Pedestrians and Cyclists with deathwishes in Dublin


Couldn't agree more. The only studies that I've seen that are even remotely scientific seem to indicate that you have to fall in a very specific way at a low speed, at a low impact level and on the strongest part of the helmet. The fact that it is a legal requirement in so many countries yet there hasn't actually been a full study on how effective they are is incredible.

But then the same is true of child car seats/booster seats compared to seat belts. No difference at all in safety once the child is over above 3. The difference there is that there are studies which clearly prove this point, but it's still law to have a child seat.
 
Every so often somebody comes on posting the usual Motorist V Pedestrian V Cyclist. Add in buggy-pushers and wannabee marathon runners and nearly everybody has a rant. It's great to have a debate.

It doesn't matter if everybody knows what to do if an Algerian Turkey changes lanes on the Magic Roundabout if the Motorists, Pedestrians and Cyclists don't have common sense.

Common Sense and Common Courtesy are the least used of our attributes on the roads. If we used them more perhaps we would have less accidents?
 

I think this is why cyclists (and I'm one) get annoyed at being singled out more often in road safety rants. I cycle, drive, walk and use public transport. I'm not perfect in any means if getting from A to B, neither is anyone else. Everyone contributes to elements of unsafe behaviour. Unfortunately statistics show that per head most accidents involve either pedestrians or motorists. So even with a few breaches of the rules of the road cyclists cause and are involved in fewer accidents.
 
Going home through the Phoenix Park yesterday evening, I got caught behind someone rollerblading on the road and had to wait to overtake. It was funny, and I wasn't in a hurry, but I can't imagine it was safe.
 

I disagree.

A child on a back seat without a booster has the seat belt going across their neck or face. The booster gets the child into the right position for the seat belt. And letting a child use a belt that is not fixed at 3 points is just reckless.
 

That well known Freakanomics book had a chapter on this issue. I think it all boils down to the fact that while seat belts are not designed for children, they are designed and integrated into the car. And, while car seats are designed for children, they are not designed with specific cars in mind which reduces their effectiveness and they have more failure points e.g. usually have two belts - the one holding the child in and the one holding the seat in the car, so twice as likely to have a seat belt failure in an accident.

I think the conclusion of the chapter was that for all their failings, if car manufacturers submitted their normal seat belts for assessment, they would pass the child safety requirements and be licensed for use on children. However, it is not politically correct to do so.
 

It's fine to disagree, but the crash test studies show no difference in the injuries sustained from a child seat to normal seat belt. That's repeated, controlled testing and they could find no benefit in a child seat.
 
Latrade said:
It's fine to disagree, but the crash test studies show no difference .
Click to expand...

It is fine to disagree, but ..

For my own peace of mind, my 8yo daughter will stay on a booster 'til she reaches the height recommended by the RSA (150cm, IIRC).

My view could be a minority one, judging by the resistance of my children's friends to using a booster when I'm driving. However, when the alternative, for them, is to get out and walk, they soon come around to my POV !
 
I believe a cycle helmet saved me from a serious injury at the weekend. I was cycling along a coastal path marked for both pedestrians and cyclists. I use a bell to warn people that I'm approaching them from behind and most people appreciate that courtesy (I don't like making people jump as I pass). One family moved to the side and the father told his tot on a tricycle to stay where he was. Unfortunately the child was curious and turn to look, steering across the path and into my line. I had nowhere to go and had to brake hard - I have good bike with brake disks. I avoided the child but flipped out of the saddle directly onto my head, splitting the helmet, but otherwise coming away with only a torn shoulder ligament, sprained wrist and scratches. As I landed on asphalt, I think the damage would have been terrible without a helmet.
 
Ouch! Glad to hear you're OK. Yes, families with kids on cycle lanes are dangerous. I normally hold back, and then have a little word with the parents as I go past.
 
Nasty Sylvester!
I don't use cycle lanes where there's only a white line between me and pedestrians as they are just too dangerous for all concerned.

I hate seeing cyclists going the wrong way down cycle lanes. It’s amazing that they think it’s ok.
 
Sylvester3 said:
One family moved to the side and the father told his tot on a tricycle to stay where he was. Unfortunately the child was curious and turn to look, steering across the path and into my line.
Click to expand...

Every cyclist should pass young children at snails pace bike - they're predictably unpredictable
 
JP1234 said:
Another cyclist on Stillorgan Road on the way home merrily going along in the bus lane with a coach behind her....while a cycling lane sat a foot to her left!
Click to expand...

This is a regular occurence, with ordinary cyclists but more so the other kind, the sprayed on lycra type, on the Stillorgan dual carriageway. These Sean Kelly wannabees will actually cycle alongside the thick white line of the bus lane rather than use the cycle lane. And you know why? It's because it's beneath them to cycle on the cycle lane. That's for wimps and L cyclists. Not us professionals.
 
Did you take a look at the links in Complainer's post above? Have you cycled on a road bike with high-pressure narrow tyres?

The cycle track along the Stillorgan Road (N11) is truly appalling. On many parts the surface has completely disintegrated. It has been engineered to bring cyclists in conflict with pedestrians and people waiting at bus stops, it places bikes in a dangerous position in relation to other traffic turning left and exiting driveways, and it's an absolute rollercoaster ride where the pavement is dished for driveways - especially northbound from Mt Merrion Ave to Foster's Ave, and southbound from White's Cross to Foxrock Church. Unlike on the road, broken glass remains there for weeks as it's not crushed by traffic nor is the cycle track swept. And that's to say nothing of all the additional obstacles (signage, bins, parked cars etc.) that's regularly sited in the cycle track.

[broken link removed] (already linked by Complainer) displays the journey of one cyclist on one day as he travels in along the N11. It's nothing special - just one very ordinary journey along a very ordinary cycle path. But it illustrates just how crap that cycle path - and dozens like it all round the city - are. It provides an alternative reason to your superiority complex theory for why someone might find the road safer and more suitable than the cycle track.
 

Totally agree. I feel much safer cycling on the road most of the time. Cycle paths that are in effect part of the footpath are a bad idea and I never use them.
 
What's wrong with the section just before the Montrose Hotel to the top of Mount Merrion Avenue southbound?
 
From memory (it used to be my daily commute but isn't any longer):
Crap surface, pedestrians where they shouldn't be, unnecessary twists and turns round bus stops planted in your route, detour across the Trimleston slip road/old road at the point where it merges back with the N11 when traffic on the road can just keep going straight, glass, dangerous positioning or else required to halt relative to motorised traffic turning left (St Helen's, Booterstown Ave, Mt Merrion Ave). Halting unnecessarily's a pain since you're travelling uphill at this point and you lose all your momentum.

In fairness to the county council, they appear to have now realised the dangerous location of the off-road cycle track at the St Helen's and Booterstown Ave junctions and they've now painted a second on-road cycle track at those 2 locations. Unfortunately, they haven't realised the same problem exists at the other junctions too. So you end up bobbing up and down from pavement level to road.

Can I make a suggestion? The weather's promised fine for the next couple of days. If you own a bike, or there's one you can borrow, you might consider taking a wee spin along the N11 cycle track. It would give you a completely different perspective, and might mean you'd be less likely to find cyclists using the road instead of the path irritating, because you'd see the reason why they're there. Non-cyclists really don't notice problems with cycling infrastructure because they've never had to use it, and therefore get understandably annoyed at cyclists not using what they perceive to be a perfectly good cycle path. My sister used to feel much as you seem to, until I brought her for a cycle like the one I'm suggesting to you. She actually finds her driving commute less stressful now, she says, because the cyclists on the road don't annoy her any more.
 
It doesn't matter what the cycle lane is like, if your peddling along, earphones in, fiddling with your iphone and no hands on the handlebars, in the rain, as some eejit was doing on the Belgard Road earlier on today.
 
Just for the record, the vast majority of cycle lanes are not mandatory lanes. Mandatory lanes are marked with a continuous white line and red tarmac. If it is not mandatory, cyclists are not obliged to use it. If it is not mandatory, there is a reason why it is not mandatory - probably because the engineers realised that it is generally not safe to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register