# Top four types of cycle accidents



## Brendan Burgess (12 Feb 2009)

_This was in the Irish Times recently. By Olivia Kelly 

_*Top four types of cycle  accidents* 


Drivers turning  right in front of an oncoming bicycle.
Drivers hitting a  bicycle when overtaking or changing lanes.
Car doors being  opened in front of cyclists.
Drivers hitting  cyclists when turning left.
But the fatalities are caused by HGVs: 
ALMOST  THREE-QUARTERS of cyclists killed on Dublin roads are hit by left-turning heavy  goods vehicles (HGVs), according to a new report from Dublin City  Council.
The report,  compiled by the council’s traffic department from Garda statistics, found that  cars were the most likely vehicles to be involved in collisions with bicycles  but the majority of serious and fatal incidents involved  HGVs.
It  recommends that cyclops mirrors be made compulsory on all HGVs, provision be  made to segregate cyclists from HGVs, and an awareness campaign to warn cyclists  of the dangers of left-turning HGVs be introduced.
Of the 427  collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city from  2002-2006, only 11 involved fatalities. However, eight of these deaths were of  cyclists killed by left-turning lorries. Of the three other fatalities, one  involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes, in another a vehicle  rear-ended the cyclist while the third was caused by a stolen vehicle driving  head on into a cyclist.
Almost 70  per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars. Although left-turning vehicles  were involved the majority of fatalities, the most common collision involved  right-turning cars. These accounted for just under 20 per cent of incidents. The  next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent  of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing  lanes hits the bicycle.
Drivers or  passengers opening car doors in front of cyclists accounted for about 14 per  cent of incidents, and left-turning vehicles hitting cyclists accounted for just  over 12 per cent.
Crashes  where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a  much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a  pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right  into on-coming traffic.
The more  serious a crash, the more likely it was to involve a vehicle turning left,  according to the report. While 73 per cent of fatalities were at a left turn  (all involving HGVs) almost one-third resulting in serious injury to the cyclist  involved a left-turning vehicle. A further 18 per cent of serious injuries were  caused when a vehicle turned right and hit a cyclist, while 11 per cent involved  sideswipes from vehicles.
The report  also found that November was the worst month for collisions, that cyclists  between the ages of 20 and 29 were the most likely to be involved in incidents  and that commuters, not school children or teenagers, were involved in the  greater number of collisions with vehicles.
The traffic  department is to put recommendations to city councillors tomorrow. Chief among  these is a recommendation that cyclops mirrors be fitted to HGVs so they can  better see cyclists on their left. The report found that in the majority of  left-turning collisions the HGV driver did not see the cyclist. It also  recommends that all cycle lanes be inspected annually. Several collisions  occurred when cyclists were forced to move out of the lane to avoid potholes or  sunken gullies.
*Cycling: key findings* 
*Top four types of cycle  accidents* 


Drivers turning  right in front of an oncoming bicycle.
Drivers hitting a  bicycle when overtaking or changing lanes.
Car doors being  opened in front of cyclists.
Drivers hitting  cyclists when turning left.
 *Recommendations* 


*Segregation of bicycles and HGVs  where possible.*
*Awareness campaign on the danger of  left-turning HGVs.*
*Upgrade of cycle lanes to remove  potholes, sunken gullies and poor surfaces.*
*Enforcement of legislation  regarding the use of bicycle lights.*
*Encourage more cycling to produce a  “safety in numbers” effect.*
*Provide additional cycling  infrastructure on a “most used routes” priority  basis.*


----------



## Paulone (12 Feb 2009)

Further recommendation - introduce a 'cycling proficiency' test for children or young people.

I did one of these when I was eight years old in Belfast and still have my certificate somewhere. It involved the active teaching of the rules of the Road both specific to bicycles and general operations in using the roads over the course of three days.

We did it in a group with a trained instructor (a volunteer I think) at a local primary school, during the Easter holidays. The instructor was fierce and left us in no doubt about how easy it is to get killed while out biking. I still recall key things about what he told us and have used it to bike practically (and as safely as possible I hope) on a daily basis.

Regarding cycle lanes, these are great to have because they increase the 'standing' of the cyclist on the road. Couple of points:
* Some are placed on roads which are too narrow for them creating traffic conflict
* some are put on pavements (making them cyclepaths) when they could just as safely been on the road. Wandering pedestrians in dark clothes are a bigger hazard on cyclepaths at night than cars
* There is a case to be made for both cyclepaths and cyclelanes on the same roads - slower cyclepaths for young children and leisurebikers and cyclelanes for faster, commuter bike traffic
* Afterthought cyclelanes/paths need dealt in traffic planning.

I believe though that it is a lot safer to cycle in this city than it was 10 years ago. I note the standard of driving (and cycling) has improved. The old idea that a cyclist is a careless person on an unlit boneshaker with no brakes weaving in and out between motorists who would run them off the road as quick as look at them is no more.


----------



## Caveat (12 Feb 2009)

I know it's not really the issue, but is there a particular law which makes it illegal for motorists to encroach onto cycle lanes? Or is it simply as unenforced as bus lanes? More stringent laws or even reporting surely can only help reduce cycling fatalities generally - even if the majority of these do not result from lane 'trespass' like this.

One of the achievements of the Green Party both at local and national level was their enthusiasm and lobbying for cycle lanes - which has been largely successful as far as I can see. It would be terrible if it was just left like that.


----------



## rgfuller (12 Feb 2009)

According to the "Rules of the Road" : 
'No vehicle (other than a motorised wheelchair) may cross into or over a mandatory cycle track unless the driver is entering or leaving a place or a side road.'

A Mandatory cycle track being defined by a solid white line or physically seperated from the road. 

I believe a non-mandatory cycle tracks are treated as shared driving space, and the suggestion is that they should not be blocked during their hours of operation.

I guess if you were going to enforce non entry of mandatory cycle tracks by other vehicles you'd also have to enforce the usage of those tracks by cyclists.


----------



## werner (13 Feb 2009)

Brendan said:


> _This was in the Irish Times recently. By Olivia Kelly _
> 
> 
> ALMOST THREE-QUARTERS of cyclists killed on Dublin roads are hit by left-turning heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), according to a new report from Dublin City Council.


 
Having personal experience of viewing traffic cameras at junctions, the majority of cyclists in Dublin that I have personally witnessed totally ignore a slowing down Truck/Van/Bus/car that is indicating left.

There is a kamikaze mentality in the vast majority of cyclists that I have witnessed when they are presented with a vehicle turning left. Never mind their total disregard for traffic lights.

Invariably the cyclist will attempt to race the vehicle at traffic lights to overtake on the inside, resulting in the majority of serious injuries and fatal accidents. They blind side the driver.

Cyclists should have to have insurance as I think it might make them a little more aware of their responsibility to other road users as well as passing a competence test of some sort re- the rules of the road.


----------



## Paulone (13 Feb 2009)

werner said:


> Having personal experience of viewing traffic cameras at junctions, the majority of cyclists in Dublin that I have personally witnessed totally ignore a slowing down Truck/Van/Bus/car that is indicating left.
> 
> There is a kamikaze mentality in the vast majority of cyclists that I have witnessed when they are presented with a vehicle turning left. Never mind their total disregard for traffic lights.


 
Should that be the case, then I take it you've seen lots of bad cycling accidents as the scenario plays out and the cyclist gets knocked off?

The numbers of accidents happening doesn't support such a sweeping statement about cycling incompetence.

In my experience, the majority of motorists are quite understanding and accepting of bikes on the road, and they don't do things like overtake a bike when they are about to make a left turn (often without indicating) as this would of course be bad driving.

There are some motorists tho, who have no idea how to deal with a cyclist when they come upon them and react in a way that seems they are scared or can't predict what the cyclist will do. These guys are the ones who tend to want to have a go at the cyclist too and beep horns etc. which all adds to unpleasantness on the road - usually unwarranted but I'm sure cyclists make errors the same as other road users (I know I have... I try not to tho).

The basic fact is that cyclists always come off worse in accidents, so its important not to have them. Running a red (other than when the pedestrian lights are on - itself a grey area for legitimate biking) tends to be extremely dangerous so cyclists (like motorists) don't tend to do it.

Having driven a car makes it much easier to cycle because its possible to put yourself in the drivers shoes and predict quite well what they will do.

I repeat that I believe the standard of cycling and driving is much better than it was. Cars and bikes are coexisting on the road a lot better now than in the past.


----------



## Dreamerb (13 Feb 2009)

werner said:


> *Invariably* the cyclist will attempt to race the vehicle at traffic lights to overtake on the inside, resulting in the majority of serious injuries and fatal accidents. They blind side the driver.


[emphasis added]

If it were "invariably" there would be hundreds of serious injuries and dozens of fatalities a year. 

I've seen people do incredibly stupid things - both cyclists and motorists - and get away with it, but as Paulone says cyclists do come off worse in accidents so it's important not to have them. And motorists owe an extra duty of care to more vulnerable road users - indeed, the bigger and more dangerous your vehicle, the more road users are vulnerable to you and so the more caution you should exercise.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Feb 2009)

As a cyclist and a driver, I can't agree. I think at least 50% if not more of cyclists do not cycle safely and break lights, don't have lights etc. On my commute, I'm often the only cyclist who stops for red lights. Theres a high % of cyclists who are completely oblivious of vehicles turning left. Why theres not more accidents I don't know. But its not because cyclists aren't doing these things. Stand at any junction on the canal for 10 mins and you'll see it happen repeatedly. 

However one thing to consider is that if the cyclist gets off early, by breaking lights they are usually gone from the junction when the traffic starts to move. So ironically it can actually be safer. Waiting in the cycle lane might be more dangerous if someone turns across or into you as the lights turn green. Also on comming cars moving off early and turning across the junction, or turning after cars have passed, often can't see you as in the cycle lane your often hidden by a 4x4 or van in the lane beside you. 

From experience the best solution is to move into the main lane of traffic out of the cycle lane and effectively block the traffic behind me. It makes you more visible to on coming traffic and those behind obviously. However its breaking the law to move out of a cycle lane where it exists. Even if its more dangerous to stay in it!

As for cyclists needing to drive to understand drivers. As a motorist often you can't predict how taxi's, or white vans are going to do. They are just unpredictable. But you come across that a lot, so most people are aware of that including cyclists.  Most cyclists also drive, so there isn't a lack of understanding there. But most motorists do not cycle. So most of the things cyclist do make no sense. Like why do cyclists not always stay in the cycle lane etc.

That said I find the vast majority of motorists are very accommodating to cyclists.


----------



## Paulone (13 Feb 2009)

AlbacoreA said:


> However one thing to consider is that if the cyclist gets off early, by breaking lights they are usually gone from the junction when the traffic starts to move. So ironically it can actually be safer. Waiting in the cycle lane might be more dangerous if someone turns across or into you as the lights turn green. Also on comming cars moving off early and turning across the junction, or turning after cars have passed, often can't see you as in the cycle lane your often hidden by a 4x4 or van in the lane beside you.


 
Very valid points - I believe its completely appropriate to be well ahead of the traffic and get off as soon as possible (tho in fairness not before the lights change - a bit too dangerous for me) as it takes the cyclist out of the motorists' way and also stakes a much better place on the road.

My view on the 'turning left' debate is that if a cyclist can see that a car ahead is going to go left (not necessarily by its indicating), then the car must be allowed to turn freely cos it was there first, believes the way to be clear and won't be expecting to get cut up on the inside by a bike.

If however, the car is behind the cyclist and drawing parallel, it is the responsibility of the driver to give way to the bike cos it was there first and the cyclist has a right not to be driven over.

I can see situations where priority becomes unclear - such as in heavy traffic where the bike and car are at the same speed or the bike is moving faster. I think this is where the ability to read the situation is important. Cyclists need to be aware that a driver won't always be thinking of who's in the cyclelane or their inside and the driver needs an awareness that there could be a faster-moving bike on the inside. Insurance professionals might be able to tell us the percentage required from each?

To expand this debate, I am more troubled in town by pedestrians stepping off the pavement into the cyclelane or in front of the bike to cross the road - often without looking properly - and pedestrians running to get to the other side of the road without properly assessing the speed of the bike. Have had a fair few near misses like that and has led me to shout about my presence on the road - have never had to shout at a car driver- glared a few times as they blushed with embarrassment but never had to say anything!


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Feb 2009)

Car or bike or pedestrian. Assume no one has seen you, or can see you, and act accordingly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Feb 2009)

It is obviously unsafe and foolish for cyclists to cycle at speed through red lights while there is traffic going through.

But it is much safer to go through the red lights when there is no cross traffic. 

It is also much more efficient. I cycle from my office on Northumberland Road in to Nassau Street regularly. As traffic lights are sychronised for car speeds, a cyclist will get stopped at every light. Starting increases the energy input by a cyclist by about 30% over a straight run. 

So I crash red lights when there is no cross traffic and get the lights back in synch, so to speak. 

The big problem is cars failing to indicate that they are turning left. Or indicating in the middle of the turn when they see that they are about to knock down a cyclist.

Brendan


----------



## lukegriffen (13 Feb 2009)

AlbacoreA said:


> Assume no one has seen you, or can see you, and act accordingly.


My Grandad's philosophy was to assume everyone else using the road was a complete idiot, liable to do idiotic things at any moment.


----------



## z104 (14 Feb 2009)

It should be law for a cyclists to wear hi vis vests at all times and lights on even during the day.

I never cycle without a high vis vest and am amazed at the amount of cyclists that do not even have lights on at night time.


For info, you can pick up a high vis vest in the 2 euro shop.


----------



## Complainer (9 Apr 2009)

Niallers said:


> It should be law for a cyclists to wear hi vis vests at all times and lights on even during the day.


I normally wear a hi-vis or bright jacket myself when cycling, but I'm not sure that it should be a matter of law. I haven't seen any research that shows that hi-vis gear has a real benefit, and the 'bob the builder' image can be a deterrent to cycling for some, particularly the fairer sex.


----------



## Pique318 (11 Apr 2009)

Brendan said:


> Dublin City  Council recommends that an awareness campaign to warn cyclists  of the dangers of left-turning HGVs be introduced.


Excuse me ? 

Anyone cycling in a city that doesn't realise the dangers of left-turning HGVs, should not be cycling !!!!


----------



## Pique318 (11 Apr 2009)

lukegriffen said:


> My Grandad's philosophy was to assume everyone else using the road was a complete idiot, liable to do idiotic things at any moment.



Your Grandad was a wise man!!!


----------



## Complainer (11 Apr 2009)

It's not just trucks we have to worry about;


[broken link removed]


----------



## Bell Butts (11 Apr 2009)

Also if cyclists get dedicated road space in the form of cycle lanes, they should have to pay road tax towards upkeep etc.


----------



## Complainer (11 Apr 2009)

Bell Butts said:


> Also if cyclists get dedicated road space in the form of cycle lanes, they should have to pay road tax towards upkeep etc.



No-one pays road tax. Car owners say motor tax, which has nothing to do with the upkeep of the roads.


----------



## Bell Butts (11 Apr 2009)

I didn't suggest that they should pay 'motor tax' (they don't have a motor) - I suggested that they pay a road tax because they use up a scarce resource (road space) which costs money to maintain. Motor tax is paid into the local govt fund which pays for, among other things, the upkeep on national roads, which is where the cycle paths are.


----------



## Complainer (11 Apr 2009)

There are just so many holes in this proposal, it is hard to know where to start.

Given that the local authorities have been instructed not to commit to any further spend on road improvements (see [broken link removed]), the suggestion that motor tax pays for upkeep of roads is somewhat flawed.

Any tax on cyclists to cover the costs of road upkeep would need to be proportional to the damage caused to roads by cycling. The infinitesimally small taxes would probably cost more to collect than they would produce in income. 

And of course, if we are going to take this approach, we will need to have a pedestrian tax, a library readers tax, a beach swimmers tax, a forest walkers tax and probably an oxygen breathers tax. 

Not very sensible....


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Apr 2009)

Bell Butts said:


> I didn't suggest that they should pay 'motor tax' (they don't have a motor) - I suggested that they pay a road tax because they use up a scarce resource (road space) which costs money to maintain. Motor tax is paid into the local govt fund which pays for, among other things, the upkeep on national roads, which is where the cycle paths are.


 
There must be very few places where a dedicated cycle lane has entirely replaced lane for motor vehicles thus using one up! I can't think of any. 

Going by the horrendous state of the edge of the roads around Dublin they don't do much maintaining of them.


----------



## Bell Butts (13 Apr 2009)

Complainer said:


> There are just so many holes in this proposal, it is hard to know where to start.
> 
> Given that the local authorities have been instructed not to commit to any further spend on road improvements (see [broken link removed]), the suggestion that motor tax pays for upkeep of roads is somewhat flawed.
> 
> ...


 
Your response is a jumble of non sequiturs and red herrings.  It does not follow that because local authorities have had their budgets temporarily reduced that cyclists should never pay towards new facilities which they alone will use.

Secondly on the cost of collection being uneconomical - that is just your assumption.  We already have a motor tax system that could accept payments and issue pieces if paper at close to zero additional cost.  The main costs of cycling facilities is installing them in the first place, not road damage as you say (we'll leave aside the opportunity costs of excluding other road users from cycling space) - cost of installation has been €136,000 per km according to DTO.

Your final point is also a non sequitur: road users are already singled out for extra taxation.  The question is who should pay for new cycling facilities, especially if the facilities are be improved over time: cyclists or someone else?  My view, put simply, is that the cyclists should pay.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Apr 2009)

Bell Butts said:


> Also if cyclists get dedicated road space in the form of cycle lanes, they should have to pay road tax towards upkeep etc.



You originally said up keep.


----------



## Bell Butts (13 Apr 2009)

Upkeep etc. not upkeep alone.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Apr 2009)

So cyclists pay for the wear caused by motor vehicles.


----------



## Bell Butts (13 Apr 2009)

you're not reading my posts.  i specifically said facilities that they alone use.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Apr 2009)

Bell Butts said:


> I suggested that they pay a road tax because they use up a scarce resource (road space) which costs money to maintain. Motor tax is paid into the local govt fund which pays for, among other things, the upkeep on national roads, which is where the cycle paths are.



You want them to pay for the upkeep of national roads not because they cause wear and tear but because that 2ft of space could be used for a motor vehicles instead.

You reason for discouraging cycling and getting more cars on the road is what exactly? Cars to fill the empty cycle lanes?


----------



## Complainer (13 Apr 2009)

Bell Butts said:


> Your response is a jumble of non sequiturs and red herrings.  It does not follow that because local authorities have had their budgets temporarily reduced that cyclists should never pay towards new facilities which they alone will use.
> 
> Secondly on the cost of collection being uneconomical - that is just your assumption.  We already have a motor tax system that could accept payments and issue pieces if paper at close to zero additional cost.  The main costs of cycling facilities is installing them in the first place, not road damage as you say (we'll leave aside the opportunity costs of excluding other road users from cycling space) - cost of installation has been €136,000 per km according to DTO.
> 
> Your final point is also a non sequitur: road users are already singled out for extra taxation.  The question is who should pay for new cycling facilities, especially if the facilities are be improved over time: cyclists or someone else?  My view, put simply, is that the cyclists should pay.





Bell Butts said:


> you're not reading my posts.  i specifically said facilities that they alone use.


Yeah, it's still not really making any sense. 

Your point about using the motor tax infrastructure is way off base. You forget that a) there is no registration system for bikes, and b) the substantial cost of processing each transaction on that system.

But the bigger issue is that there are no facilities that cyclists alone use. I've never seen a cycle path that isn't used regularly by pedestrians or as I noticed in the Phoenix Park at the weekend, by rollerbladers. I've never seen an on-street cycle lane (even the few lanes that have the solid white line indicating that they are dedicated cycle lanes) that is used only by cyclists. They are used frequently by other road users. 

So perhaps you could tell me where these mythical facilities that are only used by cyclists are?


----------

