Cyclists urged to exercise caution following death of Louise Butler

[Lar Naparka]

This sad story headlined the Indo's online edition this morning.
Like all fatalities, this accident will leave the poor girl's parents and friends feeling devastated as long as they but life will go on as usual and nothing will be done to help prevent other cyclists meeting the same fate as Louise.
That's why the well-meaning advice from Brian Farrell bugs me a little.
It's one thing stating the obvious but doing anything about it is another matter.
Nothing will be done and I suppose with the economy in poor shape and the roads getting more and more congested by the day, it will be hard to see what can be done to makes our roads safer for cyclists.
I use my bike as often as I can to get around and it's a bit rich to see Farrell asking cyclists to make sure their bikes are roadworthy without making any attempts to make the roads bikeworthy in return.
If Farrell's association has its way, new regulations will be introduced and cyclists will face an on the spot fine of €50 if caught cycling on a footpath.
Sure, cyclists can be a nuisance for pedestrians but forcing them to use the road at all times greatly increases the chances of death or injury on the roads.
Any one got any views on this subject?

Cyclists urged to exercise caution following death of Louise Butler

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclists-urged-to-exercise-caution-following-death-of-louise-butler-29503287.html
16 AUGUST 2013
CYCLISTS are being urged to exercise caution on the roads following the death of Louise Butler (28) in South Dublin.
A total of four cyclists have been killed on Irish roads so far this year.
In the 24 hour period yesterday, three people lost their lives on Irish roads.
Cyclist Louise was involved in a collision with an articulated lorry.
Last night, a woman in her fifties died after her moped collided with a car, while
There have been a total of 121 traffic fatalities so far this year which also includes pedestrians, drivers and motorcyclists with ten of the fatalities occurring this month.
Half of all cyclists are hit by private cars and 30 per cent are hit by heavy goods vehicles according to Communications Officer of the Road Safety Authority Brian Farrell.
Two out of five of cyclists are killed or seriously injured at an intersection.
''Drivers need to take special care and understand that cyclists are entitled to road space as much as any other vehicle on the road. It's important that drivers anticipate cyclists at blind spots and to give at least a 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist,'' he said.
''At the same time, cyclists have a duty of care and must be aware that they are vulnerable road users. They must ensure that their bike is in good working order and they are mindful of other road users, particularly when cycling near parked cars and heavy vehicles,'' he added.
Cyclists should always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other vehicles can see the cyclist clearly.
Brakes should work properly and tyres should be inflated to the right pressure.
''It's also vital that cyclists give the proper signals, especially when they are in heavy traffic,'' he said.
Those travelling on bikes should always keep to the left and look behind and give the proper signal before moving off, changing lanes or making a turn....

[Eamonnca1]

I don't think a one-off call for cyclists to be careful is going to make much of a difference. A better idea would be to do something they used to do in primary school in my day, and I don't know if they still do it, but reintroduce the cycling proficiency test. Wasn't a legal requirement, but anybody with a bike was expected to do it and I think cyclists from that generation are a bit better informed about how to stay safe out there. Education of riders and drivers alike would make a much bigger impact IMHO. I see a lot of inexperienced riders doing crazy stuff, and the biggest mistake they make is to assume that motorists can see them. 

For example they get intimidated into riding within the "door zone" too close to parked cars, I've seen a few collisions in my time because of this.  Drivers open their doors in front of me from time to time, but because I leave plenty of clearance it doesn't bother me.  I'll take my chances with annoying the driver behind rather than risk being doored.

Then there's undertaking a slow-moving car at a "pinch point" where the road bends to the right (in the US, so think bending to the left for Ireland), I always assume the driver's an idiot who doesn't see me and is going to cut the corner and drift over into the bike lane, which is what they frequently do.  So I either accelerate ahead of the car or slow down and go behind him.

Riding on the wrong side of the road is just Kamakaze stuff. Drivers emerging from side roads or entrances are not looking in that direction, so that's an invitation to get hit.

A left turn is the trickiest maneuver of all. Either wait for a break in the traffic (which happens in a city where there's a lot of traffic lights) and go across the lanes, or pull in at the right at the junction and wait for the light to let you go from that side.  Fighting your way through the middle of a thick traffic pulse is doable if you're fast enough, but it's risky, and if in doubt you shouldn't risk it.

As for roundabouts, it'd probably take a whole book to explain the best way for a cyclist to handle these abominations. They're great for cars but a nightmare for cyclists.

Buses, trucks and other large vehicles?  Keep your distance and don't on any account try to pass on the inside if there's a junction coming up.  Always assume that he can't see you and that he's going to make that turn even if he's not indicating.  If you're going to pass him, do it on the outside if it's clear to do so, he has a better chance of seeing you on that side.  Otherwise be patient and enjoy his slipstream.  You could ask hauliage firms to donate a bit of time with a lorry putting in an appearance at a school where kids can be shown where the blind spots are and how much can be hidden from the driver even though it's right under his nose.

I agree with what you say about making roads more bike-friendly. I don't know where you're based but I used to have a good laugh at the so-called "bike lanes" in England (and the north of Ireland) which were painted on to footpaths and with yield signs at every side road and at all commercial premises. No wonder I just ignored them, they were more like obstacle courses than a serious attempt to get people cycling. Pure lip-service. They were obviously designed by people who don't know which end of a bike is the front, so cycling advocacy groups should be consulted on these things before anyone starts pouring concrete or painting lines.

The thing about Ireland is cyclists are sharing narrow roads with 40-foot trucks on roads that were only designed to accommodate small vehicles moving in each direction. They were never designed with bikes and trucks both in mind, so a serious bit of widening would be needed for usable bike lanes to be added.  There's a few roads where proper bike lanes could be installed without any widening, like roads with big shoulders (provided for cars, of course) and part of the shoulder could be repurposed as a bike lane.  Like the Armagh to Portadown Road, there's nice bits of smooth hard shoulder there where you can ride on. The older bits have a kerb that sticks up and stops you getting onto the shoulder, which is in bad shape anyway and would rattle your bike to pieces.

At the end of the day, cyclists should take the approach of "don't get mad, get organised."  Cyclists have become a powerful lobby here in the states where local government has actually made good progress in putting proper, high quality bike infrastructure in place. It makes economic sense and makes cities a better place to live in.

[armaghniac]

J love the way a thread about safety starts with a justification for cyclists mowing down pedestrians on the footpath and doesn't mention truck drivers anywhere.

[Eamonnca1]

J love the way a thread about safety starts with a justification for cyclists mowing down pedestrians on the footpath and doesn't mention truck drivers anywhere.

What?

[Lar Naparka]

J love the way a thread about safety starts with a justification for cyclists mowing down pedestrians on the footpath and doesn't mention truck drivers anywhere.

What?

+100
"What?" is right.
I don't think I'd know how to go about answering that post. Surely the whole point of my post is to help keep trucks and cyclists apart. As for "a justification for cyclists mowing down pedestrians on the footpath,  Nally makes more sense than that.
I live close to Parnell Park and I often cycle along Collins Ave and Griffith Ave as well.
They each have four lanes. Vehicles can park on both sides of those roads so all using them have to share a single lane.
Cyclists have to watch out for wing mirrors etc on their left side while large lorries and trucks are passing them out on the outside. Both roads have potholes in places so the safety margin is nil.
Griffith Ave is tree-lined for its whole length so fallen leaves in wet weather can led to slippery road surfaces, increasing the risk of accidents. On top of all that, there are several schools on each road so there are times when lots of school kids are whizzing about on their bikes. 
Are those roads safe for cyclists to use at all times? I think the answer is obvious.
We have our "bike lanes" as well and some of them are in quite good condition.
Many are not and worse still, cars etc are allowed to park on some of them, thereby defeating the purpose of the bike lane.
I've no problem with cyclists who don't exercise due caution being fined for misuse of footpaths or for not using safe cycle lanes wherever they are to be found.  I feel the same about cyclists breaking traffic lights either or not getting off to walk when footpaths are thronged.
If I had young children right now, I'd be worried about their safety every time they'd get on their bikes

[thewobbler]

Lar na parka, all I'm getting from this is that you want strict rules for road users. Except for cyclists, who should be allowed to make it up as you're going along.

Which is pretty much the attitude of the average lycra warrior, and as a result, you are by some distance the most horrible and dangerous people on the road.

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Roads are paid for by road tax; if it wasn't for cars no roads would exist. You people should not have rights of access on either, as neither was designed for your unique needs. The sooner cyclists accept this, and restrict their hobby only to routes that are suitable, the world will be a safer place.

[Syferus]

How many cyclists do you know that don't own a car or van or otherwise use one? You'd swear no cyclist have ever contributed to 'road taxes', nevermind taxes in general. The roads were never just for cars, hell, bicycles flipping pre-date cars.

Daftest thing in this thread, Wobbler, and Aramaghniac is clearly on the drink.

[Eamonnca1]

Jesus wept!

1 - City streets have existed since the time of the Babylonians. The Romans were also quite big into road building. What were they driving? Fiat Stradas?

2 - Roads used to be dirt tracks until cyclists lobbied to have a hard surface put on them, and this was before the car was invented. Roads were not originally designed for cars, they were designed for bikes.

3 - I don't know how it works in the south but in the north there's no such thing as "road tax." There's Vehicle Excise Duty, none of which is earmarked for roads. It's a pollution tax, all of whicl goes into the general fund.

4 - Cyclists have a common law right to use the roads and always have. Motorists, on the other hand, have to apply for a special permit and meet strict conditions before they get it.

5 - Given the fact that more people on this world are killed by cars than by wars, your comment about cyclists being "the most dangerous" road users is just hilarious.

[All of a Sludden]

All we really need in these situations is a bit of common sense. Treat cyclists like you would any other slow moving vehicle, slow down, give them plenty of space and pass only when it is safe to do so. If find that the same people who get frustrated with cyclists also get frustrated with tractors, micras, horses etc. Your average "lycra warrior" is probably sick to death of being treated as though he is invisible on the roads. The argument that cars are more entitled to use the roads is because they pay for them is quite frankly ridiculous. I think you will find that your road tax goes anywhere but the roads.

[maddog]

I am saying this a cyclist, a motorist, and a pedestrian. I hate to see bikes up on pavements, the road is for bikes. I hate to see cyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. A also hate to see motorists that will graze your elbow with their wing mirror when there is nothing stopping them pulling out into the other side of the road to overtake. And worst of all I personally hate motorists that pulling out of a side road that see you perfectly but pull out anyway because they don't expect you to be moving nearly as quickly as urban traffic. Cyclists have to learn and appreciate that if there is 5 cars in front of you at lights, don't zip up the inside, become the 6th car. When you act like another vehicle you might get treated like one. Motorcyclists do the same thing except on the outside usually.
In summary there are pricks on both sides, however for me motorists slightly shade it as overtaking on blind corners etc is just born out of impatience.

[thewobbler]

How many cyclists do you know that don't own a car or van or otherwise use one? You'd swear no cyclist have ever contributed to 'road taxes', nevermind taxes in general. The roads were never just for cars, hell, bicycles flipping pre-date cars.

Daftest thing in this thread, Wobbler, and Aramaghniac is clearly on the drink.

Let me tell you that the road network on which cyclists ride is provided for, and maintained for, motorists.

It's us paid for by motorists too.

I'm very aware that most cyclists are also motorists, but if I want to own a second car, a motorbike or a moped, I pay road tax again for that privilege. Cyclists, who demand equal and better rights in the road don't pay a penny, plus if they ride into my car, it'll be my insurance that pays. They won't have any.

[bennydorano]

I find treating every motor vehicle driver as an idiot serves me well while I'm cycling.  Wobbler also embarrassed himself on a similar thread a while back IIRC, bit of an irrational hatred there and those are the dangerous ones - referred to as the elbow grazers by Maddog, it can be quite scary at times.  I also hate seeing a car load of young lads anywhere near me when I'm on the bike, too much testosterone and something to prove. 

Plenty of dickheads on bikes too, from the hybrid casual cyclist to the racing man who should know better.

[Syferus]

How many cyclists do you know that don't own a car or van or otherwise use one? You'd swear no cyclist have ever contributed to 'road taxes', nevermind taxes in general. The roads were never just for cars, hell, bicycles flipping pre-date cars.

Daftest thing in this thread, Wobbler, and Aramaghniac is clearly on the drink.

Let me tell you that the road network on which cyclists ride is provided for, and maintained for, motorists.

It's us paid for by motorists too.

I'm very aware that most cyclists are also motorists, but if I want to own a second car, a motorbike or a moped, I pay road tax again for that privilege. Cyclists, who demand equal and better rights in the road don't pay a penny, plus if they ride into my car, it'll be my insurance that pays. They won't have any.

With such a level of entitlement it's pretty clear you are the real danger on the roads, not the people riding a bloody bicycle.

Everyone is equal. The end.

[Lar Naparka]

Lar na parka, all I'm getting from this is that you want strict rules for road users. Except for cyclists, who should be allowed to make it up as you're going along.

Which is pretty much the attitude of the average lycra warrior, and as a result, you are by some distance the most horrible and dangerous people on the road.

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Roads are paid for by road tax; if it wasn't for cars no roads would exist. You people should not have rights of access on either, as neither was designed for your unique needs. The sooner cyclists accept this, and restrict their hobby only to routes that are suitable, the world will be a safer place.

Boys oh boys, but you seem to be in baaad humour today.

I didn't mention stricter rules for road users anywhere, did I?
I never suggested that cyclists should be allowed to make their own rules on the fly either.
I wasn't thinking lycra warriors btw.
I am a motorist and I know damn well that they can be a danger to themselves and others and I've said that there are times and places where cyclists should be fined for using a footpath.
I was thinking more of schoolchildren who have no viable option here.
You people should not have rights of access on either, as neither was designed for your unique needs.
Well bikes are openly sold on the market down here, the govt. encourages workers to cycle rather than drive to work and health authorise urge people to cycle for the benefit of their health. Environmentalists emphasise the fact that more cyclists means less carbon footprint. To top it all, more cyclists means less vehicles on the roads and more room for motorists already using them.   
The sooner cyclists accept this, and restrict their hobby only to routes that are suitable.

Well, I wasn't thinking of hobbies; I was thinking more of workers getting to and from their places of work and children getting to and from school.

[bennydorano]

Any Club Cyclist / Triathlete have Licences (and casual cyclists can get unattached licences) that have compulsory accident cover.