore it's a no brainer for me to wear a helmet.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> I read a comment about the lack of cycling infrastructure in Ireland from a Dutch person. That they started with no infrastructure same as everywhere else.
> 
> https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/



I'd love to see something like this here to be honest. We are all within comfortable cycling range to where we work and where our kids go to school and it's a shame we  have to drive.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> That a helmet in some mitigates for infrastructure, or pro cycling laws and policies.



Just on this. No, that's not what I am saying at all. I would love to see cyclist itself being a no brainer! I would love to live in a city where the vast majority of people cycled to school and world. Apart from Amsterdam though, I am not aware of many other cities able to pull this off.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Feb 2018)

You may not be aware that's the end result.

If someone is stopped for having no motortax. They don't always mention if they were wearing a seat belt.

If someone robbed a phone on a bicycle they be sure to mention Hi Viz and helmets.

On some forums if you mention either on a cycling thread that's about something else you get a warning. That how prevalent is it.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> You may not be aware that's the end result.
> 
> If someone is stopped for having no motortax. They don't always mention if they were wearing a seat belt.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry I don't follow this at all.

I'm saying I think wearing a helmet is a no-brainer as it can provide safety in a lot of cases which is better than nothing. For a head-on collision with a lorry at speed, a helmet is going to do a cyclist no good, just like a seat belt will do the driver of a car no good.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Feb 2018)

You implied they don't need a helmet in Holland because of good infrastructure.
But in Ireland you always need a helmet regardless of infrastructure.

Which is contradictory. Which doesn't make any sense. Because falling off your bike is the same regardless where you do it.

So the fact you need a helmet in Ireland should mean its a good idea in Holland also.

So why don't you think you don't need a helmet in Holland...


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> You implied they don't need a helmet in Holland because of good infrastructure.
> But in Ireland you always need a helmet regardless of infrastructure.
> 
> Which is contradictory. Which doesn't make any sense. Because falling off your bike is the same regardless where you do it.
> ...



I think the infrastructure in Holland is miles better than here. They also have a critical mass (which is chicken & egg) which means there is little or no cars on the roads. I would doubt there is a single pothole in the centre of Amsterdam either. It's just a safe place to cycle. I imagine people do fall off their bikes in Amsterdam too but I would imagine the liklehood to be a lot lower than here. When you look at the lack of cycle lanes here, coupled with potholes and and ratio of cars:cyclists I think wearing a helmet (to offer _some_ protection) is a no brainer.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Feb 2018)

Lots of imagining going on. Lots more cyclists means there are going to a lot of people falling off bicycles. 



> Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted.
> 
> However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?
> 
> The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008). In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle.



http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html


I mention this because in Ireland cycling stats for head injuries also include cycling not related to commuting or using a bicycle as transport. 
Head injuries in car accidents are very common also. Also with pedestrians. no suggestion to make helmets compulsory there though. 

I have nothing against helmets. But the arguments for only cyclists, and only cyclists not in Holland wearing them are not logical. The physics of cycling and gravity are not different in Holland.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> no suggestion to make helmets compulsory there though.



I have always wondered why they are not compulsory for pedestrians. 

I was cycling along the north quays towards O'Connell Bridge yesterday at lunch time. 

As there was no car coming at that time, 20 or 30 pedestrians thought it was quite ok to walk across the red light in front of a cyclist. 

Some of them on mobile phones. 

They should all have got points from the Gardai and should have been banned from walking for 6 months. 

Brendan


----------



## DeclanDublin (9 Feb 2018)

I would argue that people who are compelled to get insurance will be more cognizant of RTA as they are likely to be penalized financially (all things being equal) as insurers seek to compel good behaviour and deter the bad, and reflect this in premiums charged. We see T&C's on house insurance (5 lever locks etc) and NCT's for cars.  It is likely already that most insurers of bikes have a stipulation that it be in good order. and obey the RTA. These are certainly in my policy with Axa.   

I'm certainly with Buddy boy or the two different types of cyclists. There certainly seems to be empirical evidence of this where drivers who are cyclists seem to have a greater appreciation for their own vulnerability AND responsibility to other road users.  In a sense, wearing hi-viz, decking yer bike out like a Christmas tree in winter and at night, and wearing a helmet are both common sense and courteous to other road users. 

It isn't about whataboutery for me, however I would doubt if, in a collision between a bike and person, the pedestrian didn't come off worse. In any event, when accidents occur (like my scenario with a cyclist ran into me going the wrong way, and at considerable speed sufficient to knock me over), it seems to me telling that the attitude of the cyclist was to blame it on me - I should have been looking where I was going.  What frightening  tho re: cyclists vs pedestrians, is the growing number of very fancy high speed bikes that some cyclists are traveling on,  going at break-neck speed (you know the type- decked out in lycra) who seem to view the city streets as a lap on the tour de France rather than a shared space where they must proceed defensively.  

I would also add that cyclists blithely cycling at night dressed like Ninja's  without lights or helmets is a  particular bugbear appears to me to shift the onus for their safety and well-bring onto other road users.  Anyhow, that's my take on it. We are all responsible for better use of the roads, and I honestly think some small number of cyclists have abused that brazenly and dangerously. I don't think it is appropriate to compare a driver speeding or using the bus lanes and equate that with someone cycling the wrong way up or down a street. In the first instance a cautious road user might at least anticipate a driver in the BL or going to fast, but someone breaking red lights and/ocycling on paths and/or going the wrong way down a street is of a different order of magnitude in my opinion.


----------



## AlbacoreA (10 Feb 2018)

There are already laws that cover all of this and just aren't enforced. We don't need more laws that won't be enforced. we need enforcement.

Drivers are insured and they have an very low adherence to the rules. In one study something like 70-80% of drivers were driving habitually over the speed limit.

The only county that had mandatory insurance for cyclists abandoned it.  Repeating the same thing here is illogical.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (10 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> We don't need more laws that won't be enforced. we need enforcement



+1


----------



## AlbacoreA (10 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> I.....In a sense, wearing hi-viz, decking yer bike out like a Christmas tree in winter and at night, and wearing a helmet are both common sense and courteous to other road users.
> ....



Courteous...? 

It's not common sense. It's guesswork based on doing no research into the subject.

A lot of accidents  (car vs cyclist) are caused not from the lack of of hi viz or lights but poor driving, where the driver just isn't looking, or lack of situational awareness. It's the same in car vs car accidents. 

If there was a junction with a lot of car accidents we would modify the road or junction. Not tell the other driver to dress like a Xmas tree.


----------



## DeclanDublin (10 Feb 2018)

Courteous because you are helping other road users and making driving easier. As for hi-viz making cyclists more visible, personally, I think this is a no-brainer. Cyclists are small an relatively easy to miss, particularly in darkness and poor weather, and especially if they have no lights. I know this from my own experience of driving, and I would imagine most drivers would concur.  A cyclist, clearly visible from a vehicle, means the driver can factor them into a spatial map of the road and act appropriately. I, for example, move out more in case the cyclist needs to avoid drains etc. I would suggest this is no more guesswork than cars driving with lights on are more visible.


----------



## AlbacoreA (10 Feb 2018)

It is guesswork.  

Hi Viz is actually intended to make you visible during the day. Workmen on the railway.
The bit that makes you visible at night is the luminous strips. This is often on clothes of all colors.

Of course lights are a legal requirement and are vastly superior to reflective strips.

It interesting why there is so much attention on hi viz, helmets and insurance, not to mention tax.
Instead of lights or infrastructure or changing driver behavior.

Would it be because one has no impact on drivers, or enforcement, and the other does.


----------



## Leo (12 Feb 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> It interesting why there is so much attention on hi viz, helmets and insurance, not to mention tax.



Principally because it seems many of those who support the argument for mandatory helmets, high-viz, insurance, etc. are more interested in punishing cyclists than they are genuinely concerned about road safety. None of these ideas are new, yet by and large those calling for them to be introduced here fail to do even the most basic research into their effectiveness elsewhere.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Feb 2018)

DeclanDublin said:


> I would argue that people who are compelled to get insurance will be more cognizant of RTA as they are likely to be penalized financially (all things being equal) as insurers seek to compel good behaviour and deter the bad, and reflect this in premiums charged. We see T&C's on house insurance (5 lever locks etc) and NCT's for cars.  It is likely already that most insurers of bikes have a stipulation that it be in good order. and obey the RTA. These are certainly in my policy with Axa.
> 
> I'm certainly with Buddy boy or the two different types of cyclists. There certainly seems to be empirical evidence of this where drivers who are cyclists seem to have a greater appreciation for their own vulnerability AND responsibility to other road users.  In a sense, wearing hi-viz, decking yer bike out like a Christmas tree in winter and at night, and wearing a helmet are both common sense and courteous to other road users.
> 
> ...



One of the people killed whilst cycling in 2016 was killed by a pedestrian walking in the cycle lane in the Phoenix Park.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...ision-with-pedestrian-inquest-hears-1.3317745


----------



## MrEarl (12 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> Principally because it seems many of those who support the argument for mandatory helmets, high-viz, insurance, etc. are more interested in punishing cyclists than they are genuinely concerned about road safety. None of these ideas are new, yet by and large those calling for them to be introduced here fail to do even the most basic research into their effectiveness elsewhere.



While I understand where you are coming from Leo, I do not agree.

If we take road tax as an example.  Cyclists use the roads, or specific cycle lanes.  There's a genuine cost that comes with providing and maintaining that space for them.  In addition, there's signage, lighting, there's legislation etc.  Someone has to pay for this and while I don't think cyclists could cover it entirely from a small annual cycle tax, I do think it important that they contribute towards these costs given they are for their benefit.  It might also make some of those who currently break many of the rules have a little more appreciation for them.

Insurance would protect both the cyclist and also those who they might encounter during an accident.  If an accident is clearly the fault of the cyclist, why shouldn't the counter party be able to submit a claim against their insurance, just like someone can claim against a car or motorcycle user ?  I know some might argue that bikes are self propelled, but that doesn't mean that a cyclist can't do some serious damage to a pedestrian if they hit them, or damage to the wing mirror of a car (which could cost several hundred euro to replace and fit) etc.  Again, I also think that compulsory insurance might assist with having cyclists respect and obey the appropriate rules and legislation, in addition to giving everyone some financial comfort in the event of an accident.

You were kind enough to answer a quick question for me recently on electric power bikes.  Notwithstanding the restriction on power that you mentioned, I think all electric bikes offer an increased risk for both user and those they may encounter.

Both tax and insurance would only create an equitable situation, it wouldn't give preference or discriminate against cyclists in any way.

The likes of high-viz, lights, reflectors etc. should be compulsory simply because they help keep cyclists safe in the dark.  The last thing a motorist wants to do is to hit a cyclist, so why not help prevent such an accident occurring and save both parties from a horrible experience ?


.


----------



## Leo (12 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> If we take road tax as an example.



There is no such thing as road tax. There is however an emissions linked motor tax which is paid into the Local Government Fund. This funds housing, and local authority services, along with road and public infrastructure, it also covers the subvention to Irish water. Many cyclists also have cars and pay motor tax, they pay property and other taxes that feed the Local Government Fund, to say they don't contribute to infrastructure is a fallacy. In fact cycling makes such a positive contribution in terms of helping meet emissions targets, reduced infrastructure spending per user and reduced health costs that cities like Paris are paying people to commute by bike. 



MrEarl said:


> Insurance would protect both the cyclist and also those who they might encounter during an accident. If an accident is clearly the fault of the cyclist, why shouldn't the counter party be able to submit a claim against their insurance, just like someone can claim against a car or motorcycle user ?



Again, this is an old argument that has been looked at and ruled out in multiple jurisdictions. Cyclists are already personally liable, the majority will have personal liability cover in place via their household policies. Many cyclists on our roads also have additional public liability insurance already via Cycling Ireland membership. The route to claim is still the same as similar minor RTAs, you take a civil action for your losses. How would introducing some new insurance won't change that in any meaningful way?



MrEarl said:


> Again, I also think that compulsory insurance might assist with having cyclists respect and obey the appropriate rules and legislation, in addition to giving everyone some financial comfort in the event of an accident.



I don't understand how you would expect cyclists would somehow start to obey the law simply through the act of having insurance. Motorists for the most part have insurance, the majority of them are breaking the law on a regular basis. The only measure with a track record of impact on compliance is enforcement. 



MrEarl said:


> You were kind enough to answer a quick question for me recently on electric power bikes. Notwithstanding the restriction on power that you mentioned, I think all electric bikes offer an increased risk for both user and those they may encounter.



There will be slightly more energy involved in and collision, as the bikes themselves are ~6kg heavier, but only marginally so when you take rider weight into account. I don't follow there there is an increased risk for the rider, topping out at 25kmph and the additional weight will mean lower top speeds.  I'm not aware of any evidence of increased injuries or incidents involving electric bikes. They're usually quite expensive, so there's an incentive there not to take chances.



MrEarl said:


> Both tax and insurance would only create an equitable situation, it wouldn't give preference or discriminate against cyclists in any way.



On an equitable basis, what would you think the emissions based motor tax should be for a vehicle with no motor? 

The only things licencing, tax or mandatory insurance have done anywhere else in the world is to reduce the number of people cycling. Every previous trial has been scrapped as a waste of money. With increasing obesity, our public transport creaking and our roads unable to cope as it is with the volumes of private cars, why would we want to introduce more problems? Fewer cyclists would mean my drive to work would take longer, I wouldn't be in favour of that.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Feb 2018)

This fallacy again.....there is no such thing as road tax, there is motor emissions tax which given that bicycles don't have emissions during use means there's no tax there. Road infrastructure is paid for from general taxation, not from motor emissions taxation. Have you any statistics for the amount of claims that would arise from injuries caused by people cycling on others? No, because there aren't any. More anecdotal "analysis". We have had decades of scofflaw motorists whilst compulsory insurance is in place, thousands of vehicles do not have insured people driving them.
Lights are already compulsory, any cyclists without lights should have their bikes confiscated and not returned until they have lights, same with car drivers who have a faulty light.
Everyone driving in our cities should want more and more cyclists, each of those cyclists is (more or less) removing a car from the road thus contributing to less congestion.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Feb 2018)

Post crossed.


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> Principally because it seems many of those who support the argument for mandatory helmets, high-viz, insurance, etc. are more interested in punishing cyclists than they are genuinely concerned about road safety.



Hi Leo,

I'm not in that camp and would love to see more cycling / cyclists on our roads. The only point I am trying to make is that I think wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet, especially in this country where the infrastructure and conditions are far from perfect.  

Firefly.


----------



## Leo (12 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> I'm not in that camp and would love to see more cycling / cyclists on our roads. The only point I am trying to make is that I think wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet, especially in this country where the infrastructure and conditions are far from perfect.



Yep, I agree with that. My own thoughts are that helmets should be optional and a personal choice though, as mandatory use has been shown to be a deterrent to cycling elsewhere, and so do more harm than good. 

Amsterdam is often quoted as an example of cycling utopia where helmets are only worn by a small minority with negligible head injuries. My very limited experience there suggests the sheer numbers cycling mean they are by and large moving more slowly, there doesn't seem to be the same race to get everywhere we have here, from cyclists and motorists. The majority of the bikes in use are more upright, heavier city bikes. I've never been to the outskirts though where commutes are likely to be longer and so likely to involve lighter faster bikes and higher speeds.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Feb 2018)

I wear a helmet when cycling most of the time (i'll take a Dublin Bike without one though) but don't want it to be made compulsory - evidence from Australia saw massive reduction in cyclists when compulsory helmet use was brought in. It really would just cause a plummet in numbers cycling if brought in for very little benefit. Most cyclist deaths in recent years were crush injuries where helmet wearing would not have made one iota of difference. Some studies have shown that motorists give less space to helmet wearers than they do those without helmets, other studies have found that helmet wearers take greater risks than those without helmets.
If we're going full whataboutery we should insist on all drivers and passengers in motor vehicles wearing helmets as many injuries in car accidents are head injuries....


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> I wear a helmet when cycling most of the time (i'll take a Dublin Bike without one though) but don't want it to be made compulsory - evidence from Australia saw massive reduction in cyclists when compulsory helmet use was brought in. It really would just cause a plummet in numbers cycling if brought in for very little benefit. Most cyclist deaths in recent years were crush injuries where helmet wearing would not have made one iota of difference. Some studies have shown that motorists give less space to helmet wearers than they do those without helmets, other studies have found that helmet wearers take greater risks than those without helmets.



All very good points.


----------



## Leo (13 Feb 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> If we're going full whataboutery we should insist on all drivers and passengers in motor vehicles wearing helmets as many injuries in car accidents are head injuries....



And to take it further, twice as many pedestrians as cyclists die on our roads, they should all be wearing high-viz and helmets too!


----------



## MrEarl (13 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> And to take it further, twice as many pedestrians as cyclists die on our roads, they should all be wearing high-viz and helmets too!



Whatever about helmets, I agree that they should be wearing high-viz.  A pedestrian going out in the dark without taking precautions, is just as dumb as a cyclist doing it. I find it amazing at night time when driving on rural roads, how many pedestrians there are walking on the edge of the road with no high-viz, lights etc.

There's been a bit of pi$$ taking throughout this thread, but hopefully somewhere along the way the different categories of commuters will have taken the important messages from all that has been posted to date.

Always put safety before stupidity !



.


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> I find it amazing at night time when driving on rural roads (often with no lighting)


You should always use your lights when driving on rural roads


----------



## MrEarl (14 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> You should always use your lights when driving on rural roads



Good to see that one of us was paying attention 

... afraid I was editing the post and forgot to remove the part in brackets.   Now corrected


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Sep 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Here are just a few relevant articles or reports on accidents caused by cyclists. I think it supports the need for tough laws and for those laws to be enforced.
> 
> Roger Handy killed by a cyclist going the wrong way, on a one way street



These are so rare, that it's worth noting them when they occur. 

*Cyclist in critical condition after collision in Cork *


_A cyclist is in a critical condition in hospital after she collided with another cyclist outside Bandon in west Cork this morning._


Incidentally, I was cycling into town yesterday when a cyclist on a Dublin Bike passed me on the inside at great speed.  If I had pulled in, there would have been a major accident. 

Brendan


----------



## RETIRED2017 (30 Sep 2018)

Up until 1999 all bikes sold in the uk had to be supplied with bells, then in 2011 the requirement was dropped after a red tape challenge ,

I do not know the law in Austria but most Bikes are fitted with bells ,I notice before my gran children use a bicycle they always check it is working same goes for there Irish Mother this feed into using the bell , The strange thing is I have seen hired Bikes with no bell over there also ,


The bell appeared  to make cyclists and walkers who shares the same space more aware of the danger around them kind of created a more cycle -friendly space for want of a better word,

Out of interest do you have a bell on your Bike and do you use it,

Bell appeared to be used in a friendly way to alert people if they were breaking the law and putting them self and others in danger, 
I suspect it's gets people asking  what am i doing wrong and over time the will act in a more safer manner,


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Sep 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Out of interest do you have a bell on your Bike and do you use it,



I have two bells on my bike.

One is a polite:  "Hello I am coming and you shouldn't really be walking on a bicycle path" 

The other is a much louder one - more: "Get out of my way or I will run you down. "

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (30 Sep 2018)

Maybe the FG goverment will see an opportunity to get in a bit of dosh and make it compulsory for cyclists to have a licence to ride a bike in the different categories of models, etc?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (30 Sep 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have two bells on my bike.
> 
> One is a polite:  "Hello I am coming and you shouldn't really be walking on a bicycle path"
> 
> ...


I did not state that very well
I should have said Out of interest do  you have a bell on your bike and do you use it in a friendly way on shared cycle and walking ways

Hello i am about to pass lets  be careful thanking you in advance for doing so,


----------



## Buddyboy (1 Oct 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> I did not state that very well
> I should have said Out of interest do  you have a bell on your bike and do you use it in a friendly way on shared cycle and walking ways
> 
> Hello i am about to pass lets  be careful thanking you in advance for doing so,



I do have a bell, and do use it on my daily cycle commute along a shared path. A single "ding" is all that is usually needed to alert walkers of my presence.  A lot of the time I get a friendly wave and a "thanks", which is returned.


----------



## mtk (2 Oct 2018)

Brendan I think I saw you on your bike breaking a red light in city centre yesterday lunchtime!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2018)

mtk said:


> Brendan I think I saw you on your bike breaking a red light in city centre yesterday lunchtime!



Hi mtk

Yes. That is quite likely.  I proceed through red lights on my bike when there are no cars or pedestrians.  I don't break red lights when driving. 

Whey didn't you say hello? 

Brendan


----------



## mtk (2 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi mtk
> 
> Yes. That is quite likely.  I proceed through red lights on my bike when there are no cars or pedestrians.  I don't break red lights when driving.
> 
> ...


Was on other side of street Brendan  ....I will next time now I know you are ok with that  .... Some celebs don't like being approached. !


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2018)

mtk said:


> Some celebs don't like being approached. !



Ah, I see. Was I giving David Hall a crossbar at the time? 

Brendan


----------



## mtk (2 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Ah, I see. Was I giving David Hall a crossbar at the time?
> 
> Brendan


No it was David McWilliams not looking very secure 
 mtk


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2018)

mtk said:


> No it was David McWilliams not looking very secure


----------



## MrEarl (11 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi mtk
> 
> Yes. That is quite likely.  I proceed through red lights on my bike when there are no cars or pedestrians.  I don't break red lights when driving.
> 
> ...




Hello Mr. Burgess,

Out of interest, what's the difference between you breaking a red light when cycling and when in a car ?

Are you not breaking the rules of the road in both instances ?


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Oct 2018)

Different penalties?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Oct 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Out of interest, what's the difference between you breaking a red light when cycling and when in a car ?



Just to clarify. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> I proceed through red lights on my bike when there are no cars or pedestrians.



The problem with doing that in a car is that if someone appears out of the blue you can't stop as quickly. 

Which do you think is more dangerous - crashing the tail end of an organge light beginning of  a red light in a car or stopping on your bike checking if the coast is clear and then proceeding through? 

Brendan


----------



## Leo (12 Oct 2018)

Quite a few cities across Europe have enacted laws that allow cyclists to pass through red lights, while yielding to crossing traffic or pedestrians. The result is generally much safer cycling conditions and better flow of traffic as you eliminate the issue of multiple cyclists congregating red lights. You see it here a lot during busy periods, with a few bikes at the head of the queue spread across the advanced stop box, when the light turns green, it can take a while for the cyclists to stretch out before it's safe to overtake. 

There has been a campaign to introduce a similar law in San Francisco for years, this made international headlines after a police crack-down on cyclists jumping red lights. Cyclists in response orchestrated a campaign of 100% compliance with red lights and stop signs, and the entire city'd traffic was brought to a standstill.


----------



## Romulan (12 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Just to clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd suggest that they are equally dangerous as they reflect a similar attitude, that is, this rule does not suit me or I disagree with it,  I'm in a hurray or whatever -  therefore I will not obey it.

I see it from road users all the time, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
The roads would be much safer for all users with more frequent and more ruthless enforcement of the existing laws.

I have to say, I was surprised to read this Brendan...........a poor example for the askaboutmoney family.............


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> Cyclists in response orchestrated a campaign of 100% compliance with red lights and stop signs, and the entire city'd traffic was brought to a standstill.



That is a brilliant idea. 

It is much safer for me as a cyclist to proceed safely through a red light than to compete with cars when the lights go green.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Oct 2018)

Romulan said:


> The roads would be much safer for all users with more frequent and more ruthless enforcement of the existing laws.




As a pedestrian, you don't cross the road within 15m of a pedestrian crossing even if there is no traffic coming ?  You walk down to the pedestrian crossing, press the button and wait for the light to turn green even if there are no cars anywhere to be seen?

I would suggest that it is far safer for you to cross the road when there is no traffic coming than to cross it when it has turned to green and there is a car speeding towards it. But that is up to you. 

Brendan


----------



## MrEarl (26 Oct 2018)

Romulan said:


> I'd suggest that they are equally dangerous as they reflect a similar attitude, that is, this rule does not suit me or I disagree with it,  I'm in a hurray or whatever -  therefore I will not obey it.
> 
> I see it from road users all the time, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
> The roads would be much safer for all users with more frequent and more ruthless enforcement of the existing laws.
> ...



Agreed.

I don't always obey the rules of the road myself, and obviously I can try to justify the decisions I make etc., but the bottom line here is that it's either right or wrong, whether you are in a car or on a bike.

We come from a country that spends more time trying to pull a fast one, get around the laws etc. Just about everyone is guilt of doing wrong in some shape or form, be it the politicians, publicans, gardai, bankers, lawyers, or anyone else you care to name.  It's in our make up, and probably something that dates back to when we were ruled by a foreign power and wanted to try and look out for ourselves despite the oppression of the time etc.


----------



## MrEarl (26 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is a brilliant idea.
> 
> It is much safer for me as a cyclist to proceed safely through a red light than to compete with cars when the lights go green.



Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ? 

Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems.  It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Oct 2018)

So we know it doesn't necessarily make you a safe cyclist... or even to be seen as a cyclist or pedestrian... but you can order free hivis tops and other accessories from the RSA website:
https://www.rsaorders.ie/orders-online/


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?



Could I suggest that you hire a bike for a week and see why most of the time cyclists do use bike lanes, but some of the time they don't.   It shouldn't take you too long to see. 

There is a cyclist stop place at some junctions to make it safe for cyclists to proceed through a junction without having to compete with drivers like yourself who clearly thinks that they should not be on the road at all. 

Brendan


----------



## AlbacoreA (28 Oct 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?
> 
> Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems.  It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.



Its not causing a problem for cyclists


----------



## Leper (28 Oct 2018)

Lads, we're fighting WW2 all over again. Cyclists hate motorists hate cyclists hate motorists. We're never going to see less cyclists on the road, get over it. It's great to see greenways, cycle lanes and a whole new industry has been built up around cyclists. Look at Dungarvan, a town that died even before the recession and has rejuvenated itself especially because of the Dungarvan - Waterford Greenway. Bike rental shops have been born, guesthouses, hotels are usually booked up for weekends. Dungarvan is now teeming with people and it's great to see the activity. The town owes its life to cyclists. 

Cyclists break red lights and like somebody pointed out, it is generally safer for them to do so. It can even be beneficial for motorists when cyclists break the law. Motorists still own their fair share of the road. We need to have some of our laws changed to accommodate (cyclists) breaking the red light etc. Whether we like it or not it won't be too long before we see cyclists cycling on footpaths legally - another area where the law must be changed. 

It all boils down to live-and-let-live; be a part of it for everyone's sake.


----------



## Jim2007 (28 Oct 2018)

MrEarl said:


> It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.



Not at all we should be actively discouraging the use of private cars in the city in favor of public transport and bicycles in an effort to reduce congestion and emissions.  Parking spaces should be reduced by 30% over say five years, parking fines doubled or trebled and the number cars allowed enter the city restricted so that a new car may only enter when one exists.

https://youtu.be/9Fninviwbhg


----------



## Bronte (28 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Could I suggest that you hire a bike for a week and see why most of the time cyclists do use bike lanes, but some of the time they don't.   It shouldn't take you too long to see.
> 
> There is a cyclist stop place at some junctions to make it safe for cyclists to proceed through a junction without having to compete with drivers like yourself who clearly thinks that they should not be on the road at all.
> 
> Brendan


I cycle and I'm a driver in a city. I prefer as a driver and a cyclist that bikes are in front of cars at traffic lights as otherwise as a driver they can be hard to see. Even with hi viz and lights. Especially when it's dark and raining. Bikes should be allowed turn on red lights to get them out of the way where it is not dangerous to do so. Even with good cycle lanes here I'm always conscious that some drivers don't see us.


----------



## AlbacoreA (28 Oct 2018)

Same here as cyclist & driver. You want them where you can see them. 

As a driver the reality is now it's the least preferred transport. So if you take the car you have to accept you'll have to wait a bit longer .


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Oct 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> You want them where you can see them.



MrEarl's philosophy seems to be "out of sight, out of mind" 

Brendan


----------



## dereko1969 (30 Oct 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?
> 
> Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems.  It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.



It's purely done for the safety of cyclists. Having them ahead of cars means they can set off without having a car that perhaps hasn't indicated turning left across them, it also puts them in the sight line of car drivers and should reduce collisions. Nothing petty about it.


----------



## Leo (30 Oct 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems. It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.



The idea of the advanced stop line & box is that when used correctly, it allows cyclists move off from the lights and quickly filter back left, allowing the quicker ones move ahead and so make space for motorists to then proceed. Without ASLs, it takes much longer for this order to be established and only tempts drivers to attempt to overtake overtaking cyclists, putting the cyclists and other road users in danger.


----------



## MrEarl (8 Nov 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Could I suggest that you hire a bike for a week and see why most of the time cyclists do use bike lanes, but some of the time they don't.   It shouldn't take you too long to see.



To be honest Mr. Burgess, I would not risk getting on a bike around Dublin city as I think it's too dangerous... and I blame bad infrastructure for that, well ahead of anything else (but I do acknowledge, bad drivers, bad pedestrians, bad cyclists also have to get a mention as adding to the danger) !.



Brendan Burgess said:


> There is a cyclist stop place at some junctions to make it safe for cyclists to proceed through a junction without having to compete with drivers like yourself who clearly thinks that they should not be on the road at all.
> 
> Brendan



While you are correct that I don't think cyclists should be on the road, that is in the context of them not being on the road because roads are for cars, buses etc.  Likewise, I don't think cyclists should be on footpaths, because they are for pedestrians.  Bikes should be in specific, "ring fenced" bike lanes, kept entirely clear from other commuters, regardless of whether they are in a car, on a bus, or walking.  That way, everyone gets to progress in relative safety.

So, what's wrong with my theory - one simple thing, our lack of appropriate resources, and that boils down to the incompetence of the likes of the DCC, who led by Owen Keegan, have put the cart before the horse, by promoting cycling without providing a safe, satisfactory environment, for the cyclists they want commuting.

I know money doesn't grow on trees, so the DCC can't produce endless bike lanes overnight, but equally, there are numerous simple and sensible things that they could do, to improve the situation very quickly.  An example off the top of my head, is this nonsense that they've carried on with, with regards to the proposed bike lane along Fairview (Dublin 3), rather than do the sensible thing and put the cycle lane through Fairview park (alongside the pedestrian footpaths already there, easily lit up, safe from traffic, not taking away valuable limited road space etc.), they've proposed several other stupid alternatives.

If anyone from the DCC happens to be reading this, then please take note - painting a few white lines on main roads, full of motor powered traffic having to commute in and out of a city, is not a safe or satisfactory solution.


----------



## MrEarl (8 Nov 2018)

Leo said:


> The idea of the advanced stop line & box is that when used correctly, it allows cyclists move off from the lights and quickly filter back left, allowing the quicker ones move ahead and so make space for motorists to then proceed. Without ASLs, it takes much longer for this order to be established and only tempts drivers to attempt to overtake overtaking cyclists, putting the cyclists and other road users in danger.



Leo,

While that concept may make sense from the cyclists point of view, it results in delays for the large majority of commuters, and time costs money etc. 

That's before we consider the potential risks for cyclists placed in that box at a junction ahead of the cars (be it from motorists traveling across in front of them, or the risk taking cyclists breaking the lights having nicely been positioned ahead of other road users etc.).

Better cycle lanes removes the need for the advance stop line and box, while facilitating the cyclists and the other motorists.


----------



## MrEarl (8 Nov 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> ....As a driver the reality is now it's the least preferred transport.  ....



If driving is the least preferred method of transport, why do so many people still use their cars (specifically around Dublin city, given there's more alternatives in Dublin than in other parts of the country) ?



Jim2007 said:


> Not at all we should be actively discouraging the use of private cars in the city in favor of public transport and bicycles in an effort to reduce congestion and emissions.  Parking spaces should be reduced by 30% over say five years, parking fines doubled or trebled and the number cars allowed enter the city restricted so that a new car may only enter when one exists....



Motorists pay a very high price to use their cars, contribute significant ongoing revenue to the state for the benefit of using their cars, then have the likes of the DCC remove their already limited road space.  So, why shoudnt the motorist be unhappy ?  Moreover, what would happen if the state was no longer getting such high revenue from the motoring community, how would that be replaced if motorists stopped buying / owning cars etc. ?  Where does the funding come from to pay for this public transport that you talk about, or the facilities that the cyclists take for granted ?


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2018)

MrEarl said:


> While that concept may make sense from the cyclists point of view, it results in delays for the large majority of commuters, and time costs money etc.



No, it actually speeds up the flow of traffic as it becomes safe for drivers to overtake more quickly, and legally. 

I do 100% agree though that we should modify the prioritisation of available space, investment and infrastructure to the majority of commuters. The latest NTA numbers show private cars now account for less than 30% of daily commuters into Dublin (down from 39% in 2006, so some progress there), yet take up more space than all other forms of transport combined. On some routes, cyclists now outnumber private cars. So it is those <30% of commuters (myself included) who are costing the others time and money.



MrEarl said:


> That's before we consider the potential risks for cyclists placed in that box at a junction ahead of the cars (be it from motorists traveling across in front of them, or the risk taking cyclists breaking the lights having nicely been positioned ahead of other road users etc.).



It can only be dangerous for them if motorists break the law. Advanced stop boxes move cyclists up front and out of drivers blind spots, and so reduce cyclist deaths due to motorists not giving adequate consideration to other road users.



MrEarl said:


> Better cycle lanes removes the need for the advance stop line and box, while facilitating the cyclists and the other motorists.



They just don't, it will never be possible to fully segregate pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. We just don't have the physical space, let alone the financial resources to ever have that become close to a reality.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2018)

MrEarl said:


> I would not risk getting on a bike around Dublin city as I think it's too dangerous... and I blame bad infrastructure for that



No one was ever killed by infrastructure, but through the poor behaviour of the victim themselves or other road users. 



MrEarl said:


> While you are correct that I don't think cyclists should be on the road, that is in the context of them not being on the road because roads are for cars, buses etc.



Roads were for pedestrians, horses and cyclists long before the invention of the motor vehicle. Part of our problems stem from the resentment of one class of road user has for others in exercising their rights in the use of infrastructure intended to be shared by all categories. There are those in all categories who seem to think they have some entitlement to take priority over all others. In many areas there are no footpaths or suitable alternatives. Do you feel those who live in such areas should be confined to their houses unless they can afford their own transport? 

Along the majority of Irish streets, there is no space for segregated cycle infrastructure, a large part of that problem is down to the vast space given over to parking. How do you resolve that? How do cyclists get to and from this utopian segregated infrastructure from these streets?



MrEarl said:


> Likewise, I don't think cyclists should be on footpaths, because they are for pedestrians.  Bikes should be in specific, "ring fenced" bike lanes, kept entirely clear from other commuters, regardless of whether they are in a car, on a bus, or walking.  That way, everyone gets to progress in relative safety.



The Gardai clearly have no issue with motorists in cycle lanes or on footpaths. It's a bit much to expect cyclists to restrict themselves to a small amount of segregated space when even that little space isn't being enforced in any way. 



MrEarl said:


> An example off the top of my head, is this nonsense that they've carried on with, with regards to the proposed bike lane along Fairview (Dublin 3), rather than do the sensible thing and put the cycle lane through Fairview park (alongside the pedestrian footpaths already there, easily lit up, safe from traffic, not taking away valuable limited road space etc.), they've proposed several other stupid alternatives.



The segregated lanes haven't worked in the Phoenix Park, what would be different about doing the same in Fairview?


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Motorists pay a very high price to use their cars, contribute significant ongoing revenue to the state for the benefit of using their cars, then have the likes of the DCC remove their already limited road space.


If that motorist has three kids and earns say €50,000 a year they are still net recipients from the State. Should someone with no kids who earns €150,000 a year get priority because of their vastly greater net tax contribution? 
The whole "motorists pay road tax and cyclists don't" is a stupid argument. Many cyclists also own cars and since 70% of people (and no public servants; the cost of pensions is the same as the total amount of tax they pay) don't make any net contribution to the State coffers there would be very few people on the roads if that criteria was used.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2018)

Purple said:


> The whole "motorists pay road tax and cyclists don't" is a stupid argument.



Absolutely, significantly more motor tax revenue is spent on the Irish Water subvention than is allocated to roads and public transport budget, local property tax income and other exchequer streams account for over 40% or the roads and public infrastructure budget.

Then on the other side, if you want to fully account for the contribution of motorists to state finances, you need to include the costs of healthcare provision related to respiratory illnesses, traffic accidents, etc.. Then, there's the significant amount of money leaving the economy from the importation of cars and fuel...


----------

