Where would you be without a light on your bike??

Mr. Presentable · 14-10-2008 3:12pm

Hagar wrote: »

Meet me halfway, you do your best not to put yourself at un-necessary risk and I'll do my best not to crush you to a bloody pulp. Can't say fairer than that now can I?

For putting it so much more economically that I could, thanks.

Zoney · 14-10-2008 10:10pm

nipplenuts wrote: »

We are coming into a very dangerous time of year, so please wear lights, front and back, so they can be seen.

Agreed.

And it would be nice if more motorists used their lights from early on when it's dark so early, or indeed during the gloom that passes for daytime on many winter days.

cyclopath2001 · 14-10-2008 10:35pm

Hagar wrote: »

Meet me halfway, you do your best not to put yourself at un-necessary risk and I'll do my best not to crush you to a bloody pulp. Can't say fairer than that now can I?

You can do better than that: you can agree not to put anyone at unnecessary risk.

monument · 14-10-2008 11:02pm

BostonB wrote: »

Final comment. Bad rainy day out there this morning. About 95% of motorists have any lights on. About 95% of cyclists have no lights. Who needs to improve their behavior.

Bad rainy day out there this morning... who's in the cyclist-only advance stopping markings? And who's driving in the cycle lanes? Dark and rainy this evening... who's parking on cycle track along a main commuter route? Who's driving too close to cyclists?

Who needs to improve their behaviour? At this stage all road users do.

nipplenuts wrote: »

But are these good reasons to ghost around in the dark?

Can you point out who here is advocating not using lights?

nipplenuts wrote: »

I know I will take every precaution I can when I'm on the bike - even though I look uncool, and there's no proof my helmet will save me.

Do you wear a helmet while walking around the house? How about walking around town? And how about when in a car? Why don't you take "every precaution" all the time?

I'm really asking these questions, I'm interisted in hearing your reasoning for wearing a helmet while cycling and for not wearing one when walking and in a car etc.

nipplenuts wrote: »

We are coming into a very dangerous time of year

Sorry, but this kind of mind set is exactly what is wrong with road safety in Ireland in general.

There are no dangerous roads. Nor are there dangerous times of the year. There are dangerous drivers / road users who do not adjust their behaviour.

Mr. Presentable · 15-10-2008 9:18am

The previous three posters.

Yes I agree motorists should take due care. But all three of you suggest in your posts that the responsibility lies solely with the motorist for your safety.

And with respect to the helmet nonsense, are we talking here about cyclists staying alive, or is this just another opportunity to be facetious?

Raam · 15-10-2008 9:39am

nipplenuts wrote: »

But all three of you suggest in your posts that the responsibility lies solely with the motorist for your safety.

No, they have not suggested that.

Mr. Presentable · 15-10-2008 10:55am

Monument said: Bad rainy day out there this morning... who's in the cyclist-only advance stopping markings? And who's driving in the cycle lanes? Dark and rainy this evening... who's parking on cycle track along a main commuter route? Who's driving too close to cyclists?

Cyclopath said: You can do better than that: you can agree not to put anyone at unnecessary risk

Zoney said: And it would be nice if more motorists used their lights from early on when it's dark so early, or indeed during the gloom that passes for daytime on many winter days

All three of these suggest the motorist is the offender. Just to remind you, the thread is re the fact that most cyclists are sans two lights as required by law and for their safety. My offering is not that motorists are untainted, just that cyclists, because of their innate vulnerability, ought to be doing everything possible to protect themselves.

Mr. Presentable · 15-10-2008 11:04am

monument wrote: »

Do you wear a helmet while walking around the house? How about walking around town? And how about when in a car? Why don't you take "every precaution" all the time?

I'm really asking these questions, I'm interisted in hearing your reasoning for wearing a helmet while cycling and for not wearing one when walking and in a car etc.

If I take it you are actually serious.

I am not mingling with traffic when about the house, or walking in town. On a bike you are mingling with other vehicles, all of which are heavier and harder than you, and which are propelled by mobile phone using day dreamers.

In a car, if I have an accident I am unlikely to smack my head off the street. From a bike I am almost certain to.

So, what have you got against protecting yourself?

Raam · 15-10-2008 11:20am

nipplenuts wrote: »

Monument said: Bad rainy day out there this morning... who's in the cyclist-only advance stopping markings? And who's driving in the cycle lanes? Dark and rainy this evening... who's parking on cycle track along a main commuter route? Who's driving too close to cyclists?

Cyclopath said: You can do better than that: you can agree not to put anyone at unnecessary risk

Zoney said: And it would be nice if more motorists used their lights from early on when it's dark so early, or indeed during the gloom that passes for daytime on many winter days

All three of these suggest the motorist is the offender. Just to remind you, the thread is re the fact that most cyclists are sans two lights as required by law and for their safety. My offering is not that motorists are untainted, just that cyclists, because of their innate vulnerability, ought to be doing everything possible to protect themselves.

I don't think they are absolving themselves of any responsibilities.

15-10-2008 11:24am

All of this blame diversion from cyclists is a bit like a building worker blaming the construction firm for allowing a brick to fall on his head because he wasn't wearing his hard hat!

Zoney · 15-10-2008 12:42pm

nipplenuts wrote: »

Zoney said: And it would be nice if more motorists used their lights from early on when it's dark so early, or indeed during the gloom that passes for daytime on many winter days

All three of these suggest the motorist is the offender. Just to remind you, the thread is re the fact that most cyclists are sans two lights as required by law and for their safety. My offering is not that motorists are untainted, just that cyclists, because of their innate vulnerability, ought to be doing everything possible to protect themselves.

I am merely pointing out that idiot cyclists are an inconsequential problem compared to idiot motorists.

Tarabuses · 15-10-2008 2:06pm

Zoney wrote: »

I am merely pointing out that idiot cyclists are an inconsequential problem compared to idiot motorists.

There are significantly more cyclists not using lights than there are idiot motorists. How can these cyclists be an inconsequential problem when their own lives are at risk? No one wants to injure any other road user thus the concern expressed about the difficulty in seeing unlit bikes on the road.

monument · 15-10-2008 2:11pm

nipplenuts wrote: »

I am not mingling with traffic when about the house, or walking in town. On a bike you are mingling with other vehicles, all of which are heavier and harder than you, and which are propelled by mobile phone using day dreamers.

In a car, if I have an accident I am unlikely to smack my head off the street. From a bike I am almost certain to.

What about walking or running and tripping? Slipping in the shower? How many head injuries do you think happen at home or in car accidents compared to cycling?

And I don't see how the comment about "vehicles, all of which are heavier and harder" has any rational, as a helmet is not going to stop you from being crushed by such vehicles.

nipplenuts wrote: »

In a car, if I have an accident I am unlikely to smack my head off the street. From a bike I am almost certain to.

Almost certain to? You can have an accident and still be on the bike upright, you could hop off the bike, and even if you are flung off head first your hands and arms should be a line of defence before your head. So, on what bases is hitting your head a certainty?

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, what have you got against protecting yourself?

Nothing when you're applying the same fact-backed standards across the board. My problem is when people make cycling out to be more dangerous than it is due to un-rational feeling they have about cycling.

nipplenuts wrote: »

All three of these suggest the motorist is the offender.

They are the main or most important offender. They are not the sole offender, as I said in my last post: Who needs to improve their behaviour? At this stage all road users do.

Deleted User wrote: »

All of this blame diversion from cyclists is a bit like a building worker blaming the construction firm for allowing a brick to fall on his head because he wasn't wearing his hard hat!

If other safety standards are not in place the construction firm could still be at fault. Builders' hard hats are just a small part in the overall building safety regulations. Why did the brick fall is the real question (And, no, cycling helmets and hard hats are not comparable).

monument · 15-10-2008 2:14pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

There are significantly more cyclists not using lights than there are idiot motorists. How can these cyclists be an inconsequential problem when their own lives are at risk?

He did not say they were inconsequential, he said they were such compared to idiot motorists. Big difference there.

Raam · 15-10-2008 2:16pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

There are significantly more cyclists not using lights than there are idiot motorists.

How on earth do you know that?

15-10-2008 2:32pm

monument wrote: »

If other safety standards are not in place the construction firm could still be at fault. Builders' hard hats are just a small part in the overall building safety regulations. Why did the brick fall is the real question (And, no, cycling helmets and hard hats are not comparable).

I'm not referring to cycle helmets! I'm refering to the fact that unlit (at night) cyclists are diverting the blame of their own demise on other motorists.

The comparison with construction is that sites are classed as hazardous (sp) environments and wearing of hats is compulsary as is having lights on a road at night which is also a hazardous environment.

With all the safety regulations fully complied with by all builders, there is still a risk of a brick dropping! that's why you need a hard hat.

With cycling at night etc etc (no need to say it all again!)

Raam · 15-10-2008 2:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not referring to cycle helmets! I'm refering to the fact that unlit (at night) cyclists are diverting the blame of their own demise on other motorists.

The comparison with construction is that sites are classed as hazardous (sp) environments and wearing of hats is compulsary as is having lights on a road at night which is also a hazardous environment.

With all the safety regulations fully complied with by all builders, there is still a risk of a brick dropping! that's why you need a hard hat.

With cycling at night etc etc (no need to say it all again!)

As a commited long term cyclist, allow me to state that I do not condone night cycling without lights.

Tarabuses · 15-10-2008 8:17pm

monument wrote: »

He did not say they were inconsequential, he said they were such compared to idiot motorists. Big difference there.

Yes, and I said that they were not an inconsequential problem when their own lives are at risk.

Tarabuses · 15-10-2008 8:18pm

Raam wrote: »

How on earth do you know that?

From simple observation.

Overature · 15-10-2008 8:22pm

they would be stuck on to your front bumper if they didn't have lights.

you get all these cycilists complaining that moterists never give them enough room on the road. roads are for cars. bikes for cycle tracks. if you want to cycle on the road put some lights on and respect moterist caus if you have a crash with one, you're always going to come off worse

gjim · 15-10-2008 8:55pm

Overature wrote: »

roads are for cars.

Whatever about the rest of the debate, this is a commonly held misconception but is absolutely and completely false. You should check the statute book and the rules of the road.

It's interesting because this belief seems to form the justification for many car drivers to whip themselves into a state of unfounded indignation. Whether against pedestrians, cyclists, electric wheelchair users or even other motorists like tractor drivers who have as much right (even more in the case of pedestrians) to use the road as car drivers have.

Once you manage to absorb this basic fact, you will soon become a calmer and safer motorist in your car. You may even add a few years onto your life by lowering your general stress levels and not turning purple with rage every time other non-car users exercise their rights to use the road.

cyclopath2001 · 15-10-2008 10:32pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

There are significantly more cyclists not using lights than there are idiot motorists.

If you ignore speeding, illegal parking, traffic light offences and illegal overtaking, this might be true.

Tarabuses wrote: »

How can these cyclists be an inconsequential problem when their own lives are at risk? No one wants to injure any other road user thus the concern expressed about the difficulty in seeing unlit bikes on the road.

Nobody is defending unlit bicycles. There seems to be a general misunderstanding about this.

However, since so many motorists have shown an interest in the topic if cyclist safety, it's a great opportuntiy to discuss with this audience what they can do to contribute to the safety of others, such as not speeding and not parking on the roadway at night.

Tarabuses · 16-10-2008 1:51pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If you ignore speeding, illegal parking, traffic light offences and illegal overtaking, this might be true..

Why are you including all these offences when we are discussing unlit bicycles? Cyclists also break traffic lights, ride on the footpath, fail to give hand signals and act illegally in other ways. My comments were solely in respect of the original subject of this thread.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Nobody is defending unlit bicycles. There seems to be a general misunderstanding about this.

Probably because very few postings have stated that.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

However, since so many motorists have shown an interest in the topic if cyclist safety, it's a great opportuntiy to discuss with this audience what they can do to contribute to the safety of others, such as not speeding and not parking on the roadway at night.

I presume you mean not parking illegally at night? I think the other topics of cyclist safety only came up as a means of deflecting the thread away from its original subject.

cyclopath2001 · 16-10-2008 5:55pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

Why are you including all these offences when we are discussing unlit bicycles? Cyclists also break traffic lights, ride on the footpath, fail to give hand signals and act illegally in other ways. My comments were solely in respect of the original subject of this thread.

Indeed cyclists break laws too. But you stated that there were more idiot cyclists than idiot motorists.

Tarabuses wrote: »

I presume you mean not parking illegally at night? I think the other topics of cyclist safety only came up as a means of deflecting the thread away from its original subject.

Yes, I am referring to illegal parking. Here's the relevant regulation.

(2) A vehicle shall not be parked.... in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic;

Tarabuses · 16-10-2008 8:57pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Indeed cyclists break laws too. But you stated that there were more idiot cyclists than idiot motorists.

No, I posted "There are significantly more cyclists not using lights than there are idiot motorists."

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yes, I am referring to illegal parking. Here's the relevant regulation.Quote:
(2) A vehicle shall not be parked.... in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic;

Hmmm...now that regulation is certainly open to several interpretations.

LFCFan · 17-10-2008 12:01pm

There are a lot of people on the roads, cyclists and motorists, who just don't get it. They are oblivious to all around them and to the correct way of using out roads. This has come about through a combination of a lack of education in our schools on road use and on decades of poor policing that has resulted in a lack of Kop on and complacency when it comes to driving /cycling. I have had a big interest in driving since I was a nipper and have paid a lot of attention to the way those around me have driven since I was young and picked up on what not to do and how to do it properly. I think this has resulted in me being a decent driver. This can't be said for a lot of people. So many just applied for a provisional license and hopped into a car without ANY education around the use of our roads. The majority of these then did the bear minimum to pass their test. This is all plainly obvious at dusk or when there's fog or low visibility. The amount of cars with either no lights on or just their parking lights makes me wonder if there's a brain in the heads of these drivers at all. I think some people even treat their cars like a fashion accessory, putting on their parking lights and fog lights at dusk instead of their proper lights. It's like they think it looks 'cooler' or something. This attitude is pathetic.

MOH · 17-10-2008 1:37pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

No, I posted "There are significantly more cyclists not using lights than there are idiot motorists."

Given the sheer number of motorists on the road, of whom I see at least one behaing like an idiot nearly every time I leave the house, I'd imagine the number of motorists who have acted like an idiot on at least one occasion probably exceeds the number of cyclists on the road, let alone just those who don't use lights.

Unless there's a hell of a lot more cyclists around than I've realised.

Tarabuses · 17-10-2008 1:56pm

MOH wrote: »

Given the sheer number of motorists on the road, of whom I see at least one behaing like an idiot nearly every time I leave the house, I'd imagine the number of motorists who have acted like an idiot on at least one occasion probably exceeds the number of cyclists on the road, let alone just those who don't use lights.

I suppose that depends on how you define an idiot motorist and if behaving like an idiot on one occassion qualifies for the description. Cyclists who do not use lights are acting like idiots continuously.

GreeBo · 17-10-2008 5:07pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

People don't have lights because they're careless about their own safety.

Motorists are 'bad' because they don't care sufficiently about the safety of others (lit or unlit) and won't engage in any discussion about improving their behaviour.

Foe me to be safe on my commute I can:
a) wear his vis clothing at all times and lights at night
b) change the transport habits of everyone else on the road.

You propose that b is a safer alternative. I propose that until we get to b Im sticking with a.

cyclopath2001 · 17-10-2008 7:00pm

GreeBo wrote: »

You propose that b is a safer alternative. I propose that until we get to b Im sticking with a.

That's your right and it's understandable in the current situation. Indeed, I'm so well lit and reflectorised, I've been sighted from the International Space Station.

The proposal was to make reflective jackets obligatory, even though parking regulations affecting safety (and which give rise tp people feeling the need for additional visibility aids) already exist and are not properly enforced.

More considerate and law-abiding behaviour by motorists (many of whom think they're really good drivers) would make people more confident that it's safe to use the roads.

Where would you be without a light on your bike??

Comments